Guten Morgen Mr. Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite (Seite 7)

[Joerver]

Der 3. Teil des Clinton Interviews 1.Teil#2925, 2.Teil #2959

‘I have no intention to run for president’

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) shares her thoughts on President Bush, the future of the Democratic Party and a possible run for the presidency.


THE TODAY SHOW
June 12 — She’s a wife, a mother, she’s been a first lady, she’s a New York Senator and she continues to be a lightening rod for controversy. Now Hillary Rodham Clinton is telling her side of the story in a new book called, “Living History.” Recently, “Today” host Katie Couric sat down with the Senator from New York and asked her where she thought the country was headed under the leadership of President George W. Bush.
Hillary Clinton: “I think we are headed — disastrously in the wrong direction — on the issues here at home. The politics of economic destruction, to me, mean that we are undermining the federal government’s capacity to keep providing the opportunities to build and support the great American middle class, which is really the hallmark of what we are as a nation, and its failure to deal adequately with health care, education, environmental regulations, across the board. It has been an abrupt about face, away from what I thought was making us stronger and better as a nation, to policies that I believe will undermine our strength as a nation, and deprive people of opportunities and really deprive children of the opportunities that they should have growing up in our country.”
Katie Couric: “As you know, Senator Clinton, there’s been lots of criticism that the Democrats are feckless, clumsy, too slow to articulate an alternative vision to President Bush. And if they are articulating it, it’s not being heard. Why can’t the Democrats seemingly get their act together?”
Hillary Clinton: “You know, Katie, I have a great deal of appreciation for how hard it is you know, when you have someone in the White House who commands the bully pulpit, it’s hard. When you don’t have the leadership in either house of Congress, it’s hard. I think last year, when we had the majority in the Senate, we did quite a good job on many issues of drawing the contrast with the president and with the Republicans.
And of course, I think it’s now understood by everyone that there is a real echo chamber for the Republican philosophy and policies on radio, television, in much of the press, that the Democrats don’t have. Now, having said that, we have to do a better job. We’re not doing as good a job as we should.”
Katie Couric: “Recently, a number of your more liberal supporters — I’m sure you read about this in The New York Times — a group representing children, the poor, gays, have complained that you aren’t speaking out enough on their behalf… that you’re not basically challenging President Bush and Republican leaders on the issues they care about the most. What was your reaction to that?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, I think that I haven’t done maybe as good a job communicating everything we are doing. And I take very seriously my responsibility — particularly to children. That’s why I and the other women Democratic Senators, along with some of our Republican women colleagues launched this effort just last week to make sure that families that made between $10,000 and $26,000 got the child tax credit.
It was absolutely inconceivable to me that the Administration and Republican leadership would take that away from these hard working families.”

Katie Couric: “This is an exceedingly popular president, as you know. You think he is beatable in 2004?”
Hillary Clinton: “Absolutely. And I think that certainly, we are all united when it comes to security. And I have supported the president. I supported him in Afghanistan. I supported him in Iraq. I believe that we have to, whenever necessary, demonstrate American power.
But it’s not just military power. We also have to get along with people around the world. We have to demonstrate that we lead by example, that our values are the most important export from America. But here at home, whether we’re talking about the shortfalls in Homeland Security, the economic policies that I think are sending us in the wrong direction, I think the Administration is taking us down the wrong path. When we see that this Administration has presided over the loss of more than two million private sector jobs, when many people have given up looking for employment because there aren’t jobs out there, and the administration and the Republican Party fights us every step of the way to provide unemployment insurance, something I’ve worked very hard on, eventually, those realities really are felt around kitchen tables, and water coolers and along, you know, the assembly line. People start saying, ‘Wait a minute, we’re not going in the right direction here.’ And I think that that is beginning to demonstrate itself in the way that people are responding to the policies of the administration.”
Katie Couric: “How serious a problem is it for the United States that so far, there has been no evidence of weapons of mass destruction?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, of course, I believed based on intelligence in both the Clinton Administration and in the Bush Administration that there were such weapons. And you know, I’m not ready to say we will never find them. The issue is whether we are getting good intelligence. That’s critical. And it’s not only a retrospective investigation as to whether or not the intelligence we all relied on — and it was relied on in my husband’s administration as well as this one.”


Katie Couric: “You have said, Senator Clinton, you will not run for President in 2004. What if your party drafts you?”
Hillary Clinton: (Laughter) “That’s not gonna happen. We have…”
Katie Couric: “What if it did?”
Hillary Clinton: “Oh…”
Katie Couric: “What if they came to you and said, ‘Senator Hillary Clinton, you are the only person, in our view, who can beat President Bush,’ What would you do?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, it’s not gonna happen. It’s totally hypothetical. And we have — and I said — I’m not running, so that is the answer. But you know, we have very good candidates. We have people who have been in the Senate, in the House. We have people who’ve served as Governor. We have people with great ideas who’ve got energy. I am confident that we’re gonna have a candidate emerge from this process who will be extremely strong against President Bush.”
Katie Couric: “Who?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, I’m not going to guess who it’s going to be. That will be up to the voters in the Democratic Primary.”
Katie Couric: “Who would you want it to be?”
Hillary Clinton: “I don’t engage in speculation in Democratic primaries. I will not support anyone in the primaries. But I will whole-heartedly support whoever our nominee is.”
Katie Couric: “Would you run for Vice President…”
Hillary Clinton: “No.:


Follow Hillary Clinton`s journey from high school to the U.S. Senate in photos.
Katie Couric: “…in 2004.”
Hillary Clinton: “No. No. I’m — I am so happy being a Senator from New York. And I learn something every day. You know, I get to travel through the most extraordinary diverse state and the most amazing city.”
Katie Couric: “You know I’m gonna bug you, and this is my job.”
Hillary Clinton: (Laughter)
Katie Couric: “What about 2008?”
Hillary Clinton: “Uh-oh.”
Katie Couric: “Are you prepared to say in front of God, your country, and me…”
Hillary Clinton: “Oh.”
Katie Couric: “…that you will never run for President of the United States?”
Hillary Clinton: “I have said the same thing over and over and over again. I have…”
Katie Couric: “But say something new here this…”
Hillary Clinton: “I…I…”
Katie Couric: “…morning, please.”
Hillary Clinton: “I — I can’t. I can’t. Because I have nothing new to say. I have no intention to run for president. But…”
Katie Couric: “Ever?”
Hillary Clinton: “It’s flattering. It’s very flattering that — people like you, and…”
Katie Couric: “But no — having no intention — intentions can change.”
Hillary Clinton: “They can.”
“ Katie Couric: “Would you be open…”
Hillary Clinton: “They can…”
Katie Couric: “…to the possibility in the future?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, right. I can only answer day by day. I don’t know where I’ll be tomorrow. I hope — God willing, I’ll be right here. But I have no intentions, no plans. I’m just gonna take every day as it comes.”
Katie Couric: “But you’re not…”
Hillary Clinton: “That’s how I’ve gotten through my life thus far, you know?”
Katie Couric: “You’re not completely ruling it out.”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, you know, I’ve tried to rule it out in every way I know how. But nobody will take my answer, so I’ll just keep saying it over and over again.”
Katie Couric: “Nothing galvanizes conservatives in this country like you.”
Hillary Clinton: “So I’ve noticed. I mean they sent out these letters to raise money using my name. And every time I guess it’s a slow news day, they kind of gin up some story about me. It is perversely flattering.”
Katie Couric: “Let me mention some names quickly. And you just give me your quick response…”
Hillary Clinton: “Okay.”
Katie Couric: “…in a couple of words.”
Hillary Clinton: “Okay.”
Katie Couric: “It’s kind of a name game. (Laughter) Ken Starr.”
Hillary Clinton: “Oh, prosecutor.”
Katie Couric: “Surely you have some better adjectives than that.”
Hillary Clinton: “Read my book. I have some good adjectives.”
Katie Couric: “Al Gore.”
Hillary Clinton: “Good man.”
Katie Couric: “George W. Bush.”
Hillary Clinton: “President.”
Katie Couric: “Oh, come on. (Laughter). Come on.”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, you know, there was some debate about that initially. So - ”
Katie Couric: “Martha Stewart.”
Hillary Clinton: “Friend. She’s a friend of mine, and I feel very sorry about what she’s going through now.”
Katie Couric: “Do you think it’s unfair?”
Hillary Clinton: “Well, I — as I say, I’ve been through a lot of things that I considered unfair, and — I’m pulling for her.”

Katie Couric: “Monica Lewinsky.”
Hillary Clinton: “Ken Starr.”
Katie Couric: “Any other adjectives?”
Hillary Clinton: “No. You know, I think that what Ken Starr did invading hers and other people’s privacy was wrong, and really unfortunate for our country.”
Katie Couric: “Bill Clinton.”
Hillary Clinton: “My husband. And a good president.”
Katie Couric: “Hillary Clinton.”
Hillary Clinton: “Oh, work in progress. And I hope that maybe after people read the book, they will come up with some of their own adjectives, and maybe some new ones that they haven’t thought of before.”
Senator Clinton sold 200,000 copies of her book on Monday alone, the first day it was out, and the publisher has already ordered a second printing.

[Joerver]

Gene Lyons: `Faulty intelligence`
Posted on Wednesday, June 11 @ 10:06:29 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11787&mode=nest…--------------------
By Gene Lyons

It turns out that there`s a connection between the 9/11 al Qaeda attacks on the United States and the war in Iraq after all. But it`s not the one President Junior and his advisors expected to find. Instead of unearthing Saddam Hussein`s vaunted "weapons of mass destruction" or producing evidence of collusion with Osama bin Laden, what the fall of Baghdad has again exposed is the Bush administration`s stubborn incapacity to heed "intelligence" that doesn`t fit its pre-existing world-view.

Moving unwelcome information up the chain of command is difficult in ALL hierarchical bureaucracies, from the Little Rock Police Department to the CIA. Hence, in part, the CIA`s failure to anticipate events as portentous as the collapse of the Soviet Union or India`s development of nuclear weapons. Nobody`s eager to give the boss the bad news. But the problem becomes acute when the people at the top are politically ruthless, determined ideologues, like the Bush administration`s dominant figures.

Add extreme dishonesty and the media-enhanced cult of personality that has developed to cover Bush`s obvious intellectual shortcomings, and you`ve got yourself the makings of a real mess. With respect to 9/11, the administration went into cover-up mode almost before the World Trade Center`s twin towers had fallen--putting out a since-retracted story that the president high-tailed it to Nebraska because of a specific, credible threat to Air Force One.



There`s reportedly a made-for-TV movie in the works in which a jut-jawed president demands to be taken back to Washington to face the enemy. I guess they`ll airbrush away all those press briefings in which Ari Fliescher kept insisting the U.S. had "no warning" of the al Qaeda sneak attack. CBS News later reported that Bush had, in fact, received an urgent CIA briefing of imminent al-Qaeda terrorist strikes roughly a month before 9/11. He continued his vacation.

Stories appeared describing CIA director George Tenet and National Security Council counterterrorism head Richard Clarke as "nearly frantic" with worry. Having brushed off urgent warnings of the terrorist threat from the previous administration, White House advisor Condi Rice alibied that nobody could have imagined anything as fiendish as crashing airliners into buildings. Bush`s August 2001 briefing, she claimed, had concerned only "traditional highjackings." In fact, intelligence professionals had predicted exactly what happened.

Bouyed by his decision to create a department of Homeland Security, which he`d previously opposed, Bush got away with it clean. Busting up al-Qaeda`s sanctuary in Afghanistan and rousting the Taliban didn`t hurt either. Questioning critics` patriotism proved a useful tactic in a time of fear. Giving Bush the benefit of the doubt, most citizens bought the bait and switch campaign to substitute Saddam Hussein and Iraq for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as threats to American security.

And why? Well, mainly because Bush has surrounded himself with self-described "neo-conservative" intellectuals centering around Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld who have been hollering that the sky was falling since the 1970s. Many were members of the infamous "Team B," convened by then-CIA director George H.W. Bush. Their great achievement was portraying the Russian military as ten feet tall and bulletproof precisely as the ramshackle Soviet empire was falling apart. Needless to say, dissenters were accused of being "soft on communism," lacking patriotism, etc. Meanwhile, real traitors like CIA spy Aldrich Ames got away with murder.

Undeterred, the same gang next sought a super-villain in the Middle East. Allied with the Israeli Likud party, the "Project for a New American Century" started urging Bill Clinton to attack Iraq five years ago, and devised a utopian scheme to dominate the world. Here`s how one of its prime movers, Richard Perle, described his first meeting with President Junior in Vanity Fair recently: "Two things became clear. One, he didn`t know very much. The other was he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn`t know very much...you got the sense that if he believed something he`d pursue it tenaciously."

The same article describes Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz telling friends Bush "wanted to be told what needed doing and how it should be done." So they told him, and he told the American people. He told us Saddam had nuclear weapons. He told us "weapons of mass destruction" had been deployed. British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed they were ready for use in 45 minutes. Bush warned us that not attacking Iraq would be tantamount to national "suicide."

British intelligence now admits that the 45 minutes business was simply invented in response to political pressure to "sex-up" their report.

"What this administration has done to military and intelligence professionals in government is disgraceful," Former Reagan assistant defense secretary Lawrence Korb told Salon. 27-year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, head of an organization called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, has described the administration`s pressure tactics as "worse than the Gulf of Tonkin"--the fabricated incident that got us into Vietnam.

Condi Rice says it`s all a big misunderstanding.

The question is whether Americans are too scared and confused to care.

[Joerver]

June 10, 2003
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen06102003.html

WeaponsGate:
The Coming Downfall of Lying Regimes?
By WAYNE MADSEN


You wouldn`t know if from listening to the leading Democratic candidates for President, but "Weaponsgate" may ultimately bring about the downfall of the Bush regime and its allies in London, Canberra, and elsewhere. The neo-conservatives may have also finally stirred something in the Fourth Estate, which has suddenly begun challenging the lying echo chambers in the White House and Number 10 Downing Street.

The arrogance displayed by the Bush regime, somewhat surprising since it gained power through a fraudulent election process, is what may result in its eventual undoing. Bush may or may not ever realize how he was ill served by the neo-con blight that took root within his administration, particularly within the Department of Defense. But the historians and scholars, who will look back on what turned the tide for a supposedly "popular" war president, will point to the self-described "cabal" whose lies brought about a credibility gap unseen in the United States since the days of Watergate. In fact, Bush`s "Weaponsgate" will be viewed as a more serious scandal than Watergate because 1) U.S. and allied military personnel were killed and injured as a result of the caper; 2) Innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, died in a needless military adventure; and 3) the political effects of the scandal extended far beyond U.S. shores to the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, and other countries.

Other effects of Weaponsgate are already apparent. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the majordomo of the neo-cons within the Pentagon, cannot find anyone to take the place of outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. Generals Tommy Franks and Shinseki`s vice chief, General John "Jack" Keane, want no part of the job. After winning a lightning war against Iraq, Franks suddenly announced his retirement. He and Keane witnessed how Rumsfeld and his coterie of advisers and consultants, who never once lifted a weapon in the defense of their country, constantly ignored and publicly abused Shinseki. Army Secretar y and retired General Tom White resigned after a number of clashes with Rumsfeld and his cabal. The Commander of the First Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq, Lt. Gen. James Conway, said he was surprised that he encountered no chemical weapons in Iraq.

Perhaps Conway was surprised because that is what the neo-cons wanted him and his fellow Marines to believe. Conway and his troops were merely additional victims of "Weaponsgate." Paul Wolfowitz, a chief neo-con cabalist, let the cat out of the bag in Singapore when he said that everyone could agree on a cause of war being Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. That would be the common denominator in justifying an attack, whether or not such weapons could ever be found. Wolfowitz also stated that Iraq`s swimming on a "sea of oil" was the reason it had to be attacked and not, for example, North Korea. The fact that weapons of mass destruction are actually possessed by North Korea, a country lacking any significant natural resources, is of no concern to the neo-cons. Oil was and is the bottom line in Iraq. Sometimes, even the liars trip up and actually tell the truth. But only in a world where the neo-cons have enjoyed a stranglehold on the corporate media can Wolfowitz`s supporters claim he was misquoted and the UK`s Guardian be forced to print a clarification, one step short of a retraction. Congenital liars like Wolfowitz should never be given the benefit of the doubt on any issue..

Bush`s Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, who has had his own problem with recognizing the truth, was obviously concerned how the history books will treat him. He decided to leave his post mid-term rather than face the music over his repeated distortions about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as a casus belli. Other Bush administration officials, political and career, have also jumped off what appears to be a rapidly sinking ship of state. They include Richard Haass, who as the director for policy planning, was number three at the State Department; Christine Todd Whitman, Environmental Protection Agency administrator; Rand Beers, the senior National Security Council director for counter-terrorism; Charlotte Beers, the State Department chief for International Public Diplomacy (who was said to have resigned for -- get this bit of Soviet-style spin -- "health reasons"), and State Department career Foreign Service officers John H. Brown, John Brady Kiesling, and Mary A. Wright.

Then there was the sudden firing of retired General Jay Garner as U.S. viceroy of Iraq. He was "outed" as having past associations with the neo-cons, especially the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). But when Garner started to show some independence in Baghdad, especially with regard to handing over some power to Iraqis, he was quickly sacked and replaced by Paul Bremer, a former Heritage Foundation flunky and Kissinger Associates director who was obviously more in tune with the ideological bent of the neo-cons. In a Pentagon where the civilian neo-cons don`t trust the uniformed flag rank officers, Garner likely became a threat, a potential Trojan horse who had to be replaced by someone whose loyalty was beyond question.

The most dramatic revolt against George W. Bush and Tony Blair can be seen from the high-level leaks of classified information from the top levels of American and British intelligence. Just consider that the United States has never experienced such repeated leaks of classified information since the years of the spies in the 1980s, a time when a number of intelligence employees were caught selling U.S. secrets to the Russians and Israelis. Yet, the current leaks are not acts of treason, but acts of unbridled patriotism.

The leaks from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), CIA, State Department, and other agencies are testimony to the deep divisions within the Bush administration over the phony war on Iraq. Intelligence agencies that are often at odds with one another over policy have united like never before in blowing the whistle on the neo-con agenda. The Bush administration lied flat out over the Iraqi WMDs and Iraq`s links to Al Qaeda. It`s just that simple. Career intelligence officers, who know the penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information, are showing more courage than most of the Democrats in Congress who seem more fearful of the neo-cons and their supporters than in exposing "Weaponsgate."

The most recent classified disclosure was a DIA report on chemical weapons that concluded that there "was no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing or stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has or will establish its chemical agent production facilities."

On June 8, the Bush administration paraded its usual shills, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, before the Sunday talking head shows. Rice and Powell said they based their claims that Iraq had WMDs on an October 1, 2002 national intelligence "white paper." But that paper stated that Iraq had a capability to produce chemical weapons within its chemical industry, not that it was producing such weapons. Hans Blix recently said the so-called intelligence passed to him by the Bush regime was useless for his own UN weapons inspection team in its search for WMDs in Iraq. It now appears that all the so-called U.S. and British "intelligence" was nothing more than a collection of neo-con propaganda and disinformation. In the face of incessantly probing questions on CBS`s "Face the Nation," Rice, in her school marm-like best, could only keep repeating that "there are still bad people in Iraq." Bad people? Is this the best terminology we can get from a PhD in International Studies? Or is that the phraseology she uses in explaining foreign policy matters to Bush? The latter explanation seems more likely.

Last March, a classified State Department report, prepared by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and titled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes," countered neo-con claims that a democracy in Iraq would foster democracy throughout the Middle East. The report, dated February 26, 2003, concluded that democracy would be difficult to achieve in Iraq, electoral democracy in Iraq would be exploited by anti-American elements, and that the idea that other Middle East nations would be transformed into democracies is not credible. So far, all those predictions have come true. Iraq is currently an American protectorate lacking even fundamental human services, anti-American Shi`as in the south are increasingly venting their anger at U.S. occupiers, and far from extending democracy throughout the Middle East, Mauritania`s Arab pro-American government barely survived a military coup attempt by Islamist and pro-Iraqi elements in the counry`s armed forces. So much for the Middle East "domino theory" concocted by Richard Perle and his American Enterprise Institute clones and parroted by Bush in a speech before the right-wing "think tank" the same day the State Department prepared its opposite report.

In another slap at the neo-cons, who have supported the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, the CIA leaked a classified report about their favorite Iraqi. The report, which surfaced in April 2003, concluded that Chalabi had little popular support among the Iraqi people. No wonder then that it is Chalabi who appears to be the source for all the bogus intelligence about Iraqi WMDs, Saddam Hussein`s links to Al Qaeda, Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger, and other false flag intelligence. Chalabi, who is as big a liar as his neo-con friends, hoped to lull American intelligence into believing him over seasoned Middle East intelligence hands. No one but Rumsfeld; former CIA Director James Woolsey (who has taken hundreds of thousands of consulting dollars from Chalabi over the years); Wolfowitz; Doug Feith; America`s new monitor for the Middle East peace road map, John Wolf; and their comrades were taken in by Chalabi, a wanted scofflaw from justice in Jordan.

One day the names Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Woolsey, and Chalabi will become as familiar to students of "Weaponsgate" as the names Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Liddy, Mitchell, and Stans are familiar to those who study Watergate. And in a very interesting nexus between the two scandals, Richard Nixon`s former counselor John W. Dean has written that Bush`s lying about the reasons for the United States to go to war is an impeachable offense.

For those who are looking for the straw that broke the camel`s back in "Weaponsgate" they need not look any farther than Number 10 Downing Street. The troubles that Tony Blair are now experiencing may be a harbinger for things to come in Washington. Blair is in deep trouble and he knows it. After returning from the G-8 summit in Evian, France, Blair was reported by The Obsever to be running around Number 10 in a pathetic panic. In a moment of temporary insanity, which must have been precious to people who loathe Blair, the toothy Prime Minister was pacing about his residence and yelling that people needed to get a grip on what was happening. One of Blair`s aides had to comfort Blair and convince him that his advisers were on his side. Blair must have had thoughts of John Major getting ready stick it to Margaret Thatcher or of Brutus getting ready to plunge a knife into the back of Julius Caesar. Blair`s political opponents within his own Labor party had seized on his government`s use of a "dodgy dossier" on Iraqi WMDs to support the attack on Iraq as an example of Blair`s deceit. The dossier, titled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," was based on a 12-year-old PhD thesis culled from the Internet and the bogus Chalabi documents about Nigerien uranium.

The revolt against Blair should serve as a warning for Bush. Just consider what is happening in Britain. Blair has been abandoned by some of his most senior government officials, including former Leader of the House of Commons Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and former International Development Minister Clare Short, in addition to a number of lesser Cabinet officials. Over 70 of Blair`s Labor members of the House of Commons are in open revolt against his duplicity. No wonder Godric Smith, Blair`s official spokesman, announced his resignation the same day that Ari Fleischer was announcing his departure in Washington. The wheels are coming off the transatlantic neo-con wagon. New Labor and the "Compassionate Conservative" Republican Party have been shown to be total ruses. Their war policies and global domination goals have been thoroughly exposed as neo-fascist manifestations of the teachings of neo-con philosopher Leo Strauss.

But Blair faces an even more serious revolt from his intelligence officials. Blair`s use of bogus intelligence to claim that Britain had only a 45-minute warning prior to an Iraqi chem-bio attack reportedly resulted in the threatened resignations of the heads of MI-6 and MI-5, Sir Richard Dearlove and Eliza Manningham-Buller, respectively, And there was the leak of a January 31, 2003 Top Secret memo from the National Security Agency to its Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) counterpart, which asked for British help in electronically snooping on members and non-members of the UN Security Council to determine their stance on America`s anti-Iraq UN resolution. That memo was reportedly leaked with a wink and an nod from the highest levels of British intelligence.

The public row in Britain has forced Alastair Campbell, Blair`s own Karl Rove-like spinmeister, to apologize to the British Security Services for combining their intelligence material with the bogus material it used in developing the Iraqi WMDs dossier. However, some of Blair`s advisers seem willing to go down with their Prime Minister faster than the deck hands on the Titanic. Blair`s new House of Commons leader John Reid, a former member of the British Communist Party, ranted that "rogue elements" within the intelligence services were leaking classified information to bring down the government. Reid also stated that for all anyone knew, the leaks were coming from some "man in a pub." Such are the cynical words from a government on the brink of collapse.

Blair is not the only "Coalition of the Willing" partner beginning to get nervous. Australian Prime Minister John Howard is distancing himself from the forged and phony intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, claiming his intelligence services took at face value what was presented by the Americans and British. Denmark, which has very little tolerance for lying Prime Ministers, is opening up an parliamentary investigation of why Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen lied about the Iraqi WMDs. Bush`s allies in Spain and Italy face similar inquiries. Blair, who appears to be heading for an ignoble British-style heave-ho, is sticking to the lie but with an interesting caveat. At a June 10 news conference, Blair restated the canard, "There is not a shred of evidence that we have doctored or manipulated intelligence." But then he added, "that would be absolutely gross if we did so." Blair may be entering the typical "let`s look for a scapegoat" phase. He won`t be successful. The intelligence services won`t let him get away with it. He and his supporters will have to pay the price for lying to the British people. Barring a miracle, Blair`s days in office appear to be numbered.

And what of Bush saying the United States will help its friends and punish its foes? Well, it seems that Mr. Bush cannot be trusted to take care of his friends. Iceland was one of the country`s that signed up to Bush`s so-called "coalition." How has Bush repaid the North Atlantic nation? By writing a letter to Iceland`s Prime Minister stating that the United States will, after 46 years of providing for the NATO nation`s defense, pull its military forces from the soon-to-be defenseless island state.

The Icelandic Prime Minister, like his colleagues in Denmark, Australia, Spain, Italy, Portugal, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, has found out the hard way of what price is paid for aligning with a dishonest and illegal regime. They will suffer the consequences. However, the leaders of France, Germany, Canada, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, South Africa, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, and the other countries who withstood constant berating from Washington and the American ambassadors accredited to them, can take heart in the fact that they were correct all along. They will reap the electoral benefits of their stance while they see their pro-American colleagues take the consequential and inevitable electoral fall.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America`s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

Madsen can be reached at: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

Neo`s Liberal
(6/10/03)
I finally went to see The Matrix Reloaded. I snuck into a Sunday matinee two days ago and absorbed it all. I am now about to indulge in some spoilage while I make my tortured point, so stand clear if you would.

Neo, in his quest to understand his new powers, save humanity, and hopefully fit in some quality time with Trinity, is constantly given false choices - usually pairs - by the strange entities in the Matrix. All of which lead to the same destination - a meeting with the Architect of the Matrix.

Everything he does is spinning in a circle, searching desperately for free will, unaware he is orbiting a mass of incredible gravity. Finally, he comes to understand (or at least believe) that what he has assumed was free choice on his part is, in fact, simply determinism that he had analyzed. Frustrating, no?

Like Neo, I want a choice. A real choice. A choice that, in the course of American politics, has only fleetingly existed from time to time, making appearances with the rock-solid regularity of Halley`s Comet.

America has two false choices these days - the hard right, as personified by the President and his neoconserative entourage, and and the soft right, represented by the mainstream Democratic Party. While, admittedly, there is a liberal faction outside these two monoliths, it has little representative power in a universe where the GOP controls the Supreme Court, both houses of Congress, and the White House. Joining it may effectively be the same as dropping out of existence.

Neo discovers in the film that Zion, the wayward home for those who have escaped the Matrix, may merely be a design feature of the system. A dustbin, one might say, in which to place troublesome folk until such a time that they reach a critical mass and can be disposed of without threatening the whole.

Neo`s function is to be a kind of cosmic broom, facilitating the cleanup. Once confronted with his predestined janitorial duties, he rebels - but is this a real choice, or merely a determined alternate path set by the Architect? A nettlesome question indeed.

Even if we can assure ourselves of escape velocity, have we truly escaped, or are we now in yet another cage? Worse, are we like Sam Lowry at the end of Brazil, smiling in the torturer`s chair after our lobotomy, escaping the all-encompassing corporate state only through insanity?

Do we merely play the neoconservatives` game on their terms when we do battle?

The Architect of the Matrix gives Neo an impossible choice - on one hand, the death of Trinity but a bitter salvation for humanity, or saving her for a little while, before watching the human race die.

Liberals these days face a similar choice. Do we support centrist Democrats who will be more left than Bush but barely so, or do we drop out of the process until a real liberal candidate emerges? Either way could unwittingly support a Republican landslide in `04.

Both choices are bad. The first is practical and reasonably safe but appalling. The second is idealistic but doomed. Unfortunately, I don`t have the third option of subduing the President with slow-motion kung fu, though I`m not sure why Neo didn`t just drop-kick that Colonel Sanders coot of an Architect into orbit.

I`m a No. 2 choice man, of course, through and through. Even the act of seeing TMR, a bit of escapism (which I have absolutely no problem with) was in of itself a rejection of this reality.

Still, I suppose it`s a matter of economies of scale - nothing the administration can do will prevent the sun from continuing to process hydrogen into helium in a brutal yet arguably impressive way. I imagine they would be also hard pressed to persuade the Earth to stray from its relentless love affair with that said star. But they can certainly muck up our lives while they dream.

It is a bit farfetched to expect our votes to do anything in the grand scheme of things - lots of karmic good, yes, but in practical terms, close to zilch. This is why I stuck my middle finger up to the Democrats last year - if it`s all the same, I want rebellion. I may be playing into the hands of Karl Rove, as Neo possibly went through the door that the Architect wanted him to pick - but hope is, after all, both humanity`s greatest strength and its greatest weakness, as he observes. Witness both the rise of civilization and the popularity of slot machines.

Imagine Neo as a newly elected freshman representative, eager to use his new powers with the horizon as the limit - only to be faced with the cold reality of the lobbying machine. Two choices - take their bribes and vote as they say, with a dim hope of affecting his own goals at some distant point, or be incorruptible and refuse the money, thereby losing hope of accumulating enough political power to affect anything (as, of course, others are more than happy to accept the same bribes).

Yes, I saw the film as an illumination of a third choice that I do not have. This observation holds true, of course, regardless of what level of reality my consciousness happens to currently occupy. Frustration and anger reign in all of them. Although, admittedly, I`d rather go for a doomed 24 hours with Carrie-Anne Moss than save grungy Zion and its soft-drink-ad-style raves, any day (which, interestingly enough, is exactly what Neo does when the dancing begins - sneak off with her, foreshadowing his choice later).

Neo`s liberal. He`s beginning to see the game he is playing, and finding that while he may have a good deal of power with its boundaries, it`s all fixed. The honeycombed walls of Zion look a lot like the endless cylinders of enslaved humans that he fled, after all. The next logical step is to attempt the unthinkable - destroy the game.

Don`t get me wrong - I`m not saying that conservatives would coolly let Trinity die so they can enjoy the benefits of a `two girls for every boy` Zion... ok, so maybe I am saying that. But I`m not the only fellow who saw a certain current President on the background monitors when the Architect was talking about evil. What good is a world saved if it is a shadow of what might have been?
http://www.weeklylowdown.com/061003.shtml

[Joerver]

Wer diese Landschaft kennt, der weiss wie großartig sie ist. Und sie mit der Erklärung, sie vor Feuer zu schützen, für den Holzeinschlag freizugeben ist unverantwotlich.
Mir hat einmal ein Ranger erklärt und man kann es auch nachlesen, die Sequoias brauchen das Feuer um zu überleben.

June 11, 2003
Agreeing to Protect Giant Treasures, but How?
By JOHN M. BRODER



GIANT SEQUOIA NATIONAL MONUMENT, Calif. — President Bill Clinton stood at the base of a towering 1,000-year-old tree here three years ago and proclaimed the creation of the Giant Sequoia National Monument, thus making Art Gaffrey`s life a splendid misery.

As supervisor of the 1.2-million-acre Sequoia National Forest, from which the 328,000-acre monument was carved, Mr. Gaffrey is responsible for devising a plan to manage the majestic sequoia groves and the complex mountain ecology in which they grow. His goal is to try to return the forest to something resembling its condition before loggers and ranchers denuded much of the area, beginning in the mid-19th century.

The task — complicated by the restrictions that come with monument status — has put him at the fulcrum of a century-old debate over how best to preserve a forest and ensure the regeneration of the sequoias. He likens the task, with its intertwined ecological and political complexities, to solving Rubik`s Cube.

The national forest, rising from the San Joaquin Valley to 9,700-foot peaks, is home to a wide array of plant life and rare animal species, including the Pacific fisher, a type of weasel; the American marten; the peregrine falcon; and the spotted owl.

"This is one of the few debates where everyone agrees with the objective: these trees are a national treasure, the largest living and growing things on earth. They must be protected," said Mr. Gaffrey, 50, a soft-spoken forester who has supervised the Sequoia National Forest since 1996. "The question is, how do we do this?"

There is little dispute that Western forestlands have suffered for decades from logging and the suppression of fire. Fire, which occurs naturally in any given section of forest every 7 to 10 years, is critical to the life cycle of a forest because it clears underbrush and allows the healthiest trees to grow. Putting those fires out, as the United States Forest Service has done for decades, disrupts this natural cycle.

Still, there is bitter disagreement over how to cure these wounded woodlands.

The House of Representatives passed a bill in May, supported by President Bush, to accelerate the clearing of brush and the cutting of trees on millions of acres of federal land, including parts of this forest, to reduce the danger of catastrophic fire. Mr. Bush said at a White House ceremony that bureaucratic inertia, flawed forest policy and legal delays had prevented actions that would restore the forests to health. Critics contend that the bill would open federal forests to widespread logging that would benefit the timber industry without protecting communities threatened by fire.

The same debate is being played out in microcosm in the sequoias.

Mr. Clinton`s proclamation creating the monument explicitly forbade using any of the monument land for commercial timber sales.

It expanded on a 1992 order by President George Bush prohibiting logging within 1,000 feet of a sequoia grove. And the Clinton proclamation barred removal of trees from the entire 328,000 acres except for campfire wood or "if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety."

This is the crux of Mr. Gaffrey`s dilemma. A large part of his job is to find a way to prevent a catastrophic blaze like the McNally fire last summer, which started at a poorly tended campfire and burned 150,000 acres here. It was the most devastating fire here in at least 120 years.

Tens of thousands of acres of mixed conifer forest and chaparral are now nothing but blackened soil and spindly, charred tree trunks. Some spring grasses have begun to sprout, and a few infant sugar and ponderosa pines have poked through the ash, but it will be many years before this area regenerates into a mature ecosystem.

The fire not only scarred the landscape of the forest; it also left a deep mark on the psyche of Mr. Gaffrey, who says he is determined to try to find a way to avoid another such disaster. Working with a scientific advisory board and responding to thousands of comments from citizens and interest groups, Mr. Gaffrey has published a draft environmental impact statement containing six alternative forest management schemes.

All the plans would provide for prescribed burns to remove underbrush, small trees and downed logs that feed forest fires, opening up the forest floor to allow regeneration of sequoias and other conifers.

But Mr. Gaffrey`s preferred plan would also permit the cutting of trees up to 30 inches in diameter, to allow more light to reach the forest floor and provide breaks to slow fires.

That plan projects that as much as 10 million board feet of lumber could be culled from the forest each year and sent to a local sawmill, generating perhaps $500,000 a year to help defray the cost of the restoration project, according to Forest Service officials. At the peak of logging in the forest, timbermen were taking about 100 million board feet from the forest a year.

Environmentalists howled.

"I don`t know how you can take out 10 million board feet a year and justify it based on the proclamation," said Joe Fontaine, a former national president of the Sierra Club and a member of its sequoia task force. "We`re not opposed to taking out any trees — but trees of the size they`re talking about are the oldest and most fire-resistant. They still think that logging is the way to restore a forest."

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups maintain that controlled fire, not logging, is the soundest and most natural way to reclaim the forest. If the timber industry needs wood to build houses and strip malls, Mr. Fontaine said, let them find it elsewhere.

If Mr. Gaffrey adopts his preferred plan or a modified version of it that allows cutting of mature trees, Mr. Fontaine said, the Sierra Club will challenge him in court. A decision on the management plan is due later this year.

The Clinton proclamation specifically states, "No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber production." None of the Forest Service`s proposed alternatives allow commercial logging, but Mr. Gaffrey said that some trees of varying sizes would have to be removed to protect communities and private homes within the forest, as well as the sequoia groves. That lumber has value that should not be wasted, he said.

Mr. Clinton signed his proclamation on April 15, 2000, at the Long Meadow Grove of sequoias at the start of the Trail of 100 Giants, one of the most-visited features of the national forest. The tree showed numerous signs of fires, most of them probably started by lightning.

Revisiting the scene this week, Mr. Gaffrey said that he knew from the day the proclamation was signed that he was in for a long, difficult dispute over how to carry it out.

"This controversy has been going on since John Muir and Gifford Pinchot walked these forests 100 years ago," he said, referring to the founder of the Sierra Club and the man named by President Theodore Roosevelt as the first head of the United States Forest Service.

"That debate has been going on for a hundred years," Mr. Gaffrey said. "And the debate continues."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

Poll: Bush Has Double-Digit Lead on Dems


By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 11, 2003; 4:56 PM


WASHINGTON - Americans are about evenly divided when asked if the country was better off under Democratic former President Clinton than it is now, though President Bush holds double-digit leads over the Democrats running against him for 2004.

Forty-nine percent said Republican Bush and 46 percent said Clinton when asked under which president the country was better off, according to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Wednesday.

Clinton appears to be regaining favor with the public, according to the new poll. More than half, 54 percent, said they have a favorable view of him, while 45 percent have an unfavorable view.

In March 2001, about six in 10 had an unfavorable view of Clinton soon after he left office. Half in the new poll, 48 percent, say Clinton`s relationship with Monica Lewinsky never bothered them, and 25 percent say it bothered them at the time but does not now.

Two-thirds in the Gallup poll said they have a favorable view of Bush, reflecting the continued positive feelings about him personally. Bush`s job approval in the Gallup poll was 62 percent. Recent polls have shown his job approval ranging from the high 50s to the mid 60s.

When Bush is matched against an unnamed Democratic nominee or against several of the leading Democrats in the race, he holds leads ranging from 13 points against Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman to 15 points against an unnamed Democrat to slightly more against Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt or Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, according to polls released this week.

The public approves of Bush`s handling of terrorism by a 2-1 margin, while people are evenly divided on his handling of the economy, with 45 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving, according to a poll by Quinnipiac University.

In a matchup of the Democratic candidates, Lieberman had 22 percent, Gephardt had 17 percent and Kerry had 15 percent. Bob Graham, a Florida senator, was at 6 percent, while John Edwards, Howard Dean and Al Sharpton were at 5 percent. Carol Moseley Braun was at 4 percent and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich was at 1 percent, according to the Quinnipiac poll.

The Quinnipiac poll of 865 registered voters was taken from June 4-9 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups like Democrats. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 1,029 adults was taken Monday and Tuesday and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


© 2003 The Associated Press

[Joerver]

Fox hat nun auch Zweifel. Der anfang vom Ende?

Senate Intelligence Panel to Hold Iraq WMD Assessment

Wednesday, June 11, 2003



WASHINGTON — The Senate Intelligence Committee (search) will investigate whether intelligence assessments about Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction program -- used in part to justify the war -- were accurate, committee chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said Wednesday.

Closed-door hearings will begin next week.

"While I am chairman, the committee will handle this review in a responsible manner untainted by politics and in a bipartisan manner," Roberts, flanked by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., told reporters.

Some Democrats and other critics of the war have suggested that intelligence on Iraq`s weapons programs was inaccurate or manipulated to make the case for war. No Democratic members of the committee were present at Roberts` announcement.

Roberts said the committee will gather and evaluate intelligence and analytical assessments about Iraq`s weapons program; determine whether the assessments were reasonable based on the quantity and quality of data available; and evaluate its accuracy compared with the ongoing search in Iraq.

The White House, which has urged patience in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said it is happy to oblige with the inquiry.

"This is an important part of Congress` oversight and we welcome it," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer.

"We always work together with Congress in dealing with the threat of Iraqi possession of WMD. And we`ll continue to work with Congress on the facts that led previous administrations, Democrats and Republicans alike, to know [Saddam] had WMD," Fleischer said.

The committee is expected to review thousands of pages of documents the CIA (search) and other intelligence groups are submitting to Congress detailing intelligence on Iraq`s weapons programs. Roberts has said he doesn`t want the inquiry to impede the work of a new Pentagon team that will take over the weapons search.

Many Republicans and some Democrats have no doubts that Saddam Hussein (search) had chemical or biological weapons, based on his government`s failure to satisfy U.N. demands for proof that the weapons it once admitted to having had been destroyed.

Those seeking an investigation say the issue goes beyond the failure to find weapons. Some of the administration`s evidence of Iraqi weapons programs has proven false, they say. Documents indicating Iraq imported uranium from Niger were forgeries. Aluminum tubes described as intended for nuclear weapons were likely meant for conventional artillery rockets.

After Roberts` announcement, Intelligence Committee ranking member Jay Rockefeller (search), D-W.Va., responded that he`s not sure whether Roberts is interested in the truth.

"What they appear to be doing is entirely inadequate and slow paced and potentially kind of sleepwalking through history," he said.

Roberts said that although some of the criticism leveled on the intelligence community has been understandable and, at times, constructive, some of the attacks have been for political gain.

"Let me point out the joint inquiry by an independent staff into the 9/11 tragedy strongly criticized intelligence officials for not connecting the dots and for being risk averse, for failing to put together a picture that seemed all too obvious after the fact. Now, there seems a campaign by some to criticize the intelligence community and the president for connecting the dots, for putting together a picture that seemed all too obvious before the fact," Roberts said.

"I will not allow the committee to be politicized or to be used as an unwitting tool for any political strategist," he added.

Democrats insist that they lack political motives in the inquiry, but the stakes could be high ahead of next year`s election if President Bush`s primary reason for going to war continues to be called into question.

Goss said his panel will conduct a routine review of how intelligence was collected and analyzed, but he said the committee will not try to correlate the intelligence to administration claims about Iraqi weapons systems. The committee`s top Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman of California, said she and her staff will carefully examine the CIA documents before deciding how they want to proceed.

"The war was premised on the notion that there was a clear and present danger to American interests and we need to understand whether all of those claims were appropriate," she said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Joerver]

Georgence von Arabien

[Joerver]

You are welcome in Germany

[Joerver]

Kranke Menschen. "The only thing Neocons have to fear is the end of fear itself"

Verbreitung des Terrors: Die Woolsey World Tour

John Horvath 12.06.2003
Samuel Huntingtons berüchtigter "Kampf der Kulturen" hat seine politische Legitimität in James Woolseys Vorstellung vom Vierten Weltkrieg gefunden

Wenn Terror als der Einsatz von Angst definiert wird, um Einfluss und Einschüchterung zu verbreiten, dann können George W. Bush und seine Höflinge zurecht Terroristen genannt werden. Es ist schon schlimm genug, dass sie ihr eigenes Land mit Angst und Hass vergiftet haben, die zu einem Bestandteil des "mitfühlenden Patriotismus" geworden sind. Doch jetzt wird diese Form des ideologischen Terrorismus über die Grenzen verbreitet. Es überrascht nicht, dass Kanada zu einem der ersten Länder wurde, das dieser Einschüchterung unterworfen wurde.






James Woolsey, ein ehemaliger Direktor des CIA ( Cyber-Friedhof), ist offenbar unterwegs, um für George W. Bushs "Krieg gegen den Terrorismus" zu werben, indem er nicht angekündigt bei Sicherheitskräften oder Geheimdiensten auftritt. Vor zwei Wochen war er in Montreal und sprach zu hochrangigen Vertretern der Strafverfolgung. Zusammen mit Dale Watson, dem früheren Leiter der Antiterrorabteilung beim FBI, wurde den Zuhörern berichtet, sie befänden sich mitten in den Kämpfen des Vierten Weltkriegs. Und sie wurden gewarnt, dass Kanada das nächste Ziel sein könne.





Ob dieser Angriff von den USA oder von jemand anders ausgehen würde, wurde nicht klar. Offensichtlich war jedoch, was die USA von ihrem nördlichen Nachbarn erwartet: eine schärfere Zuwanderungspolitik und strengere Maßnahmen des "Heimatlandschutzes".

In Woolseys Kopf gibt es keinen Zweifel daran, wer der Feind ist: Kräfte des Islam, die alle gegen den Westen gerichtet sind. Sie sind, soweit es ihn betrifft, alle Teil einer großen bunten Schar: "Faschisten" der Baath-Partei, wahhabitische Eiferer, Fanatiker der Hisbollahs, islamistische Sunnis und die den "Terror exprortierende" Schia-Theokratie. Vielleicht kam dem ehemaligen CIA-Direktor niemals der Gedanke, dass diese Gruppen auch untereinander feindlich gesinnt sind, manchmal stärker als gegenüber dem dekadenten Westen. Wir können also, um der gewundenen Logik Woolseys zu folgen, schließen, dass alle Juden räuberische Zionisten sind und alle Christen dem Typus von George W. Bush gleichen, der wieder Gefallen am Fundamentalismus findet.

Woolseys Auftritt in Montreal und anderswo könnte als schlechter Witz erscheinen, wenn nicht nur er selbst von seinen Äußerungen überzeugt wäre, sondern ihn auch andere ernst nehmen. Und das sind die Menschen, denen die öffentliche Sicherheit anvertraut ist, also Sicherheits- und Terrorismusexperten aus dem Militär, der Strafverfolgung und den zivilen Sicherheitsagenturen.

Interessanterweise galt Woolseys Angriff teilweise auch der "New Economy". Die Vorstellung der "Just-in-time"-Lieferung, einer der Markenzeichen des E-Commerce, wurde als Achillesferse des modernen Kapitalismus betrachtet, da Tausende von Containern und Sendungen, die jeden Tag über die Grenzen der USA gehen, bedeuten, dass es nicht genügend Zeit gibt, sie alle nach terroristischen Massenvernichtunswaffen wie beispielsweise einer schmutzigen Bombe zu durchsuchen. Ironischerweise könnte dasselbe vom globalen Freihandel gesagt werden, für den Präsident Bush leidenschaftlich einzutreten scheint.

Woolsey kritisierte auch eine rationalisierte medizinische Versorgung, weil es dann nicht genügend Krankenhausbetten im Fall eines biologischen Angriffs gäbe. Nach dem früheren Spionagechef wäre dies "das funktionelle Äquivalent der dünnen Cockpit-Türen", die es der Terroristengruppe ermöglicht haten, vier Passagierflugzeuge am 11.9.2001 zu entführen.


Sehnsucht nach einer Wiederkehr des Weltbilds des Kalten Kriegs


Die Hauptbotschaft von Woolsey und seinem FBI-Gehilfen an die kanadischen Behörden (und zweifellos auch andere, die sie noch zu besuchen beabsichtigen), ist, dass mehr Geld in die Verteidigung gesteckt werden müsse, um zu einem verlässlichen Verbündeten der USA in diesem Vierten Weltkrieg zu werden. Nach ihnen muss das Militär neu ausgestattet werden. Die USA erwarten von ihren "Alliierten und Freunden", mehr zu Friedenserhaltungsmissionen und gemeinsamen Verteidigungsinitiativen beizutragen. Würde das nicht geschehen, wäre man kein wirklicher Verbündeter. Und nach der am 20.9.2001 verkündeten Bush-Doktrin ist man, wenn man nicht für die USA ist, gegen die USA.

Was Woolsey und andere wie er zu erreichen hoffen, ist die Wiedererschaffung einer modernen Version der Außen- und Innenpolitik, wie es sie in den 50er Jahren gegeben hat. Der Bezug auf den Vierten Weltkrieg wird weiderholt gemacht, um die gegenwärtige Situation von kleinen Terroristengruppen mit einem engen Programm mit der im Kalten Krieg zu verbinden, in der die Sowjetunion als "Reich des Bösen", das fast die Hälfte der Welt umspannte, die Weltherrschaft anstrebte. Daher haben jetzt die Islamisten die Kommunisten als die Bösewichte ersetzt, die die Welt unter ihre Herrschaft bringen wollen. Folglich ist alles bequem zweigeteilt wie in den guten, alten Tagen, aber dieses Mal nach den Bruchlinien, die Huntington als die "blutigen Grenzen" des Islam beschrieben hat. In anderen Worten: Der jüdisch-christliche Westen gegen den islamischen Osten. Zu entscheiden, auf welcher Seite sich die Buddhisten, Sikhs, Hindus du die vielen anderen religiösen Gruppen in dieser Weltsicht befinden, wird jedem selbst überlassen.


"Die Verfassung ist kein Selbstmordpakt"


Letztendlich ist die Demokratie der größte Verlierer, wie man bereits an den Versuchen von US-Justizminister John Ashcroft sehen kann, eine Art McCarthy-Programm in den USA umzusetzen. Die Woolseys sind sich dessen wohl bewusst und finden das nicht falsch. Der ehemalige CIA-Chef wies darauf hin, als er darüber sprach, wie westliche Regierungen antidemokratische Kräfte davon abhalten könnten, die demokratischen Strukturen zu nutzen, dass die USA während des Kalten Kriegs (oder des Dritten Weltkriegs nach seiner Zählung) spezielle Gesetze für die Registrierung von Kommunisten eingeführt hatten. Für ihn ist es nicht falsch, ähnliche Maßnahmen gegenüber Muslimen zu ergreifen: "Die Verfassung", so Woolsey, "ist kein Selbstmordpakt."

Die Antwort der Neokonservativen wie Woolsey auf die Gefahren und Probleme, die sich der Demokratie im neuen Jahrtausend stellen, scheint darin zu bestehen, zuerst die Initiative zu ergreifen und diese zu zerstören. Auf diese Weise haben die Gegner nichts mehr in den Händen. Und bislang scheint die Bush-Regierung Zuhause gute Arbeit geleistet zu haben.

Beunruhigend ist, dass die USA ihre Form der Innenpolitik an alle "Freunde und Alliierte" exportieren wollen. Es ist daher kein Zufall, dass Kanada dieses Mal an der Spitze der Liste stand. Es steht eine politische Veränderung an, da Jean Chretien, der kanadische Ministerpräsident, den Platz für eine neue, relative junge Generation Platz machen wird. Derselbe Vorgang lässt sich in allen großen Parteien beobachten. Bislang hat Kanada einen kritischen Kurs gegenüber der Bush-Regierung gefahren, was den Konservativen im Land nicht gefallen hat. Die privaten Medien haben sich über die angespannten Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Ländern beklagt, auch wenn die meisten Kanadier, vor allem im Französich sprechenden Teil des Landes, nicht mit der amerikanischen Außenpolitik übereinstimmen

Man wird nicht nur beobachten müssen, welchen Kurs die künftigen führenden Politiker in Kanada einschlagen werden, sondern auch, wie Woolseys Welttour in anderen Ländern und besonders in Europa ankommen wird. In den osteuropäischen Staaten des "Neuen Europa" wird die Botschaft zweifellos gut aufgenommen werden. Wie dies letztlich die Beziehungen zwischen den EU-Mitgliedsstaaten beeinflusst, wird maßgeblich von der Art von politischen Institutionen abhängen, die jetzt für die neue und erweiterte EU eingerichtet werden.

[Joerver]

Die Geschichte ist zwar 2-3 Wochen alt, aber immer noch ein tolles Schelmenstück.

Homeland Security jagt Politiker

Jenny Eltermann 12.06.2003
Abgeordnete der Demokraten im Parlament von Texas, die einer Parlamentssitzung fernblieben, wurden auf Veranlassung des Fraktionssprechers der Republikaner durch die Homeland Security wie Terroristen verfolgt

Der Anlass: Das texanische Parlament mit den Republikanern als stärkster Fraktion soll über eine Neuordnung der Wahlbezirke befinden. Die vorgesehene Aufteilung hätte in Houston, zwischen dem Bush International Airport und dem Hobby Airport, vier neue Bezirke entstehen lassen, die voraussichtlich den Republikanern zufallen würden.

Die Verweigerung


53 von 56 Demokraten beschließen, die Abstimmung zu sprengen, indem sie fernbleiben. Weil wenigstens 2/3 der Parlamentsabgeordneten anwesend sein müssen, kommt es nicht zum Entscheid, womit die Frist für die geplante Veränderung ergebnislos abzulaufen droht.


Die Reaktion


Tom Craddick, Sprecher der Republikaner, lässt die Türen zuschließen und erklärt: "Es ist unehrenhaft, wegzulaufen und sich zu verstecken." Danach gibt er Anweisung, die demokratischen Abgeordneten zu suchen, festzunehmen und mit Gewalt ins Parlamentgebäude zu bringen.

Vor dem Parlamentsgebäude haben sich mehr als 100 Menschen versammelt, um die Reaktion der Demokraten zu unterstützen. Auf Plakaten steht: "Tom Delay, Go Away," "Don`t tread on Travis" und "Sieg heil, Tom Delay" ( Houston Chronicle).

Tom DeLay, der frühere Lokalmatador, hat in Texas ein Netzwerk von Fundraisern zusammengebracht, das zwei Jahre zuvor von Roberty Dreyfuss im Texas Observer als "DeLay, Incorporated" klassifiziert und in der Summe nur von Georges W. Bush überboten wurde. Die schillernde Persönlichkeit, ebenfalls aus dem Ölbusiness, ist inzwischen nach Washington umgezogen und Fraktionsführer der Republikaner. In Texas halten sich Gerüchte, daß er als Drahtzieher die geplante Umstrukturierung der Wahlbezirke vorangetrieben hat.


Die Demokraten hatten ihre Aktion angekündigt und wußten, daß sie nicht ungeschoren bleiben würden. Nach der Verfassung des Staates Texas kann das Parlament bestimmen, auf welche Weise Abgeordnete, die nicht erscheinen, gemaßregelt werden. So verließen sie vorsorglich ihren Staat. Mit dem Flugzeug nach Oklahoma und nach New Mexico; andere benutzten den Bus nach New Mexico.


Pikanterweise tritt nun die Homeland Security auf den Plan. Vor zwei Jahren mit großem Applaus vom amerikanischen Präsidenten im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus ins Leben gerufen, werden in Texas mehrere Hundertschaften aktiviert, um die Suche nach den Abtrünnigen aufzunehmen. Der Grund, so vermutet R.G. Ratcliff vom Houston Chronicle, ist die personengleiche Führerschaft vom Department of Public Safety und der Homeland Security in Texas: "Die drei Verantwortlichen sind von Georges W. Bush während seiner Zeit als Gouverneur ins Amt gekommen." Zwei davon sind verdiente Kämpfer für die Bush-Familie:

Commissioner Bobby Holt war für Bush senior der "finance chairman", Commissioner Jim Francis war Chairman der Bush Pioneers, Personen, die mehr als 100.000 US Dollar für die Präsidentsschaftskampagne von Bush junior beibrachten.

Der aufwändige Suche mit mehr 1000 Jägern und einem FBI-Beamten blieb entgegen dem, was üblicherweise in Hollywood produziert wird, ohne Erfolg.

Zwei Tage, nachdem die Demokraten den Staatssekretär der Homeland Security aufforderten, der Sache nachzugehen, machte im lokalen Büro eine Email vormittags und nochmals nachmittags die Runde:


Berichte, Korrespondenz, Fotos, etc., die in Verbindung mit der Suche nach den Abgeordneten erstellt wurden, müssen umgehend vernichtet werden. Keine Kopie darf gehalten werden.


Auch in diesem Fall kam die Anordnung vom Texas Department of Public Safety und wurde willig vom verantwortlichen Offizier der texanischen Heimatverteidigung umgesetzt.

Darauf angesprochen erklärte die Sprecherin Tela Mange, das Department habe ordnungsgemäß gehandelt, weil nach Bundesrecht keine Daten aufbewahrt werden dürfen, sollten die Betroffenen nicht eines kriminellen Vergehens verdächtigt werden. "Die vermißten Abgeordneten waren wegen keines Verbrechens angeklagt." Eine Erklärung für den Einsatz der Homeland Security steht indes aus.


Was wie eine Posse begann, könnte in eine schreckliche Entwicklung weiterführen, oder der Beginn für den Abstieg des US Präsidenten Georges W.Bush sein. In der New York Times mehren sich Editorials, die der Exekutive das Prädikat "Es ist skandalös" geben.

http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/co/14982/1.html

[Joerver]

Senat prüft Vorwürfe gegen Bush

Die Frage, ob die Regierung von George W. Bush vor dem Irak-Krieg die Geheimdienste beeinflusst und die Gefahr durch Saddam Hussein übertrieben hat, beschäftigt jetzt auch den US-Senat. Der Geheimdienstausschuss wird die Vorwürfe in der kommenden Woche prüfen - allerdings hinter verschlossenen Türen.

Washington - Nach wochenlangen heftigen Debatten untersucht der US-Senat in der nächsten Woche, ob die Regierung in Washington die Geheimdienste in ihrer Beurteilung der Irak-Gefahr beeinflusst hat, um einen Krieg zu rechtfertigen. Das teilte der Vorsitzende des Geheimdienstausschusses, Pat Roberts, in Washington mit. Eine öffentliche Untersuchung, wie es die Demokraten gefordert hatten, lehnte der Senat allerdings ab.

Nach Angaben von Roberts will der Ausschuss die Geheimdienstinformationen über irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen und die daraus resultierenden Beurteilungen der Experten unter die Lupe nehmen. Es geht darum, ob das Datenmaterial die offizielle Einschätzung, dass der Irak derartige Programme hatte, zuließ.

Mitarbeiter der Geheimdienste haben in der US-Presse anonym den Vorwurf erhoben, die Regierung habe ihre Vorgaben frisiert, um die mögliche Gefahr zu dramatisieren. Andere sagten nach US-Presseberichten, sie hätten sich unter Druck gesetzt gefühlt, die Gefahren zu übertreiben.

Der britische Premierminister Tony Blair, im Irak-Krieg der engste Verbündete Bushs, sieht sich in der Heimat ähnlichen Vorwürfen ausgesetzt. In London beschäftigen sich mittlerweile mehrere parlamentarische Ausschüsse mit der Frage, ob vor dem Krieg Geheimdienst-Erkenntnisse systematisch manipuliert wurden.

Die Regierungen in Washington und London hatten die Massenvernichtungswaffen als Hauptgrund für den Krieg gegen den Irak genannt. Bislang wurden jedoch keine atomaren, biologischen oder chemischen Kampfstoffe im Irak gefunden.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Bush ist und bleibt ein Dünnbrettbohrer und alle Versuche ihn nach dem Gipfel als geschickten Verhandler aufzubauen sind der Lächerlichkeit preisgegeben.

US-Politiker wollen Truppen schicken

Die jüngste Gewalt-Welle droht den Nahen Osten erneut ins Chaos zu stürzen. 16 Israelis starben bei einem palästinensischen Selbstmord-Anschlag, im Gegenzug tötete die israelische Armee acht Palästinenser. In den USA werden mittlerweile Forderungen laut, Nato-Truppen ins Konfliktgebiet zu schicken.

Jerusalem/Gaza - Die Friedensinitiative von George W. Bush ist gerade eine Woche alt und offenbar schon jetzt Makulatur. In Jerusalem sprengte sich am Mittwoch ein als orthodoxer Jude verkleideter Palästinenser in einem voll besetzten Linienbus in die Luft und riss mindestens 16 Israelis mit in den Tod. Bei dem Blutbad, zu dem sich radikal-islamische Organisation Hamas bekannte, erlitten 80 Passagiere zum Teil schwere Verletzungen.

Wenig später kamen bei einem gezielten israelischen Raketenangriff auf einen Hamas-Führer in Gaza acht Palästinenser ums Leben, darunter sechs unbeteiligte Passanten. Am frühen Donnerstagmorgen flogen israelische Kampfhubschrauber einen weiteren Angriff, bei dem in der Stadt Gaza zwei Palästinenser starben. Insgesamt forderte der Nahost-Konflikt seit dem Friedensgipfel von Akaba 45 Todesopfer.

Kritik an Bushs Verhandlungstaktik

Angesichts der rasant eskalierenden Gewalt schrillen in Washington die Alarmglocken. US-Präsident George W. Bush kritisierte die israelische Regierung ungewöhnlich scharf wegen des Anschlags auf Hamas-Führer Abd al-Asis al-Rantissi, bei dem drei Menschen starben und der offenbar den verheerenden Selbstmordanschlag in Jerusalem zur Folge hatte. Wenig später ermahnte Bush die arabischen Staaten, Organisationen wie der Hamas den Geldhahn zuzudrehen.

Die Kritik an Israel brachte Bush in Washington prompt Ärger ein. Der Abgeordnete Gary L. Ackermann warf dem Präsidenten Heuchelei vor. "Wie können wir gegen den Terrorismus aktiv werden und zugleich anderen sagen, dass es nicht hilfreich ist, das gleiche zu tun?" Das Amerikanisch-Israelische Komitee für Öffentliche Angelegenheiten (Aipac), eine einflussreiche pro-israelische Lobbygruppe, äußerte seltene Kritik an Bush: Israel müsse "die Verantwortung übernehmen, Terror-Gruppen zu bekämpfen", und "es sollte die Politik der USA sein", diesen Kampf zu unterstützen.

Zugleich wurde in den USA Kritik an Bushs Verhandlungsführung beim Friedensgipfel in Akaba laut. Um eine Einigung zu erzielen, gab sich die US-Regierung mit derart vagen Formulierungen zufrieden, dass nun jede Seite das Abkommen auf ihre Weise interpretiert. Zwischen Israel und den USA ist dadurch ein Konflikt über die Notwendigkeit der gezielten Anschläge auf Terror-Verdächtige ausgebrochen. Die US-Regierung hat die Strategie, die jedem internationalen Recht widerspricht, stets verurteilt.

In Washington schlugen nach der jüngsten Gewaltwelle in Nahost mehrere amerikanische Politiker und Ex-Diplomaten teils drastische Maßnahmen vor, um den Krisenherd endlich in den Griff zu bekommen. Senator John Warner regte sogar an, Nato-Truppen ins Konfliktgebiet einmarschieren zu lassen. Andere wollen Palästina zu einer Art Protektorat umfunktionieren, um die durch Israel zerstörte Sicherheits-Infrastruktur der palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde wieder aufzubauen.

Truppen oder Palästina-Protektorat

"Wir arbeiten seit mehr als 40 Jahren am Nahost-Konflikt, aber in den letzten drei Jahren sind wir vor Wände gelaufen", sagte Kenneth Pollack, ehemaliges Mitglied des Nationalen Sicherheitsrats der USA unter Clinton und George W. Bush. Man müsse beginnen, über "unorthodoxe Methoden" nachzudenken, so Pollack. "Manche davon sehen vor, Truppen ins Konfliktgebiet zu führen, andere drehen sich um ein palästinensisches Protektorat."



Scharon, Bush und Abbas: Fehler auf dem Friedensgipfel?


Die israelische Regierung beeindrucken die Washingtoner Diskussionen offenbar kaum. Verteidigungsminister Schaul Mofas kündigte am Mittwochabend an, die Armee werde weiterhin "mit allen Mitteln" gegen die Hamas-Bewegung vorgehen. Die israelische Nachrichtenagentur y-net meldete, Mofas habe während einer Dringlichkeitssitzung im Verteidigungsministerium in Tel Aviv gar eine Verschärfung der Mittel im "Kampf gegen den Terror" angeordnet: Die Armee müsse die gezielten Liquidierungen und Festnahmen noch weiter intensivieren.

Ministerpräsident Ariel Scharon sagte, Israel werde "die Terrororganisationen und ihre Führer mit aller Härte verfolgen". Er werde "alles tun, um die Sicherheit der Bürger Israels zu gewährleisten".

Palästinenserpräsident Jassir Arafat rief eindringlich zu einem sofortigen Stopp der neuen Welle der Gewalt auf. In Ramallah forderte Arafat alle palästinensischen Fraktionen dazu auf, alle Anschläge und Überfälle auf Israelis zu unterlassen. Der palästinensische Ministerpräsident Mahmud Abbas sagte, er strebe ungeachtet des neuen Gewaltausbruchs im Nahen Osten eine Umsetzung des internationalen Friedensplans an.


© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Israel can halt this now
Oona King in Gaza
Thursday June 12, 2003
The Guardian

The no man`s land separating Israel from the Gaza Strip gives way to what can only be described as desecrated land. Razor wire and crushed buildings line the route. Torn slabs of concrete look like tattered cardboard on a rubbish heap. In front of us two Israeli tanks block our path. Behind us, the border will shortly be sealed to prevent Palestinian reprisals for the helicopter attack launched hours earlier against the extremist Hamas leader, Abdul-Aziz al-Rantissi - who is still alive. A Palestinian woman and her young child, on their way to hospital, are dead, and 35 are injured.

Later that afternoon we hurriedly leave the building we are in when a missile lands nearby. As two British MPs travelling with Christian Aid, myself and Jenny Tonge are alarmed. For Gaza residents this is business as usual. More than 1 million Palestinians live on this tiny piece of land (smaller than the Isle of Wight) - more than three-quarters of on less than £1.30 a day. Life below the poverty line for these Palestinians contrasts with the 5,000 Israeli settlers who occupy one-third of the land and enjoy watered gardens, first world housing and protection by the Israeli army. This protection means Palestinians wait for hours - sometimes days - at Israeli checkpoints, trying to find work or get access to essential services such as medical care.

The sun is setting on Gaza. From my hotel balcony I hear demonstrations in the street below. It occurs to me that I can put on a headscarf and slip into the crowd as a Palestinian. No one will guess I`m Jewish, still less that I`m a British MP. The sounds lead me to the hospital where Rantissi is being treated. Cars rush into the compound, horns blaring, people hanging out of windows. A man carries an injured girl into the hospital. But most of the Palestinians just stand waiting. They wait for Israelis to stamp their permits, and they wait for a Palestinian state. They are no different from us: deny them human rights and they will respond with unacceptable terrorist violence.

That`s what Jews did when they set up the Stern Gang and blew up the King David Hotel in the 1940s. Ninety-four people died. The leader of that terrorist group, on Britain`s "most wanted" list, went on to be the Israeli prime minister. Many Jews revere him, even while they abhor the terrorism that ruins their lives today. Israelis must be freed from terrorism - such as yesterday`s horrific attack in Jersualem. All terrorism, not least Palestinian terrorism, is abhorrent. But it is also predictable. When the Israeli government chose Tuesday to launch an attack in Gaza (as it did again after yesterday`s bombing), it cannot have been ignorant of its effect on the peace process and the certainty of Palestinian reprisals.

The original founders of the Jewish state could surely not imagine the irony facing Israel today: in escaping the ashes of the Holocaust, they have incarcerated another people in a hell similar in its nature - though not its extent - to the Warsaw ghetto.

Any visitor to the Palestinian ghetto can see the signs: residents are sealed off and live under curfew; the authorities view torture as acceptable and use collective punishment as a means of control; soldiers drive families from their homes, confiscate property and demolish neighbourhoods; unemployment runs in places at 80%, and utilities such as water are withheld; the economy has "client" status, and is subservient to the occupiers in every way.

As the more powerful side in the dispute, Israel must break the cycle of violence, comply with UN resolution 242 and withdraw from territories occupied in 1967. As the occupying power, Israel must uphold the fourth Geneva convention and end all collective punishments. Illegal settlements must be dismantled. Repair of water, sewage, and other essential infrastructure should take place immediately.

Just under 80% of all water resources in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are redirected from Palestinians to Israelis. The international community has to recognise the scale of the humanitarian disaster facing Palestinians and George Bush must put greater pressure on Sharon to give meaning to the road map. Yes, there are two sides to every story. But no story should hold within it the horrors I have witnessed here, so similar in detail to humiliations suffered by the Jews.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that, given the scale of the atrocities and collective punishment waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians, I have no choice but to boycott Israeli products. On reflection, whether Jewish or not, you might decide to do the same.

· Oona King is Labour MP for Bethnal Green and Bow


[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US plays aid card to fix war crimes exemption
Ian Traynor in Zagreb
Thursday June 12, 2003
The Guardian

The US is turning up the heat on the countries of the Balkans and eastern Europe to secure war crimes immunity deals for Americans and exemptions from the year-old international criminal court.

In an exercise in brute diplomacy which is causing more acute friction with the European Union following the rows over Iraq, the US administration is threatening to cut off tens of millions of dollars in aid to the countries of the Balkans unless they reach bilateral agreements with the US on the ICC by the end of this month.

The American campaign, which is having mixed results, is creating bitterness and cynicism in the countries being intimidated, particularly in the successor states of former Yugoslavia which perpetrated and suffered the worst war crimes seen in Europe since the Nazis. They are all under intense international pressure, not least from the Americans, to cooperate with the war crimes tribunal for former Yugoslavia in the Hague.

"Blatant hypocrisy," said Human Rights Watch in New York on Tuesday of the US policy towards former Yugoslavia.

Threatened with the loss of $73m (£44m) in US aid, Bosnia signed the exemption deal last week just as Slovenia rejected American pressure and cut off negotiations.

Of all the peoples of former Yugoslavia, the Bosnians suffered the most grievously in the wars of the 1990s, from the siege of Sarajevo to the slaughter of Srebrenica.

The Bosnians signed reluctantly, feeling they had no choice. Former Yugoslavia is particularly central to the US campaign to exempt Americans from the scope of the ICC because there are US troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Washington is vehemently opposed to the permanent international criminal court, arguing that US soldiers, officials and citizens will be targeted for political reasons, an argument dismissed by the court`s supporters, who point out that safeguards have been built into the rules governing the court`s operations.

Under President Bill Clinton, Washington signed the treaty establishing the court. But the US did not ratify the treaty and Mr Bush rescinded Mr Clinton`s signature.

While the Slovenes have said no to the Americans, probably forfeiting $4m in US aid, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia are now being pressed to join the 39 other countries worldwide with which Washington has sealed bilateral pacts granting Americans immunity from war crimes.

"While the United States rightly insists that the former Yugoslav republics must fully cooperate with the [Hague tribunal], it is turning the screws on the very same states not to cooperate with the ICC," said Human Rights Watch.

Croatia is sitting on the fence, refusing to accept what the prime minister, Ivica Racan, dubbed "an ultimatum", but still hoping to reach a compromise with the US. The American ambassador in Zagreb published a letter in the Zagreb press last week warning that Croatia would lose $19m in US military aid if it did not capitulate by July 1.

In Serbia, too, where the issue of war crimes is explo sive, the US pressure is being attacked as a ruthless display of double standards.

The EU has sent letters to all the countries in the region advising them to resist the US demands and indicating that surrender will harm their ambitions of joining the EU.

Regional leaders are waiting to see what kind of offers or promises this month`s EU summit in Greece makes to the region before deciding on their stance towards the ICC. One idea being floated is that the EU could make up the lost US aid money in return for Balkan refusal to toe the American line.

Although the eight east European countries joining the EU next year are expected to follow the Brussels policy and reject the US demands, the Poles in particular are also being pressed to reach an immunity deal with Washington.

Sources in Warsaw say that the US state department has made several requests in recent weeks for a deal by July 1. Poland is the biggest American ally in the region but has not yielded to the US requests.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US on the defensive over Blix
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday June 12, 2003
The Guardian

The debate over Saddam Hussein`s banned arsenal turned to bitter recrimination yesterday with the Bush administration fending off charges of doctoring intelligence and conducting a smear campaign against the UN weapons chief.

At the United Nations, the retiring chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, appeared to revel in the embarrassment caused to senior US officials by an exclusive Guardian interview in which he complained he was the target of a smear campaign by some sections of the Pentagon.

In Washington, meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate came under fire for resisting Democrats` calls for public hearings to determine whether there had been manipulation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

The conjunction of events frustrates Washington`s desire to bury questions about its failure to produce any evidence of the deadly arsenal which was the main reason Britain and America went to war. It also raises the disquieting prospect that the controversy could endure into the 2004 elections, denying George Bush the chance to portray the war as the crowning success of his presidency.

In his conversation with the Guardian, Dr Blix lashed out at his detractors in the Pentagon, saying that in the run-up to the war, Washington had put pressure on his inspectors to produce highly critical reports that could bolster its case for war.

Yesterday, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, and the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, affirmed their high regard for the departing Swedish diplomat.

"There is no smear campaign I am aware of," Mr Powell said. "I have high regard for Dr Blix. I worked very closely with Dr Blix. I noted the president had confidence in him as well."

Mr Annan said: "He did a good job. He had universal respect for his professionalism."

Mr Powell was forced yesterday to defend charges from Washington that the administration had exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam.

Joe Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate foreign relations committee, said: "I am not accusing them of cooking the books. I am accusing them of hyping - it`s different.

"They took the truth and they embellished it in my view."

In a series of interviews on his clashes with the Pentagon, Dr Blix told ABC`s Good Morning America that the US intelligence had proved faulty.

"I agree that the Iraqis are very clever. They have learned, had many years to learn how to hide things," he said. "But nevertheless, most of [the] intelligence has not been solid. Maybe they thought it was solid, but it hasn`t led us to the right places."

From his corner, Mr Annan also pointed out that the intelligence supplied to the UN inspectors on suspected sites in Iraq had failed to produce any trace of weapons.

The question that has returned to haunt the Bush administration, however, was whether that intelligence was faulty by design, doctored to help a cabal of rightwing idealogues argue the case for war.

In Washington yesterday, Republican senators closed ranks around the administration, resisting Democrat demands for a full-scale public investigation of intelligence gathering in the months before the war.

Two Senate committees have already begun to review CIA documents estimating Iraq`s weapons factories and stockpiles of deadly biological and chemical materials. However, high-ranking Democrats are not content with the closed hearings, and are demanding a more public forum that will explicitly examine the charge of whether intelligence was misused.

The prospect of that has infuriated Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress and therefore the committees that will be overseeing the intelligence review.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

June 12, 2003
Bush Under Fire in Congress for Criticizing Israel
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN and JAMES DAO


WASHINGTON, June 11 — Supporters of Israel in and out of Congress assailed President Bush today for criticizing Israeli attacks on Palestinian militant groups as the administration worked to protect its Middle East peace initiative from a new cycle of violence.

On a day of new attacks and counterattacks by Israeli and Palestinian militant forces, diplomats said there was concern in the administration that without dramatic improvement of some kind, the peace initiative known as the road map could founder.

A day after he criticized Israel for its attempt to kill a militant Palestinian leader, Mr. Bush today denounced a suicide bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem that killed 16 people and wounded more than 100.

"I strongly condemn the killings," he said, "and I urge and call upon all of the free world, nations which love peace, to not only condemn the killings, but to use every ounce of their power to prevent them from happening in the future."

At a hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Representative Gary L. Ackerman, said that Mr. Bush`s rebuke might lead his critics "to think of the word hypocrisy."

"How can we take certain actions in response to terrorism, and then tell others that when they do the same exact thing that it is not helpful?" Mr. Ackerman, a New York Democrat, said during questioning of William J. Burns, the State Department`s senior diplomat for Middle Eastern affairs.

The influential pro-Israel lobbying group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as Aipac, issued a rare criticism of Mr. Bush, if only obliquely. Israel, it said, "will and must take the responsibility to fight terrorist organizations" and "it should be the policy of the U.S. to support" such actions.

The bombing today was an apparent retaliation for Israel`s attempt to kill Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a top leader of Hamas, on Tuesday. It happened at about the same time as an Israeli missile attack in Gaza.

Despite the violence, senior administration officials said that the peace initiative was still alive.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general met and urged calm.

"There are those who do not wish to see the Palestinian people achieve a state living side by side in peace with Israel," Mr. Powell said. He called on Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab nations in the region to "remain steadfast, to continue moving down the path that was laid out at Aqaba last week by the leaders who were assembled."

Mr. Powell was referring to a summit meeting in Jordan last week attended by Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel and the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas.

Mr. Annan called on the Israelis and Palestinians to "stay the course."

But there was an unusual quality to the statements given the inflamed situation. If there was a new wrinkle to the day`s developments, it was the criticism directed at Mr. Bush for his rebuke of the Israeli government on Tuesday.

Reflecting dismay that a new round of violence might undermine the spirit achieved in Aqaba and Sharm el Sheik, Mr. Bush said the attack on the Hamas leader would not help Israel`s security. His statement drew fire from those saying that Israel had carried out the attacks to defend itself, just as the United States has done.

Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, said Israel`s use of military force to protect itself against "a ticking time bomb factory" was "100 percent justified."

Representative Tom Lantos of California, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee, defended Israel`s right to protect itself, saying that the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Abbas was unable to do the job. If the Palestinians will not disarm terrorists, "then Israel clearly will do so," he said.

"We would do so," he continued. "Any self-respecting society will do so. People in government have to defend their citizens."

Appearing before the committee, Mr. Burns, the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, acknowledged under sharp questioning from Democrats that Mr. Abbas would probably have to take forceful steps to disarm and dismantle terrorist groups if the peace initiative were to succeed. "I believe he is committed to doing the hard things that are going to be required to make that possible," Mr. Burns said.

But a diplomat in touch with the administration said that the situation was so perilous that Mr. Abbas could be ousted from power if the cycle of violence did not abate. He said that there would be a meeting in Europe later this week of envoys focusing on the Middle East.

The envoys — from the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia — are to prepare for a higher-level meeting attended by Secretary Powell in Jordan on June 22. The group, known as the quartet, devised the step-by-step plan to end violence and establish a Palestinian state in three years. The plan was endorsed by the Palestinians and, in a qualified manner, by Israel last week.

Despite the hopeful words from many sides, the fast-changing situation was putting new pressure on Mr. Bush to get more involved in saving the peace negotiations.

On one hand, Israel sought today to dispute the American analysis that led the Bush administration to condemn the attack on the Hamas leader. Israeli officials said that far from being a mere political spokesman for Hamas, Dr. Rantisi was part of a faction within Hamas that advocated attacks on Israel as a means to destroy Mr. Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen.

"There has been an ongoing debate within leadership circles in Hamas over the last few days about how to approach Abu Mazen," an Israeli official said. "One faction has said we have to fight against Abu Mazen and intensify terrorism. This faction lies outside Hamas itself — in Damascus, Jordan and elsewhere. Rantisi is one of their most vocal forces."

But other diplomats said the Israelis had to know that the attack would provoke a new cycle of violence and make it impossible for Mr. Abbas to keep what little support he has among Palestinians.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 12, 2003
4,000 G.I.`s Circle a Hussein Bastion to Foil Attacks
By DAVID ROHDE with MICHAEL R. GORDON


DHULUIYA, Iraq, June 11 — American forces are carrying out their largest single military operation in Iraq since the end of major fighting, officials said today, with more than 4,000 soldiers surrounding a 30-square-mile area just north of Baghdad said to harbor Baath Party loyalists planning and carrying out attacks on American troops.

Brief gun battles erupted when American forces surrounded this belt of rich green farmland, created by a broad curve in the Tigris River, early Monday, American commanders said. Four Iraqis died, four Americans were wounded and 375 Iraqi men were detained, the Americans said.

Iraqi civilians bitterly complained that the operation was excessive. They said American soldiers handcuffed women and children, beat one man to death and allowed another to die of a heart attack. American officials called the accusations "absolutely false."

The sheer scope of the operation — a pilotless drone, F-15 fighters and AC-130 gunships circled overhead as dozens of armored vehicles and patrol boats cut off escape routes — suggested the seriousness of a new American effort to quell nascent armed resistance in areas north and west of Baghdad dominated by Sunni Muslims.

The area, known as the "Sunni triangle," was a bedrock of support for Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim himself. It has been the center of a recent surge in attacks that have left 10 American soldiers dead and dozens wounded in the last 15 days.

American officials said they had intelligence that senior Baath Party officials were hiding in the area. A released Iraqi detainee said he was asked about Ali Hassan al-Majid, a senior Baath military commander known as "Chemical Ali" for his role in using chemical weapons against the Kurdish minority. American military officials had speculated that he was killed by American bombs in April, but Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week that he might still be alive.

American officials said a major general and a colonel were detained along with 40 to 50 men believed to be involved in the attacks. The officials said the Army believed that much of the resistance north of Baghdad is supported, financed and coordinated by anti-American elements hiding out in the area.

"There have been a growing number of former regime loyalists, Baath Party officials, fedayeen and Iraqi Intelligence Service type people who exist up there and continue to hire individuals to come in and attack Americans," said Brig. Gen. Daniel A. Hahn, the chief of staff for the V Corps, which oversees Army forces in Iraq.

Col. Frederick Rudesheim, the commander of the operation, which involved soldiers from the Third and Fourth Infantry divisions and paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, said senior Baath Party officials, including Mr. Hussein, were not the primary target. He said he had no information corroborating recent reports by Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile, that Mr. Hussein was alive somewhere north or west of Baghdad and offering $200 to anyone who killed an American.

American officials said their goal was to end attacks by gunmen using techniques such as firing flares, turning on lights in houses and ambushing convoys in remote areas.

The American assessment is that Tikrit, Kirkuk and Baiji, which are farther north of Baghdad, are relatively secure. But the American military command has been concerned about resistance in a swath of territory around the towns of Balad, Taji and Baquba, roughly 30 miles north of Baghdad. Only several hundred Americans have been patrolling them.

Gauging the intensity of the surge in attacks has been difficult. American military officials disclose the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq but do not routinely publicize every attack on American forces. Military officials declined a request this week to produce figures totaling the number of attacks on Americans forces over the last six weeks.

Conversations with soldiers in the area, where the Tigris creates an island of green in a bleak brown desert, suggested that the level of attacks north of Baghdad had been intense.

Soldiers said convoys were routinely fired on in the area at night, with bullets striking the first and last vehicles and rocket propelled grenades whizzing over gunners` heads and between jeeps.

"We are just lucky they are bad shots," said Staff Sgt. John Williams, who was involved in the operation. He said his patrol recently killed 10 armed Iraqis preparing an ambush.

Soldiers said they were now firing back at attackers, and Colonel Rudesheim said there have been no attacks in the two nights since the operation was launched.

But residents complained today that American soldiers broke windows during searches, handcuffed women and children and roughed-up detained men. Relatives of Jassem Rumyad, 52, accused American soldiers of preventing them from giving medication to him before he collapsed and died of a heart attack.

Hella Khalif, Mr. Rumyad`s 80-year-old mother, said American soldiers handcuffed and gagged her when she and Mr. Rumyad`s wife and daughter shouted that he needed his heart medication. "They put tape over my mouth," she said.

American officials said the account was false and that they allowed the women to give Mr. Rumyad his medication before he suddenly died.

But one American officer said American soldiers in one location handcuffed women and children. The officer said he immediately ordered the handcuffs removed.

A second family accused American soldiers of beating to death Mehedi Ali Jassem, 53, with their rifles and ransacking his house. They showed a mattress that they said was covered with his blood.

American commanders denied the charges and said Mr. Jassem had a cut on his head and his house had been damaged when they arrived to arrest him. They said he stumbled out the door, collapsed and died, apparently of a heart attack.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 12, 2003
U.S. Widens Checks at Foreign Ports
By PHILIP SHENON


WASHINGTON, June 11 — The Bush administration has decided to place teams of American inspectors at major seaports in Muslim nations and other smaller, strategically located foreign ports to prevent terrorists from using cargo containers to smuggle chemical, biological or nuclear weapons into the United States, senior administration officials said.

The inspectors, they said, will be provided with radiation monitors, chemical detectors and other equipment to inspect "high risk" metal cargo containers before they are placed on ships bound for the United States.

The move is the second phase in a government program begun shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to station American customs inspectors overseas to work side by side with their foreign counterparts in searching for unconventional weapons. The first phase focused on 20 large container ports in Europe and Asia, none of them in countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

Officials said the Department of Homeland Security planned to place teams of inspectors that would remain indefinitely in Dubai, the Persian Gulf emirate that is a crucial transhipment point for containerized cargo in the Arab world; Malaysia; Turkey and other Muslim nations. Al Qaeda is believed to have a sizable presence in both Dubai and Malaysia.

Intelligence agencies report that Al Qaeda has repeatedly used cargo ships to move conventional weapons and explosives, including the explosives used in the 1998 bombings of two American Embassies in East Africa.

Human cargo is also a concern. In October 2001, only weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, the authorities in an Italian seaport discovered an Egyptian man suspected of Qaeda membership hiding in a shipping container bound for Halifax, Nova Scotia; airport maps and security passes were also found in the container, which he had outfitted with a bed and bathroom. The man disappeared while on bail.

Robert C. Bonner, the commissioner of customs and border protection in the Homeland Security Department, said the expansion of the program reflected a continuing concern that Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would try to place chemical, biological or nuclear weapons into some of the more than six million containers that arrive in the United States from overseas each year.

"I`m not prophesying anything," Mr. Bonner said in an interview. "But I do have concern that we need to have this security system in place as fast as we possibly can." He said "the system of containerized shipping was vulnerable to terrorist exploitation."

"And you don`t have to take my word for it," he added. "Every national security expert I`ve heard has come to the same conclusion."

The issue of cargo security has become increasingly contentious on Capitol Hill. Many prominent lawmakers from coastal states have accused the administration of failing to provide the money to safeguard ports from terrorist attacks and to prevent terrorists from using cargo ships to transport weapons.

Tom Ridge, the homeland security secretary, who will announce many of the details of the expanded inspection program in a visit Thursday to Port Elizabeth, N.J., said that "identifying and dealing with high-risk containers at the earliest possible point protects the entire international supply chain and all of the world`s major seaports."

He said the posting of customs inspectors abroad, a 17-month-old program known as the Container Security Initiative, had "emerged as a formidable tool for protecting us from the threat of terrorism."

In the first phrase of the program, the Customs Service, which has since been merged into the Homeland Security Department, opened negotiations with foreign governments representing the world`s 20 largest cargo ports, as measured by shipments to the United States, to permit American inspectors to be stationed permanently in those ports.

Administration officials said teams of American inspectors would be at work at almost all of those large ports — a list that includes Antwerp, Genoa, Hamburg, Hong Kong, Rotterdam, Shanghai, Singapore, Tokyo and Yokohama — by the end of the year.

Mr. Ridge signed an agreement today with the prime minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra, who is visiting Washington, to allow American inspectors to work the giant Thai port of Laem Chabang, which is No. 20 on the list.

But while those 20 foreign ports represent almost two-thirds of the containerized cargo bound for the United States, officials said there was mounting worry that Al Qaeda might try to make use of cargo containers passing through other, smaller ports, especially in Muslim nations where the terrorist group has a strong following.

In the new phase of the program, Mr. Bonner said, the Bush administration would place teams in an additional 20 to 25 foreign seaports, with the ports to be chosen on the basis of both cargo volume and their strategic location in nations or regions where terrorism is believed to be a special threat.

"We will be expanding to important parts of the Islamic world," he said. "We will be looking more strategically."

Administration officials said that the Malaysian government had already agreed to join the program, and that negotiations would begin soon in earnest with both Dubai and Turkey, which are also expected to sign on quickly.

The Department of Homeland Security has already placed 130 inspectors overseas as part of the first phase of the program, with another 170 in training to join them. Department officials said more than $100 million had already been committed to setting up the program.

Mr. Bonner said foreign governments were eager to allow the American inspectors into their ports, if only because it meant that cargo shipped from their ports would face no special delays for inspection when it arrived in the United States. Governments that refuse to join the program would risk having their cargo shipments held up on arrival in this country.

Foreign governments that agree to join the program are required to provide the American inspectors with high-level detection equipment, including radiation monitors that would be used to detect nuclear devices or the components of radioactive weapons.

Mr. Bonner said that while the United States had no intention of buying detection equipment for use in foreign seaports, the administration had asked the World Bank to consider how to help foreign governments raise the money for it.

Under the program, the American teams are expected to carry out inspections of a small sample of cargo containers that raise suspicion — because their shippers are unknown, because their contents are in question or for some other reason. Each team is expected to have about five members.

At the news conference on Thursday, Mr. Ridge is also expected to announce the distribution of $170 million in federal grants to strengthen port security around the country, most of it directed to state and local governments, and $30 million for research and development on cargo security.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 12, 2003
Downward Spiral in the Mideast

As soon as the new Middle East peace initiative was announced, it was clear that violence by its opponents would follow. Less clear was whether those who have backed the road map would have the political courage to withstand the assault.

The deadliest blows so far have come from Palestinian terrorists. Yesterday, a Hamas suicide bomber killed at least 16 people and wounded nearly 100 on a rush-hour bus in central Jerusalem.

But the gravest political damage is being done by Israel`s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, whose reflexive military responses to terror threatens to undermine the authority of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate new Palestinian prime minister. Ignoring strong pleas from Washington, Mr. Sharon has now twice ordered Israeli forces to rocket cars carrying suspected Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip.

Challenging the new Palestinian leadership to take over security responsibility for Gaza is one of the first concrete tests of the road map. Sending in Israeli forces as if nothing had changed needlessly damages the credibility of Mr. Abbas and of the whole Bush peace plan. If it is not evident to Mr. Sharon by now that military reprisals alone can never bring Israel security from suicide bombers, the White House must do all it can to help him understand.

Nobody expects Israel to tolerate terror against its people. But terror can be more effectively rooted out if responsible Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas are strengthened, not undermined. It is easy to see why Hamas would like to make Mr. Abbas look irrelevant. But Israel should be doing all it can to strengthen his hand because in the long run that is in Israel`s own interest.

For years, Israelis rightly complained about Yasir Arafat`s equivocating attitude toward terrorism. The Bush administration has acted on those complaints and worked hard to marginalize Mr. Arafat. As a result, a far more credible figure, Mr. Abbas, is now the Palestinian prime minister. Meeting with Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon in Jordan last week, Mr. Abbas bravely uttered the unambiguous words Mr. Arafat seemed chronically unable to pronounce. He renounced "terror against the Israelis wherever they may be," a phrase that included soldiers and settlers. Such forthright language was encouraging, though language alone will not be enough. Now Mr. Abbas must be given a chance to follow up his words with effective police action.

The obvious place for him to start is Gaza, where Hamas is based and where the Palestinian Authority`s security forces are strongest. To build a Palestinian political consensus against terror, Mr. Abbas needs to show his people that his conciliatory words have brought a change in Israeli behavior. Regrettably, Mr. Sharon`s latest actions demonstrate just the opposite.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data
Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A01


A key component of President Bush`s claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program -- its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger -- was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.

The CIA`s failure to share what it knew, which has not been disclosed previously, was one of a number of steps in the Bush administration that helped keep the uranium story alive until the eve of the war in Iraq, when the United Nations` chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the claim was based on fabricated evidence.

A senior intelligence official said the CIA`s action was the result of "extremely sloppy" handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration`s case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. But, the official added, "It is only one fact and not the reason we went to war. There was a lot more."

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq`s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

As the controversy over Iraq intelligence has expanded with the failure so far of U.S. teams in Iraq to uncover proscribed weapons, intelligence officials have accused senior administration policymakers of pressuring the CIA or exaggerating intelligence information to make the case for war. The story involving the CIA`s uranium-purchase probe, however, suggests that the agency also was shaping intelligence on Iraq to meet the administration`s policy goals.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), former chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a candidate for president, yesterday described the case as "part of the agency`s standard operating procedure when it wants to advance the information that supported their [the administration`s] position and bury that which didn`t."

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA`s envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy`s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador`s report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.

"This gent made a visit to the region and chatted up his friends," a senior intelligence official said, describing the agency`s view of the mission. "He relayed back to us that they said it was not true and that he believed them."

Thirteen months later, on March 8, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, informed the U.N. Security Council that after careful scrutiny of the Niger documents, his agency had reached the same conclusion as the CIA`s envoy. ElBaradei deemed the documents "not authentic," an assessment that U.S. officials did not dispute.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation have described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in Niger. The documents had been sought by U.N. inspectors since September 2002 and they were delivered by the United States and Britain last February.

The President`s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of nongovernment experts that is reviewing the handling of Iraq intelligence, is planning to study the Niger story and how it made its way into Bush`s State of the Union address on Jan. 28. In making the case that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program, Bush declared that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That same month, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice also mentioned Iraq`s alleged attempts to buy uranium, and the story made its way into a State Department "fact sheet" as well.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Government Reform Committee and a leading administration critic, wrote the president June 2 asking why Bush had included the Niger case as part of the evidence he cited against Iraq. "Given what the CIA knew at the time, the implication you intended -- that there was credible evidence that Iraq sought uranium from Africa -- was simply false," Waxman said.

The CIA`s decision to send an emissary to Niger was triggered by questions raised by an aide to Vice President Cheney during an agency briefing on intelligence circulating about the purported Iraqi efforts to acquire the uranium, according to the senior officials. Cheney`s staff was not told at the time that its concerns had been the impetus for a CIA mission and did not learn it occurred or its specific results.

Cheney and his staff continued to get intelligence on the matter, but the vice president, unlike other senior administration officials, never mentioned it in a public speech. He and his staff did not learn of its role in spurring the mission until it was disclosed by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on May 6, according to an administration official.

When the British government published an intelligence document on Iraq in September 2002 claiming that Baghdad had "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the former ambassador called the CIA officers who sent him to Niger and was told they were looking into new information about the claim, sources said. The former envoy later called the CIA and State Department after Bush`s State of the Union speech and was told "not to worry," according to one U.S. official.

Later it was disclosed that the United States and Britain were basing their reports on common information that originated with forged documents provided originally by Italian intelligence officials.

CIA Director George J. Tenet, on Sept. 24, 2002, cited the Niger evidence in a closed-door briefing to the Senate intelligence committee on a national intelligence estimate of Iraq`s weapons programs, sources said. Although Tenet told the panel that some questions had been raised about the evidence, he did not mention that the agency had sent an envoy to Niger and that the former ambassador had concluded that the claims were false.

The Niger evidence was not included in Secretary of State Colin L. Powell`s Feb. 5 address to the Security Council in which he disclosed some intelligence on Iraq`s alleged weapons programs and links to al Qaeda because it was considered inaccurate, sources said.

Even so, the Voice of America on Feb. 20 broadcast a story that said: "U.S. officials tell VOA [that] Iraq and Niger signed an agreement in the summer of 2000 to resume shipments for an additional 500 tons of yellow cake," a reference to the uranium. The VOA, which is financed by the government but has an official policy of editorial independence, went on to say that there was no evidence such shipments had taken place.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

WP Kommentar von heute. Man kann richtig sehn, wie die Geschichte weitere Kreise zieht, nur die Welt als Ursprung einer Amerika-kritischen Haltung ist wohl äußerst ungeeignet.

A different, more subtle problem of media imperfection surfaced on the Guardian`s Web site on June 4. In a citation that originated with Germany`s Die Welt, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was quoted as claiming that Washington had gone to war because Iraq "swims on a sea of oil." Pentagon critics quickly winged that item around the globe on the Internet. But the Guardian soon established what Wolfowitz had actually said -- that because Iraq "floats on a sea of oil," economic pressure could not work there -- and pulled the item from the Web site. In the newspaper`s June 7 edition, an ombudsman focused on translation and hasty editing as factors in the egregious error.

But that error also neatly fits into the stereotypes of Wolfowitz and the administration`s motivations in Iraq put forth for months by the Guardian`s editorialists, the German media at large and critics in the United States. With that picture firmly in mind, the original story seems to have been "too good to check" for too many.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47177-2003Jun…

[Joerver]

Hillary und kein Ende. Am ersten Tag sollen 200 000 Bücher verkauft worden sein.

More Hype Than Hillary


By Richard Cohen

Thursday, June 12, 2003; Page A39


Hillary Clinton has let us down. In her book and in countless TV interviews, she`s turned aside intrusive questions about her marriage by asserting a "zone of privacy." That`s fine for her. But what we wanted was a zone of certainty.

There can be no such thing, of course. After all, marriage -- which is what the incredible interest in her book is about -- is among the most uncertain of endeavors. We all seek rules, and it would have been nice of her to supply them. I suspect that it`s not just that she wouldn`t. I suspect she couldn`t.

When she first learned about Monica Lewinsky, Clinton says, she was deeply hurt and angry. She thought about leaving her husband -- "It certainly crossed my mind," she told Barbara Walters -- but didn`t, and ultimately their relationship was resumed. They have so much to talk about.

This is not news. We all knew she had to be hurt -- or, if not hurt, then mortified. A piece of her husband`s most personal life, his fantasy life actually, was on the Internet, placed there by a vengeful Congress as part of a smarmy impeachment proceeding. The material had been gathered by Ken Starr, a good man gone wrong -- as unable to restrain his pursuit of Bill Clinton as Bill Clinton was of women.

The craze for Hillary Clinton`s book -- a Harry Potterish demand -- has nothing to do with her failed health care plan or with government policy. It has to do with a marriage -- a mess of a marriage, maybe, or a very strong one, again maybe. We want her to answer some questions: Does cheating matter? Do you stay? Do you go? What constitutes love and what constitutes commitment, and if it`s okay to stick around for the sake of the kids, then is it equally okay to stick around for the sake of a presidency? Please, Hillary, what are the rules?

Posted: Zone of Privacy.

The first time I saw Hillary Clinton was at an event in New Hampshire during Bill`s first presidential campaign. I had heard so much about her, this avatar of the modern woman -- a lawyer, an activist and bright as could be. Bill was speaking. Her eyes were intently on him. When he joked, she laughed. When he made a point, she nodded. I was disappointed. Just like Nancy Reagan, I thought.

But what could I have expected? She had a role to play. She was constricted by circumstances. What was she supposed to do when hearing Bill tell a joke for the fifth time that day? Not laugh? It didn`t matter how smart she was and how good a lawyer she was and even if she disagreed with what her husband was saying, there were things she had to do -- and she did them.

My naive expectations for Hillary had to collide with reality. So it was, too, with feminists who wanted her to be what they wanted her to be. But like her, they were unsure. She should have left her marriage -- be strong. No, she had to salvage her husband`s administration and the feminist issues it championed -- be strong. On the other hand, social conservatives knew what to make of her because they know precisely who they are, but not what century they`re living in.

To all of them, Hillary kept moving in and out of roles. First lady? Presidential aide? Loyal wife? Abused spouse? Future presidential candidate? Please, Hillary, tell us who you are.

But how can she know? Why should she know better than the rest of us? Can she trace the compromises, first one "other" woman then another, the awful scenes, the watery-eyed pleas for forgiveness -- the reluctant nod of the head, the embrace, the urge to put the present so far back in the past it seems to have predated the marriage itself. And no longer matters.

Oh, to know yourself. Oh, to know your marriage. Oh, to always know your motives, to embrace your weaknesses -- the stuff that really makes you scared -- to come to terms with the mess you have made of your life, to admit you have broken the rules you once set for yourself. Is this what we expected from Hillary Clinton?

Hillary did what she had to do. For her $8 million book advance, she revealed what we already knew. As for the rest, some of it she will not tell and some of it she cannot tell and some of it, as it is for us all, she simply does not know anymore. Her zone of privacy contains many secrets, but one of them -- surely -- is uncertainty.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Top 11 reasons Paul Wolfowitz admitted while speaking in Singapore that the war was about oil.
11. Delirious from SARS-like Hubris Virus.
10. Ever cooperative television networks suggested that he make the admission overseas at the height of the Martha Stewart indictment frenzy.
9. Needed to offer assurances to Asian businessmen that the United States would not attack the ballistically, radiologically, chemically, biologically and conventionally fortified dictator of oil-poor North Korea.
8. "Find-and-Replace" feature in Word failed to change one instance of "oil" into "freedom."
7. Iran isn`t nervous enough.
6. Wants a Tory at Number 10 Downing Street.
5. Only a few thousand people died for all that oil. It seems pretty equitable, why not take some credit?
4. Wolfowitz`s doctrine of preemption demands that he make the case against the administration before Congress begins its investigation.
3. Hoping to mitigate the impact of his earlier admission that WMD were just the bureaucratic justification for the war.
2. One too many Singapore Slings at brunch.
And the number one reason Paul Wolfowitz admitted while speaking in Singapore that the war was about oil:
1. He respects the intelligence of Asian security summit attendees, not so the American People.

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/


Da ich schon auf der Seite bin nochmals der Hinweis auf die Unheimliche Geschichte Von Tony, Bush und dem heiligen Gral. Eine Flash -Animation

ANSCHAUEN:

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/oily_grail1.…

[Joerver]

Die abläufe sind doch bei und ähnlich.

The Begetting
Martha Stewart, book burning, Howell Raines, and Michael Powell: hate begetting hate, lies begetting lies, fear begetting fear
By Jeff Koopersmith

June 6, 2003 -- I am not clear where the America I once knew has gone.

Am I the only one?

Yesterday I received a note from an old friend who has married and lived in Paris for the past decade with her wonderful husband, who had also become a close friend during my time in 1980s New York City.

We had lost touch, and I was surprised to learn that both of them were considering leaving their much-loved City of Lights because of pervasive and widespread anti-Semitism -- a tragedy about which I have heard whispers, but never realized had metastasized to such extent that it might force a French citizen and his Francophile American wife to consider leaving France for good.

I wrote back, warning them that they might not find America the gentle place it too once was. Instead of finding compassion and a dedication to fundamental fairness, my two old friends might notice a new breed of antagonism, spurred by the "mainstream" media and aimed at anything and anyone who does not conform to the White Christian Neoconservative mold.

As many of you may realize, after thinking it through, this nation has been on a headstrong plunge into unforgiving notions for longer than I have been angry about it.

Most recently I have written about this new American atmosphere: book burning, figurative cross burning, and a kind of religious persecution now seeping, ever so slowly, from the right.

The latest victim is Hillary Clinton, who has written an insightful and much-awaited history of her life in Arkansas and Washington and, in return, has become the focus of ridicule for offering that she did not know "at the appropriate time" about Bill Clinton`s problem with Monica Lewinsky. The news media is in essence calling her a liar and burning her and her book -- because she forgave her husband Bill.

Are we all so dimwitted that we should allow the mainstream media to treat us as unthinking androids interested only in the private grief of husband and wife?

Shouldn`t we also learn about the academic and political Hillary Clinton? The mother Hillary Clinton? The friend and now US Senator Hillary Clinton?

For those of you who cannot take the time, or do not have the money, to purchase this history, I think it important that FOX News, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC consider spending more time looking at the substance of her work rather than the scandal.

Are we all somehow at fault -- coconspirators of a sort?

Newspapers, television broadcasters, and talk radio producers tell me we must be. They tell me that we Americans subsist on scandal and that this is why they offer it -- in such sumptuous quantity.

Yesterday, the 5th of June 2003, the news media was focused on several stories pitched as follows that prove my point:

1. Martha Stewart`s indictment for lying to federal prosecutors (where was the word "alleged"?)
2. When Hillary Clinton knew that Bill was "cheating"
3. The resignation of New York Times editor Howell Raines as a "victim" of Jayson Blair (when in fact he was his own worst enemy)
4. The ruling by the FCC that the few corporations that control everything we read, hear, or see can now become fewer.

So what about Martha Stewart?

I can tell you this much: she is in blistering hot water.

The prosecutor heading this case is tough and very successful, and incredibly involved also in prosecuting those thugs who are caught up in terrorizing our country. He is hard-boiled-good at his job. What Mr. Comey`s personal interest in the case if any are, other than justice, I do not know. But there is a nagging feeling, even among the New Yorkers I know who intensely dislike her, that Ms. Stewart is being held up as a dreadful example. I can also tell you that early on, colleagues and I approached Ms. Stewart`s staff warning her that her opening legal advice and machinations were ill-advised. They may still well be.

Certainly Ms. Stewart could have settled this matter easily and comfortably at the start. Whether she was or was not involved in a so-called cover-up is unimportant now. She has been indicted for same -- and in today`s America that is nearly tantamount to trial and conviction by the news media -- a fresh and vicious news media progeny of Clinton scandals and journalistic zeal to please power brokers and the power itself.

I see Ms. Stewart has begun to fight back -- in a most ill-advised manner. She has published a new web site -- a cheap and silly try to make us believe she is innocent.

She should fire whoever came up with this idea -- and quick.

Instead, she should be litigating -- viciously -- against those that have lynched her all along and would lynch her down the road. This does not include the prosecutors. After all, they are merely doing their jobs as they view them. However, one must consider what they might have done had people come to her defense, rather than to cut her throat.

And so must she consider this.

Ms. Stewart`s case is particularly poignant. I listened to Don Imus speaking with Anna Quindlen about it yesterday. Imus -- no stranger to scandal and scandalmongering -- seemed not-so-surprised that Quindlen first skewered Stewart and then backed away, saying that she had begun "to feel sorry for her" only yesterday afternoon. (I must say, though, that at least Ms. Quindlen -- unlike most of her associates -- stuck to her guns in her admiration of Mrs. Clinton no matter the pressure from Imus and his colleagues and imitators to "give her up.")

Ms. Stewart should look to Leona Helmsley for advice. Perhaps she should have looked to her long ago, before the fables about her meanness and voraciousness unfairly took hold. She could have done something about it. This is what happened to Mrs. Helmsley as well. She set her own stage for public destruction. It seems Ms. Stewart has done the same.

Yet, in those famous words, have WE no sense of decency?

Already the tabloid press -- and I include the New York Times, for the moment at least, and other newspapers of record -- have begun to try and convict Ms. Stewart. This follows the earlier trying and convicting, by media, of O.J. Simpson, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Gary Condit, Eric Alterman, Sidney Blumenthal for his work "The Clinton Wars", and now Hillary Clinton again.

And who are the hangmen? The usual suspects -- none of them free from their own transgressions: Bill O`Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Isikoff, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Howell Raines, Chris Matthews, Chris Hitchens, Michael Savage, John Broder, Dennis Prager, Neal Boortz, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Michael Reagan, the entire "cast" on the FOX News Channel, half the writers on the Washington Post, Mancow, and the latest disgrace, former losing congressman and House Manager wannabe Joe Scarborough -- a veritable font of right-wing hate-peddling whom Don Imus seems to have adopted over the past week.

Let us also turn to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell, the Bush-grimacing little-boy pouter and spawn of Secretary of State Colin Powell, who yesterday, delivered -- straight-faced -- a series of fabrications so extraordinary about his decision to give the few companies owning 80% of everything in the media even further control, and so blatantly that Senator Barbara Boxer herself seemed briefly stunned mute.

You will not see the media hang Michael Powell. After all, he is their personal point man in Washington. If he were anyone else, he would have been thrown out long ago for being such an obvious instrument of the powerful.

Lastly, there comes Howell Raines.

Many of you know that I have been after Arthur Sulzberger and his son for more than five years to dispose of Raines. My anger with Howell Raines had nothing, of course, to do with Jayson Blair. It had to do with far worse: Raines` one-man necktie party aimed at Bill and Hillary Clinton. It had to do with his "Alabammie" roots and the fact that despite his protestations to the contrary Raines couldn`t extricate himself from a cracker society that produced and still produces some of the most irresponsible people in history: the remnants of the racist, chauvinist Deep South.

My anger had to do with allowing publication of lies by shallowly prepared writers like Jeff Gerth, and the windbag Pulitzer Committee member William Safire -- both of whom lied over and over again knowingly about the Clintons.

It had to do with David Broder, his son John, and other zealous members of the Times` "Get Clinton Gang" who helped destroy that newspaper over the past near-decade. Read what I wrote, in 1998, about Raines, Gerth and Broder.

Raines also presided over misreporting the biggest fraud in the nation`s history: the unprecedented theft of small investors` and senior citizens` lifetime savings in the stock markets -- particularly the NASDAQ. His stewardship, or lack thereof, allowed the Times to join the rest in "missing" every sign that the system was gamed and that the country was being hoodwinked in the hundreds of billions -- until it was far too late. All one need do is search the archives of the Times business section to recognize this.

What Raines never understood was the true foundation of liberal and progressive thought -- and that the New York Times, whose foundation rested there, was being smashed by his tenancy. The description, the very definition, of "liberal" always parenthetically contains the adjectives "thoughtful" and "compassionate," "wise," and "forward-thinking."

Somehow, Raines and the Times lost this for fear or being labeled just for what it was.

Hopefully, the return of Mr. Joseph Lelyveld, the Times` former editor, will right some wrongs.

We can always pray.

What are we to do?

Shall we hide quivering in our liberal closets all the longer? Or shall we get out pens and paper and begin to write -- to editors, to sponsors, to Congress and to George W. Bush. Shall we tell them we are tired of character assassination and lies? Shall we tell them, with all due respect, to stop -- and damn the ratings and circulation?

If they do, we`ll get used to it.

True?

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030606Koop.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JEFF KOOPERSMITH is a political consultant, opinion research authority, policy analyst, and self-described "renegade lobbyist."

[Joerver]

If We Knew Where It Was -- Why Don`t We Know Where It Is?
By John Cory
TO correspondent in Saudi Arabia
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 June 2003

I am not an educated man, and there are plenty of folks who will tell you that I am not all that smart either. But I have a few questions about this WMD thing over in Iraq.

Now I know a lot of smart people are writing about this, but I thought I would ask my questions in the hope that some of those real smart media people and congressional types would provide some answers. I am fairly certain that they must be asking these same questions. Right?

Here goes:

1.) How is it that if the administration knew that the order had been given to deploy chemical weapons, they did not know where these WMD would be stored?

When the US bribed senior military officers not to defend Baghdad and gave them safe passage out of Iraq, why was the location of these chemical weapons not provided to the US as part of the payoff plan? Could the Iraqi officers deploy WMD without knowing where to go and get them? And remember, it has been reported that Iraq had the capability of deploying WMD within 45 minutes of that command. Someone had to know where to go to obey that command. Didn`t they?

2.) If the Collin Powell telephone intercepts presented to the UN were authentic, why couldn`t the intelligence community trace the location of these intercepts and secure those sites after the invasion of Iraq? And whatever happened to those big missiles he showed us?

3.) How is it that the administration was able to know the whereabouts of Saddam and launch the initial bunker attack that started the war, and yet this "source" within the inner circle of power never provided WMD location data that was crucial not only to safety of the world but to the safety of our military personnel who were about to invade Iraq?

4.) The administration said that the UN could not resume inspections because the threat was imminent and delay was dangerous. Now this same administration says we must be patient because it will take time to find these WMD that they used to know the whereabouts of, but must now guess and search. How is that possible?

Ahmed Chalabi and other sources insist that Saddam Hussein is still alive and hiding in Iraq. It seems to me if that is true, then surely he and his surviving supporters know where to get the remaining WMD and use them against the occupying forces. Or hasn`t that occurred to anyone but me? Are our soldiers in danger?

5.) How is it that a nuclear waste site was left unguarded and subject to looting without regard to possible contamination, even as the US military previously found and guessed this site was part of the "secret" nuclear weapons program?

6.) After the capture of various Iraqi high officials and scientists, how is it that no WMD locations have been revealed thus far? Are these officials so uncooperative and able to resist all interrogation that there is no hope of getting answers?

7.) If as Rumsfeld now claims, Iraq may have destroyed the WMD at the last possible moment in order to embarrass the US, how is it that satellite photos and other intelligence technology failed to notice such large scale efforts? Wouldn`t it take major activity and trailers, and Lord knows what else, to destroy the vast quantities of chemical weapons supposedly in stock? And how were these destroyed? Burned and incinerated? Would not the air quality samples around Iraq reflect these chemicals and toxic substances? What about soil and water samples? Didn`t we have air sensors deployed with our troops to detect and warn about poisons in the air?

8.) Why is the US not interested in casualty statistics in Iraq?

It would seem to me that the large numbers of Iraqi military personnel unaccounted for would be of prime interest in the occupation - I mean- reconstruction of Iraq. Knowing how many dead soldiers subtracted from the initial troop strength reports should provide an idea of the size of possible resistance to the proposed US interim government. It might also indicate the length of continued US involvement and the necessary troops needed to maintain the peace. But I could be wrong.

Like I said in the beginning, I`m no brain, just a guy with questions. And who knows, maybe the really smart guys like Rove and Rumsfeld will explain everything at the GOP convention. By then I`m sure they will have their act together.

Still, I have to ask: If we knew where it was, why don`t we know where it is?

http://truthout.org/docs_03/060903H.shtml

[CheapThrill]

.


Pinter blasts `Nazi America` and `deluded idiot` Blair

Angelique Chrisafis and Imogen Tilden
Wednesday June 11, 2003
The Guardian


The playwright Harold Pinter last night likened George W Bush`s administration to Adolf Hitler`s Nazi Germany, saying the US was charging towards world domination while the American public and Britain`s "mass-murdering" prime minister sat back and watched.

Pinter, 72, was at the National Theatre in London to read from War, a new collection of his anti-war poetry that had been published in the press in response to events in Iraq.

In conversation on stage with Michael Billington, the Guardian`s theatre critic, Pinter said the US government was the most dangerous power that had ever existed.

The American detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where al-Qaida and Taliban suspects were being held, was a concentration camp.

The US population had to accept responsibility for allowing an unelected president to take power and the British were exhausted from protesting and being ignored by Tony Blair, a "deluded idiot" Pinter hoped would resign.

After a big operation for cancer, Pinter returned to public life last year to speak out against American belligerence. He called it a return from a "personal nightmare" to an "infinitely more pervasive public nightmare".

The playwright said: "The US is really beyond reason now. It is beyond our imagining to know what they are going to do next and what they are prepared to do. There is only one comparison: Nazi Germany.

"Nazi Germany wanted total domination of Europe and they nearly did it. The US wants total domination of the world and is about to consolidate that.

"In a policy document, the US has used the term `full-spectrum domination`, that means control of land, sea, air and space, and that is exactly what`s intended and what the US wants to fulfil. They are quite blatant about it."
Pinter blamed "millions of totally deluded American people" for not staging a mass revolt.

He said that because of propaganda and control of the media, millions of Americans believed that every word Mr Bush said was "accurate and moral".

The US population could not be let off scot-free for putting the country under the control of an "illegally elected president - in other words, a fake".

He asked: "What objections have there been in the US to Guantanamo Bay? At this very moment there are 700 people chained, padlocked, handcuffed, hooded and treated like animals. It is actually a concentration camp.

"I haven`t heard anything about the US population saying: `We can`t do this, we are Americans.` Nobody gives a damn. And nor does Tony Blair." Pinter added: "Blair sees himself as a representative of moral rectitude. He is actually a mass murderer. But we forget that - we are as much victims of delusions as Americans are."

In a British society where people were increasingly encouraged not to use their brains, the only way to protest was by "thought, intelligence and solidarity".


· Michael Billington was last night voted theatre critic of the year in a survey of theatregoers for the website whatsonstage.com.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,975048,00.htm…

[Joerver]

Published on Monday, June 9, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
The Real Theory Of Everything
Or, War As An Advertising Campaign
by Chris Siebert

Thomas Friedman recently summed up his views on the aftermath of the war in Iraq with an essay in the New York Times called "A Theory Of Everything".

As with much of what Friedman writes, this column was a tour de force in the field of selective history. In order to correct the record (the Times needs all the help it can get), here is a fairly short alternative theory of everything, which attempts to fill in what Friedman left out:

In The Beginning, Empire

For centuries of human history, empires come and go. About 500 years ago, the British empire expands to the new world, colonizing it for centuries while enslaving millions of Africans. A rogue element of the British empire breaks off in order to more completely enjoy the fruits of violence. Millions of Africans are kept in brutal bondage for another 90 years, more than 5 decades after Great Britain frees its slaves. It takes a bloody civil war to achieve their liberation.

Tens of millions of immigrants are then brought in from around the world in order to provide cheap labor for the money-making feeding frenzy that results from industrialization. In the meantime, the indigenous population is subjected to what is now known as ethnic cleansing and/or genocide, and reduced to small, shattered groups of people living on a fraction of their former land.

In order to satisfy the appetites of the white men who enslaved the Africans and decimated the indigenous population, a huge swath of Mexico is conquered and annexed, followed by the colonization of Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and numerous south sea islands. Many nations in Latin America and the Caribbean are taken over for years at a time.

In other instances, commercial interests are sated by the installation and maintenance of authoritarian regimes around the globe. Democratic governments are destroyed in Iran and Chile, and replaced by brutal thugs. Dictatorships are also funded in Cuba, Guatemala, Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Uzbekistan, South Korea, Taiwan, and dozens of other nations. The people in each of these nations, who suffer under brutal authoritarian rule, know who pays for the boot on their neck, even though most American people do not. Those who suffer under US-backed dictators learn to hate the nation that props up their tormentors.

The People Fight Back

Still, the worst aspects of this runaway piece of European empire, known as the United States of America, are fought by many of it`s own inhabitants. Millions of women, African-Americans, Latino-Americans, gay men and women, and progressive white men are inspired by the wonderful ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and attempt to make American reality fit the ideals.

They fight and die for the end of slavery, the right of women to vote, the direct election of senators, the progressive income tax, the end of child labor, the 40-hour work week, the weekend, the right to form a union and bargain collectively, social security, the end of fascism in Europe and Japan, the creation of the United Nations, the right of African-Americans to vote, medicare, medicaid, the minimum wage, public health and public housing, environmental protection and gay rights.

But the evil forces (for what else can we call slaveholders and the mass-murderers of the indigenous people?) in America fight back. After slavery is ended, the conservative forces fight back and win for 100 years, in the form of Jim Crow. Then, when Jim Crow is finally defeated in the 1960`s, the conservative forces fight back yet again, leaving the Democratic party and electing Ronald Reagan and two George Bush`s. This brings us to the era that we live in now.

The conservative project of ending 100 years of progressive social legislation, started under Reagan, is continued under a new White House resident, selected in a judicial coup: George "Dubya" Bush. This program is unpopular, and includes the repeal of much of the Progressive era (the progressive income tax), the New Deal (social security, collective bargaining and the United Nations) and the Great society (medicare and medicaid, environmental protection and voting rights-see Florida, 2000).

Long term trends toward peace, international cooperation, democracy, and environmental protection are seen as a direct threat to the interests of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal, and they try to turn back the clock. The 2 Bush`s bring us 4 wars in 6 years (one every 18 months) against former CIA clients (Manuel Noriega, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein), largely in the hopes of whittling away at "the Vietnam syndrome", i.e. popular opposition to profitable wars of aggression.

War As An Advertising Campaign

This conservative counter-attack wouldn`t stand a chance if it weren`t for the fears of many Americans after 9/11. War is undertaken not in self-defense (since all nation states have return addresses, no nation state threatens the US after the collapse of the Soviet Union), but as an advertising campaign. The product is the 19th century American Empire, the target audience is a select group of only about 50 million scared and/or ignorant Americans (out of a worldwide population of over 6 billion people), and the TV commercial is footage of the US armed forces kicking ass.

Amazingly it works. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cabal invent threats and lie about their policies at home and abroad, from war in Iraq to tax cuts for the rich. 50 million Americans support George Bush, and the remaining 6 billion people on the planet despise and fear him. The international good will gained by the US in the aftermath of 9/11 is completely squandered. American democracy is scaled back, international instability is fomented, and the threat of terrorism increases. The defense and energy industries (led by Bechtel, Halliburton and the Carlyle Group), which run the US government, are pleased, and reap enormous profits.

Progress in our nation and the world is set back decades. But the corporate media compare Bush to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, forgetting that their wars were fought in the midst of massive progressive movements at home and international cooperation (The League of Nations and The United Nations) abroad. The US media is reduced to little more than a cheerleader for war, and becomes the laughing stock of the world, as millions of Americans turn to the BBC for fair and balanced coverage.

But as the Bush team rallies the 50 million Americans that buy it`s product, the rest of the world is mobilized against them. As the old union slogan goes, which side are you on?

Chris Siebert is a blues and jazz piano player and the bandleader for Lavay Smith and her Red Hot Skillet Lickers. He lives in San Francisco when he`s not on tour in the U.S., Canada, or Japan. He can be reached at [e-mail]

###

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Hört sich ziemlich lächerlich an. Da kommt ein amerikanischer Soldat ins Haus. Hinter ihm zwei GI mit Gewehr in Anschlag und erklärt dann in Englisch den Leuten was Demokratie ist. Soll man sich das so vorstellen? Nebenbei durchsuchen sie dann auch noch das haus nach Waffen.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-elect12j…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-elect12j…
THE WORLD



They`re Foot Soldiers for Democracy in Iraq
From the bottom up, neighborhood by neighborhood, the Army is teaching civics.
By Michael Slackman
Times Staff Writer

June 12, 2003

BAGHDAD — U.S. Army Lt. Tom Casey and the rest of the 1st Platoon are combat soldiers, armed and trained to take out enemy fighters. But in recent weeks, their mission has expanded, and now they are trying to help build grass-roots democracy in Iraq .

Casey and his soldiers are like ward leaders, talking politics and representative democracy with residents of the neighborhoods they patrol. When the Americans are not out chasing criminals and confiscating weapons, they and many other soldiers stationed in Iraq are at the forefront of an experiment in nation-building whose success or failure could well be the difference between a successful U.S. occupation of Iraq — and disaster.

The military has created representative councils in smaller cities throughout Iraq but is now concentrating on Baghdad, which could serve as a bellwether for the country.

"You receive no reward for your hard work, but you are helping people," Casey said Wednesday evening to nine would-be Iraqi politicians gathered in a schoolyard in the capital. "You must remember, this is a long, long journey and you will not always make everyone happy."

The crowd listened intently to Casey`s speech before he asked whether anyone had a question. "I have too many questions, not just one," said Hassan Rubaee, leaning forward in his seat.

Trying to explain the principles of representative democracy to people who lived for decades under Saddam Hussein`s tyranny is a complicated mission, especially for soldiers who have a limited understanding of the culture around them and have never been involved in creating a representative government.

In just three weeks, however, they have helped Baghdad`s residents select 56 neighborhood councils. They have about 30 more to go — and hope to have established an interim city council by month`s end.

"We had to task it to the military because, as usual, they are the only guys on the ground and with sufficient numbers," said Lt. Col. P.J. Durmer, who works with the U.S.-led civil administration.

This was not part of the original plan to rebuild Iraq, Durmer said. It evolved a bit at a time, as civil administrators found that Army commanders around the country were independently introducing Iraqis to concepts of democracy. Although an almost spontaneous grass-roots movement was taking hold, plans to start at the top, by creating a national interim government, were floundering. Eventually, the U.S.-led occupation authority said it was abandoning the idea of having Iraqis come together next month to choose a national interim government.

Officials are now trying to push from the bottom up, hoping to accomplish at least three goals: convincing Iraqis that they have not been disenfranchised from having a say in running their own country; creating a farm system that can produce national leaders; and teaching concepts and responsibilities associated with self-rule.

"We are trying to transition to democratic thought," Durmer said. "Saddam ruled by the gun. We are telling them if you accept democracy, you rule by your mind."

As part of the experiment, this city of 5 million residents has been divided into 86 precincts. About three weeks ago, the U.S. Army started sending its soldiers out to help create a neighborhood council in each precinct.

The process is a bit like a school election, where candidates nominate themselves and any adult can then vote. The councils, made up of nine to 25 people depending on the precinct`s size, then select two members to sit on a districtwide council. The district council will select members who ultimately will sit on a city council.

Each elected body will serve as an advisory board to the U.S.-led occupation authorities.

On Wednesday, the soldiers of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment headed to the Jameela neighborhood in the sprawling Shiite Muslim ghetto formerly known as Saddam City.

When the soldiers arrived, the nine members of the new neighborhood council were seated and chatting among themselves.

Casey`s first action was to have everyone sign forms disavowing any allegiance to Hussein`s Baath Party and a statement swearing obedience to all laws set by the occupation authority.

All nine present in Jameela signed their forms. Then it was time to select two people to serve at the district council level.

"This is the first time we are meeting," Rubaee said. "How can we elect or nominate others? We don`t know each other."

Casey thought for a moment and said everyone had two minutes to introduce themselves and say why they wanted the job. None of the nine hesitated.

"I am Ahmed Hassan. Five members of my family were executed. I came here in order to help this neighborhood."

"Assad Mohammed Tawfik. I worked for 20 years in the Ministry of Trade. My main objective is to relieve the agony of the people of this neighborhood."

"Ibrahim Kadhim. I could not be appointed a teacher because I was not a member of the Baath Party so I worked as a merchant. I`d like to work on this committee to help set aside the past."

Then it was time to vote. Casey said the vote would be by secret ballot, and everyone would cast votes for two people.

Rubaee came out the clear victor, but there was a tie for second place so Casey held a runoff. The two runners-up tied again. So the group decided that all three would go to the next level.

"The community has spoken," Durmer said.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ashrawi…
COMMENTARY

A Moment Lost
Sharon again dashes the hopes of Israelis and Palestinians as another cycle of violence erupts
By Hanan Ashrawi

June 12, 2003

The Israeli missiles that rained down on Gaza from Apache gunships Tuesday may have missed Hamas political leader Abdulaziz Rantisi, but they certainly had more than one target in sight.

The tragic toll of 230 Palestinian victims assassinated by Israel in such a manner since September 2000 includes more than 100 bystanders, including 17 women and 28 children.

Assassination as a political tool is a particularly repugnant form of extrajudicial execution that inflicts tremendous pain and anguish while generating spirals of revenge. We are now in a new cycle of violence, clearly evident in the bus bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday followed by even more helicopter attacks in Gaza City.



The assassination attempt on Rantisi, with its particular timing and the prominence of its target, will ripple out to targets beyond Gaza City.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is sending a message to his hard-line constituency within and outside the Likud Party that he can be just as brutal as before, and that neither the "road map" nor President Bush`s involvement will force a change in the Israeli government`s policy of violence and assassination.

The fragile domestic dialogue among the different Palestinian various factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is one other target. These groups have been seeking to arrive at an agreement for the cessation or suspension of violent, armed resistance that would enable the Palestinian Authority to fulfill its obligations under the road map.

Simultaneously, Tuesday`s missiles were also aimed at the credibility of, and potential support for, newly appointed Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas and his government.

After the attack, Abbas would not only be seen as attempting to disarm the resistance — and hence render it vulnerable to continued Israeli military assaults — but his whole political program would be placed in serious doubt as one of capitulation rather than peace.

The political "assassination" of Abbas is further enhanced by the converse effect of bringing Hamas to ascendancy with its program of armed resistance. The Palestinian public would move from Abbas and gravitate to those factions that could respond in kind to Sharon`s logic of violence and victimization of civilians.

The much-celebrated road map, meanwhile, has received a direct hit as a possible political alternative to the lethal dynamic of military occupation and armed resistance.

The business-as-usual attitude of Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Sharon has made a mockery of all those who saw in the Aqaba summit a departure from such dangerous and adventurous policies.

Bush, who is among those feeling the flak, was a target that Sharon should devoutly have wished to miss. Having finally taken the plunge into the dangerous waters of Middle East peacemaking, the last thing that Bush needed was a stab in the back from his bosom buddy, the erstwhile "man of peace" Sharon.

Arab leaders who placed high stakes on the road map`s success and the renewed vigor of U.S. engagement in the post-Iraq-war era are also smarting from Tuesday`s blow.

Egypt, which hosted Palestinian dialogue meetings and dispatched intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to support Palestinian steps in the direction of the road map, was directly affronted.

Jordan, as the host of the summit and a major supporter of the road map, was no less affected.

The circle of the slighted also includes Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other U.S. allies in the Arab world that banded together in support of the latest peace initiative.

Sharon may have scored some additional points with the Israeli settler extremists, who are a destabilizing element of violence and lawlessness within Israel as well as a force for the perpetuation of the conflict. And he may have shown some of his extreme-right colleagues and rivals in Likud more of his one-upmanship, in the same way as he may have outdone his racist coalition partners.

To the rest of the world, however, he has once again revealed his true agenda and ideological orientation — reckless violence, shortsightedness and a total disregard for human lives and the imperatives of peace.

So now it seems that Sharon and Hamas and other Palestinian opposition factions are conducting their own type of lethal dialogue over the heads of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians — who, ultimately, are the real targets.

It is both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples who have been on the receiving end of the violence unleashed by decades of military occupation and irresponsible policies of subjugation and intimidation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hanan Ashrawi is a Palestinian Authority legislator and Palestinian spokeswoman.
--------------------

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

A father`s legacy
Ruth Rosen
Thursday, June 12, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/12/ED27…" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/12/ED27…


MY FATHER always called himself a conservative Republican. "But I`m still for the little guy," he`d say, in an accent and manner that reminded everyone of Archie Bunker. For 40 years, he practiced law in an urban storefront office, typed his own briefs on a 1939 Royal, and helped poor people get their day in court. For 40 years, he voted for Republican candidates.

The child of immigrants, he passionately loved this country, its Constitution and its rule of law. When I was a little girl, he took me to the U.S. Supreme Court and there, in that awesome chamber, he told me that the most important question a judge should ask is: What`s fair?

I never forgot that simple question.

Later, in the 1960s, he wondered where he`d gone wrong in raising me. By the time he voted for Barry Goldwater in 1964, I had already worked in the civil rights movement and marched against the war in Vietnam.

What did he expect? He had taught me to worship the ideals he cherished. So I was outraged by injustice and by the deception practiced by political leaders. Though we vehemently disagreed about the Vietnam War, I thought he`d done a fine job teaching me to respect our democratic traditions.

His own disillusionment came a few years later. He had voted for Richard Nixon and then Watergate shattered his political faith. After that, he never voted again.

That`s when our political views grew closer. He`d call from across the country to express his outrage at the Iran-Contra scandal. He`d write and tell me that the United States had no right to ignore the World Court`s decisions. "No one is above the law, not even this this country."

Now, 10 years after his death, I can still imagine what he`d be thinking and saying today. He`d sharply criticize the U.S. Supreme Court for selecting a president; he`d excoriate President Bush for rejecting the International Criminal Court.

He would be especially outraged that prisoners are languishing in a lawless netherworld at a naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. "No right to a lawyer? No right to hear charges? And now they`re going to hold secret military tribunals? This is not the country I loved."

He would definitely attack the U.S. Patriot Act. "Libraries have to tell the government what you read? Wiretaps on citizens without judicial review? And now this Ashcroft wants to extend his powers? This is why I hated communism. Doesn`t this man know about the Bill of Rights?"

"And putting John Poindexter in charge of this Pentagon spying machine? My God! The man`s criminal conviction was only overturned on a technicality!

"These people aren`t real conservatives -- they don`t give a damn about the law or democracy."

As was his custom, he`d get pretty worked up. "Giving government funds to religious institutions? What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Why are people letting this government get away with this?"

I would remind him of the Sept. 11 attacks, the al Qaeda terrorist network, and how the government has successfully manipulated and deepened the public`s fears.

But I know how he`d respond: "Even Roosevelt -- and you know how much I disliked him -- tried to get people to overcome their fears. What kind of a president is this?"

"The Cold War ends, we defeat totalitarianism, and this is what we get? What about our civil liberties, our civil rights? What`s the matter with Congress? Why aren`t they doing anything to stop this? You`ve got a lot to do..

. ."

And his words, not for the last time, would remind me where I got this strange notion that all of us -- whatever our political loyalties -- are responsible for the fate of our democracy.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page A - 31

[Joerver]

ZNet | Iraq
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3758&s…
Censorship Of The Press
A Familiar Story For Iraqi`s

by Robert Fisk; The Independent; June 11, 2003

Paul Bremer has ordered his legal department in Baghdad to draw up rules for press censorship. A joke, I concluded, when one of the newly styled Coalition Provisional Authority officials tipped me off last week. But no, it really is true. Two months after "liberating" Iraq, the Anglo- American authorities and their boss Paul Bremer - whose habit of wearing combat boots with a black suit continues to amaze his colleagues - have decided to control the new and free Iraqi press.

Newspapers that publish "wild stories", material deemed provocative or capable of inciting ethnic violence, will be threatened or shut down. It`s for the good of the Iraqi people, you understand. A controlled press is a responsible press - which is exactly what Saddam Hussein used to say about the trashy newspapers his regime produced. It must seem all too familiar to the people of Baghdad. Now let`s be fair. Many stories in the emerging newspapers of Baghdad are untrue. There is no tradition of checking reports, of giving opponents the opportunity to be heard. There are constant articles about the behaviour of American troops. One paper has claimed that US soldiers distributed postcards of naked women to schoolgirls - they even published the pictures, with Japanese script on the cards. Even the most cynical Westerner can see how this kind of lie can stir up sentiment against Iraq`s new foreign occupiers.

"The people of Iraq have fallen," Waleed Rabia, a 19-year-old student, wrote in the new paper Al-Mujaha. "Invaders are in our country. The wild animals of this jungle called a world are trying to rip us apart. We`ve been through hard times under the old regime, but we were better then than we are now ... Look at those girls who are having sex with the Americans in their tanks, or in the bathrooms of the Palestine Hotel ... What about those Muslim girls marrying Christian foreigners? No one can accept this as a true Muslim or true Iraqi."

It isn`t difficult to understand the fury that this kind of article might arouse - and the idea that the Anglo-American presence is as awful as Saddam`s torturers betrays a truly eccentric mind - though it would help if certain Iraqi police officers were not admitting that they were arranging "dates" for US troops.

What the Iraqis need, of course, is journalistic help rather than censorship, courses in reporting - by experienced journalists from real democracies (rather than the version Mr Bremer seems set on creating) - rather than a colonial-style suppression of free speech.

But we`re now hearing that imams in the mosques may be censored if they provoke unrest - this would obviously include the imam of the Rashid Street mosque in Baghdad, outside of which I heard him preaching last week. The Americans must leave, he said. Immediately. Subversive stuff. Definitely likely to provoke violence. So goodbye in due course, I suppose to the Rashid Street imam. And of course, we all know how the first pro-American Iraqi government of "New Iraq" will treat the laws. It will enthusiastically adopt the Western censorship law, just as former colonies almost always take over the repressive legislation of their former imperial masters.

I can obviously see the kind of stories that must be, at the least, discouraged. Take last week`s extraordinary UN announcement - mercifully ignored in most of the Western press - that Afghanistan is once more the world`s Number One producer of opium. The hateful Taliban banned all poppy production under their vicious rule, cutting off the Northern Alliance warlords from their narcotics production. But since America`s "success" in routing the Taliban, the drug barons - the very same Northern Alliance lads who were US allies in the "war on terror" - have gone back into business.

Not one American official dares to comment on this shameful fact. Quite a memorial to the thousands who died in the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001. As for the Iraqis, what lessons are they to draw? If the Americans can let the narco-terrorists rule again in Afghanistan, why should they be more moral in Baghdad where drugs are reappearing for sale on the streets, courtesy - you guessed it - of the Afghan drugs trade. So censor the story.

Then we have the German UN arms inspector Peter Franck telling Der Spiegel magazine that Colin Powell`s evidence of Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction, which he presented to the UN Security Council in February, was merely "a big bluff". The former UN inspector Scott Ritter - who all along told audiences before the war that Saddam had no WMD - appears to have been telling the truth. Saddam, he says, "couldn`t have destroyed weapons of mass destruction without leaving traces". So much for Donald Rumsfeld`s cheerful suggestion that the Iraqi dictator had got rid of his nasties just before the Americans and British staged their illegal invasion. "Britain and the United States should admit they lied," Ritter now suggests. Censor the story.

Out at Baghdad airport, the Americans are now holding 3,000 prisoners without any intention of putting them on trial or charging them with offences. Where is Tariq Aziz, the former deputy prime minister? The Americans say they have him. But we don`t know where. What`s he being asked? About Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction? Or - my own guess - how much he knows about America`s close relations with Saddam after 1978? In fact, Aziz knows far too much about that shameful alliance; after all, he met Donald Rumsfeld several times. One thing`s for sure. There`ll be no trial for Tariq Aziz. Keeping him silent will be the first priority. But that`s not something the Iraqis should learn about. Censor the story.

While we`re still on the subject of Baghdad airport, it`s important to note that American forces at the facility are now coming under attack every night - I repeat, every night - from small arms fire. So are American military planes flying into the airbase. Some US aircrews have now adopted the old Vietnam tactic of corkscrewing tightly down on to the runways instead of risking sniper fire during a conventional final approach. The source is impeccable (it`s within the Third Infantry Division, if the int. boys want to know). But what will that tell the Iraqis? That the Americans cannot keep order? That a resistance movement is well under way? Censor the story.

And what to print? Well, there`s the charnel house of mass graves being discovered every day, the visits to the Saddamite torture rooms, the continued and uproarious memoirs of the man who claims to have been Saddam`s double - anything, in fact, which will remind the people of how awful Saddam truly was and take their mind off what is really being done to their country. Bremer is trying to quick-fix his new "consultative" council of wise Iraqis prior to the famous democratic election which has been briefly postponed. And meanwhile he`s fired a quarter of a million Iraqi soldiers from their jobs - ready, no doubt, to join the nascent resistance movement. Yes, it truly is time for press censorship in Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Robert Fisk is an internationally recognized journalist for the Independent of London. His in-depth reports on the Middle East have provided a much needed contrast to official doctrine and have empowered activists all over the world. He is a regular contributor to ZNet as well as the Nation and other publications

More articles by Robert Fisk and More articles on the Occupation Of Iraq

[Joerver]

[/url]

[CheapThrill]

.


Three cheers for Hollywood: complicit down to the very core

By GIOVANNI FAZIO


Washington, D.C., Spring 2002. An office in the Department of Defense. A scowling, gray-haired man picks up the phone. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld appears agitated.

"Ginny, put me through to the Psy-ops people, the cultural liaison office or whatever the damn thing`s called. You know, the Hollywood office."

"Yes, Mr. Secretary. Please hold."

The phone rings. A voice on the other end says:

"Secretary Rumsfeld, good afternoon, sir. Always an honor."

"Hi, Jim. Look, the C-in-C and I are in the middle of planning a big get-down, and we could really use some help on this one."

"Would you be referring to the Iraq situation, sir?"

"You know I can`t confirm or deny that, Jim. Strictly confidential. Can`t have leaks that this op is good to go, the U.N. namby-pambies will get their shorts in a twist."

"Understood, sir."

"But we do need some help on this weapons-of-mass-destruction issue. Basically the invasion is going to be for the stated reason of removing Saddam`s WMD, but this could get uncomfortable for us. You know, those liberals will start whining about how if these weapons are so awful, how come we`ve got so many of them? Damn fools don`t understand the value of a good deterrent. Anyway, we need to get on message as follows: Axis of Evil WMD bad, U.S. WMD good. So we`re trying to cover all the angles, pull out all the stops. Got any projects on your desk that could help us out?"

"Hang on a second while I take a look . . . "

"By the way, Jim, excellent job with `Black Hawk Down.` Liked the way it kept the collateral damage offscreen."

"Thank you, sir. Now, it seems we do have one request from a project that`s good to go. Called `The Core.` They need some aircraft carrier shots and such, so it`s the usual deal. We get script approval and `advice` in exchange."

"Hmm. What`s it about? `The Gore,` you say? This isn`t about the Florida recount, dammit?!?"

"No, sir! `The Core.` Sci-fi, disaster kinda movie. It`s about what would happen if the magma core of the planet, which is in constant rotation, were to stop spinning. The electromagnetic field would be disrupted, then fall apart. Start with electrical disruptions and lighting storms, end up getting cooked by cosmic radiation. Pretty nasty stuff."

"Wow. Is that even possible?"

"I`m not sure, Mr. Secretary. The film blames it on a secret military experiment in seismic weaponry that disrupted the core`s flow!"

"Oh, yeah, I remember that from my days with `the Gipper.` Remember how the Soviets used that seismic weapon to create those massive earthquakes in Armenia?"

"Ummm, actually that didn`t happen, sir. That was our spin: Black ops. Disinformation. They didn`t really have the capability."

"Then good work, soldier. So, who causes it in the film?"

"Rogue elements of the U.S. military, sir. Ollie North types. But don`t worry. We`ve inserted a line into the script explaining mutually assured destruction, how we had to develop these weapons just in case our enemies did."

"Nothing classified in there, better not be."

"No, sir, strictly fiction. Pretty off-the-wall stuff. Like the rocket-powered drill that the scientists drive to reach the center of the earth is made of an indestructible substance called `unobtainium.` "

"Ha! That`s great. (Laughs.) Maybe that`s what I`ll leak to the Times, tell them that`s what Saddam is stockpiling, a hidden cache of weapons-grade `unobtainium.` Safire will pick it up, next thing you know, the U.N. inspectors will be looking for it! But seriously, I don`t get it, how is this one gonna help us?"

"Well, sir, the method by which the scientists save the world is by detonating a series of atomic warheads in the Earth`s core to `re-start` the flow of magma."
"You`re kidding me."

"No, sir. One thousand megatons detonated. We can slip a line in right here for the lead actor, Aaron Eckhart, to read."

"Yeah, I know him. Kirk Douglas kinda guy, the chin thing."

"How about if we have him say something like `The world`s biggest weapons of mas destruction will help save the planet!` "

"Oh my, I love it. (Laughs.) The environmentalists will go ballistic!"

"Wait till they see the scene where a school of whales assists our carrier fleet in finding the missing scientists."

(Long, raucous, gasping laughter.)

"Also good is a scene where the Golden Gate Bridge gets melted by microwaves during rush hour. It coincides well with our threat-level-orange alerts, you know, with intelligence leaks on how al-Qaeda`s been thinking of targeting the bridge. Scary stuff."

"Well, that`s damn well what we need. Keep `em frightened, at least until the next election`s over! Isn`t there some way we could have terrorists do it, though? Like a microwave ray, or something?"

"No, sir. But Mother Nature`s the enemy here, and the U.S. military kicks her butt."

"Heh, heh, heh. I like it. Add this to `Armageddon,` and soon Joe Sixpack will have a dozen reasons he can think of why we can`t reduce our nuclear capability."
"Hurray for Hollywood, sir."

"You bet. And they call it the `liberal media,` ha! We`ve got them bent over just the way we like them. They wanna play with our toys, they gotta play by our rules. Now, one more thing, about the North Koreans, any chance that, say, maybe the next James Bond movie could . . . "


The Japan Times: June 11, 2003
(C) All rights reserved

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?ff2003061…

[Joerver]

US-Operation "Peninsula Strike"

Mit den Eisernen Pferden ins Dattelpalmendorf

Von Alexander Schwabe

Der Widerstand der Iraker gegen die Besatzer wächst: Konvois geraten in Hinterhalte, ein Apache-Hubschrauber wurde abgeschossen, fast jede Nacht kommt es zu Angriffen auf US-Soldaten. In der größten Militäroperation seit Ende des Krieges versuchen die Amerikaner den irakischen Partisanenkrieg zu ersticken.

Als Donald Rumsfeld am Dienstag der portugiesischen Regierung die Ehre gab, weil diese die amerikanische Kriegspolitik unterstützt hatte, zeigte er sich wieder einmal als nüchterner Hardliner, der die Dinge nicht beschönigt. Während er öffentlich kundtat, den Portugiesen Antonio Vitorino als einen von drei Kandidaten für das Amt des Nato-Generalsekretärs in Erwägung zu ziehen, erreichte ihn die Nachricht, dass irakische Angreifer mit Raketenwerfern einen US-Soldaten getötet hatten.

"Glaube ich etwa, dass das in einem Monat aufhört oder in zwei oder drei?", fragte Rumsfeld sogleich. "Nein!" "Wird das aufhören, wenn zwei oder drei weitere Divisionen in den Irak geschickt werden?" "Nein!" "Es wird Zeit brauchen, um die Überreste des Saddam-Hussein-Regimes auszurotten - und wir beabsichtigen, dies zu tun."

Dies wird weitere Opfer kosten. Am Donnerstag gelang es dem irakischen Widerstand, einen US-Militärhubschrauber vom Typ Apache abzuschießen. Das Zentralkommando in Kuweit teilte mit, beide Piloten seien von amerikanischen Soldaten unverletzt geborgen worden. Die Besatzungen von zwei weiteren Apache-Helikoptern lieferten sich jedoch nahe der Absturzstelle im Westen des Landes Gefechte mit irakischen Kämpfern.

Die Zahl der seit dem Fall Bagdads getöteten US-Soldaten im Irak ist diese Woche auf mindestens 40 gestiegen. Seit Beginn des Krieges fielen 206 Soldaten der Koalition, mehr als 600 wurden verletzt. Die Amerikaner sind dazu übergegangen, eine härtere Gangart gegen den sich immer besser formierenden Widerstand einzulegen: In den vergangenen drei Tagen nahmen sie bei Razzien nördlich der Hauptstadt rund 400 Iraker fest.

Gut zwei Monate nach dem Fall Bagdads hat die Armeeführung mehr als 4000 Soldaten in die Operation "Peninsula Strike" geschickt. Ihr Ziel: den Partisanenkrieg im Keim zu ersticken. "Wir haben mit drei Elementen zu tun", sagt Generalmajor Buford Blount. Er warnt seine Soldaten vor wild gewordenen bewaffneten Marodeuren. Der Kommandeur der Dritten Infanteriedivision macht ferner ehemalige Funktionäre der Baath-Partei als Gefahrenquelle aus: "Sie bezahlen Leute, damit sie uns angreifen." Auch die Fedajin, Saddams paramilitärische Kämpfer, sind nach Einschätzung Blounts weiterhin aktiv.

In der größten Militäraktion seit Ende des Krieges fährt die US-Armee noch einmal alle Geschütze auf: Einheiten der Spezialkampftruppe "Eisernes Pferd" haben mit ihren Panzern Stellung bezogen. Unterstützt von Kampfflugzeugen vom Typ F-15, Kampfhubschraubern, Patrouillenbooten und unbemannten Drohnen dringen Bodentruppen in Ortschaften ein und versuchen, mögliche Fluchtwege abzuschneiden. Jeder, der zu fliehen versucht, wird festgenommen.

Am Mittwoch durchkämmten die schwer bewaffneten Einheiten, darunter auch Fallschirmjäger der 173sten Luftwaffenbrigade, die Umgebung von Balad, rund 60 Kilometer nördlich von Bagdad. Am Donnerstag rückten die Truppen in das zehn Kilometer nördlich gelegene Duluiyah ein.

Die Region gehört zum "Sunniten-Dreieck", dem Kernland der Baath-Partei, wo in den vergangenen zwei Wochen zehn Amerikaner getötet und Dutzende verwundet wurden. Das von Dattelpalmen gesäumte Duluiyah war im Krieg weitgehend verschont geblieben und gilt als Zufluchtsort von Kämpfern, die angeblich nach wie vor bereit sind, für Saddam ihr Leben zu riskieren.

Das Areal, das die Einheiten umzingelt haben, ist etwa 30 Quadratmeilen groß. Es handelt sich um fruchtbares Ackerland innerhalb einer Biegung des Tigris, einer Gegend, in der es fast jede Nacht zu Angriffen auf amerikanische Konvois kommt. Die "New York Times" zitiert Soldaten, denen angeblich regelmäßig die Gewehrkugeln und Granaten der Iraker um die Ohren pfeifen. "Wir können von Glück sagen, dass sie so schlecht schießen", sagt Sergeant John Williams.

Als nun die geballte Truppenmacht aufmarschierte, kam es ebenfalls zu Schießereien. Dabei wurden nach US-Angaben vier Iraker getötet und vier GIs verwundet. Nach Informationen der "New York Times" beklagte sich die Bevölkerung bitter über das harte Vorgehen der Amerikaner. Frauen und Kinder seien von den Soldaten in Handschellen gelegt worden. Ein Mann sei zu Tode geprügelt worden, einer anderer nach einem Herzinfarkt gestorben. Die Beschuldigungen wurden von amerikanischer Seite als "absolut falsch" zurückgewiesen.

Colonel Rick Thomas weiß um die Gefahr, in der sich die US-Truppen im Irak weiterhin befinden. Der Sprecher der US-Armee sagt, "pro-Saddam-elements" verzweifelten zusehends, weil sie nirgends eine Zukunft sehen. Pflichtschuldig Optimismus verbreitend fügt er hinzu: "Ich verspreche Ihnen, sie haben auch im Irak keine Zukunft." Die Jagd nach Saddam und den "most-wanted 55" gehe unvermindert weiter. "Unser Ziel ist es, 55 von 55 zu fassen. Bis jetzt haben wir 30."

Ob die Befriedung des Landes mit der Verhaftung der Top-Funktionäre des ehemaligen Regimes erledigt sein wird, bleibt fraglich. Ahmed Chalabi, Präsident des Irakischen National-Kongresses, sprach jüngst von einem Netzwerk, das Attacken gegen die Besatzer führen könne. "Saddam hatte keine militärische Strategie, um die USA zu stoppen. Aber er hat offenbar einen Plan für die Zeit nach der Niederlage." Saddam, der sich im Irak aufhalte, könne seine "Unterstützer" großzügig finanzieren. Es hat den Anschein, als ob diese für jeden Auftrag dankbar sind.

Seit Wochen greifen Getreue der Baath-Partei und versprengte Saddam-Kämpfer US-Soldaten an. Indem sie Anschläge auf Elektrizitätswerke, Hochspannungsleitungen und Relaisstationen ausüben, heizen sie den Unmut beim Volk an, das weiter auf eine intakte Infrastruktur wartet. Mit den Sabotageakten soll der Eindruck erweckt werden, die Siegermächte schafften es nicht, diese aufzubauen.

In letzter Zeit werden die Angriffe raffinierter. Den Widerständlern gelingt es immer öfter, amerikanische Konvois in Hinterhalte zu locken. Statt gelegentlichen Schießereien hier und dort werden amerikanische Einrichtungen jetzt mit Streufeuer unter Beschuss genommen und mit Raketenwerfern angegriffen. Mit Landminen versuchen Iraker, amerikanische Transporte hochgehen zu lassen. Nach Einschätzung der "Washington Post" hat eine neue Phase der Besatzung begonnen, von amerikanischer Seite eingeleitet durch die Operation "Schlag gegen die Halbinsel" am Tigris.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

How the media might have to cop the blame for Bush`s blushes
June 12 2003

From rushing to report on the no-WMDs scandal, the press has been caught up in the scandal, writes Russ Baker.


The growing scandal over the Bush Administration`s manipulation of intelligence data on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction focuses on the role of the White House. But it doesn`t devote proper attention to the role of the US media in the propaganda effort that misled the world.

Probably the central character in that effort was The New York Times` Judith Miller, perhaps the world`s leading journalistic "specialist" in covering chemical and biological weapons threats. Miller has recently come under criticism within the US journalistic community for seemingly co-operating in the ongoing disinformation program by passing along unfounded Pentagon claims about the reasons behind its decision to go to war.

On April 21, in a front-page story from Iraq, Miller suggested that US forces had failed to find the much-ballyhooed WMDs - the ostensible primary reason for the invasion - because they had been recently destroyed or existed only as precursors with dual civilian uses. Her source? A man standing in the distance wearing a baseball cap, who military sources told her was an Iraqi scientist who had told them those things. In the report she floated unsupported claims alleging that Iraq had provided WMD aid to Syria and al-Qaeda. In so doing, she put the Times` imprimatur on a highly questionable formulation that was also essential to White House political interests.

Miller writes that military officials "declined to identify" the purported scientist, that she was only permitted to view him from afar, and that she was not allowed to interview him but merely permitted to view a letter ostensibly written by the man, in Arabic.

That story was just one of a series of WMD pieces in which Miller relied heavily on unnamed sources and Pentagon officials. Exactly who was feeding her information and what their motives might have been remain unclear. On May 26 the Washington Post published an internal New York Times memo in which Miller said the main source for her WMD articles was Ahmad Chalabi, an exiled leader who is close to top Pentagon officials - and who has for years been trying to come up with a justification for an invasion. Miller insists that Chalabi has never been an unnamed source in her Iraqi coverage, yet, in her WMD pieces, he does not appear as a named one either.


Each time Miller produces an article touting terrorist links to WMDs, she almost always mentions that al-Qaeda`s capability to deploy or develop these types of weapons has been judged to be crude at best. She also uses plenty of "might haves" and "could haves". Despite this, Miller`s "scoops" were picked up by other media and helped drum up support for extreme anti-terrorism measures by the Bush Administration domestically (in the Patriot Act) and internationally (the invasion of Iraq).

How did she manage to wield such power in shaping the American zeitgeist? Part of the answer is US journalism`s star system. Out of the hundreds of thousands of journalists in the US, just a handful become celebrities, and Miller is one of them. Concentrating on the area of germ and chemical weapons, she mastered the complicated subject and became part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize for the Times, also co-authoring a best-selling book on the subject.

Because reporters at these echelons get unparalleled access to high-level sources, they are uniquely positioned to publish information that powerfully impacts government policy, public perceptions and even life on earth. Their market-driven editors are complicit, ready to hype what is often little more than tendentious hearsay in order to present front-page scoops.

Aside from attracting readers, such reporting can immunise news organisations against the persistent right-wing canard that they are liberal patsies. Few people at high levels will risk their jobs to leak unauthorised material. Hence, what`s given to reporters like Miller can generally be assumed to be carefully orchestrated.

Andrew Rosenthal, Miller`s boss at the Times, says that all sources have agendas, and notes that "whenever possible, the reporter should help the reader understand these [sources`] motivations. Judy has done this consistently in her coverage of the WMD issue." Yet she often didn`t.

Miller`s technique of using unnamed sources is necessary in high-profile journalism, but most agree that sources should not be allowed to remain unnamed when the information imparted serves to directly advance their own and their employers` objectives. One possible justification for preserving anonymity is that a source is saying something that could get him or her in big trouble. But what kind of trouble could befall some unnamed Pentagon source leaking material that serves the purposes of the incumbent administration? Such may be a question for the next Times executive editor to sort out.

Russ Baker is a contributing editor of the Columbia Journalism Review.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/11/1055220653744.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

!

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

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans all use the same word “ceasefire,” yet each defines the term differently, which is a major obstacle to achieving peace in the Middle East.
By Micah D. Halpern


One of the most significant obstacles to be overcome in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is language. The cultural, conceptual, and language barriers that separate the negotiating partners are greater than their negotiation over land and possibly far more difficult to resolve.

The language of negotiations may be English, but each partner in the process thinks in their mother tongue, translates for their citizens into their mother tongue, and consciously and subconsciously negotiates through their own cultural bias.

Israelis, and even more Americans, have little understanding of how Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world think. Concepts and words in the Arab world can be drastically different from their meaning and use in the Western world.

The best example of this is found in the use of the word "ceasefire," a concept central to the pursuit of peace. Each party uses the word, but for each it holds different meaning and cultural connotation.

In English, as understood by Americans, the term “ceasefire” means a total end of any act by one party that may be understood as aggressive toward the second party. In Hebrew, the term is translated to mean Hafsakat Aish, which for Israelis mean Palestinians must stop all attacks against them, but if Israel has intelligence of a pending terror attack against them, then it can and will act to prevent it. In Arabic, the term used for ceasefire is Hudna, which for Palestinians means a temporary ceasing of and reduction of hostilities against an enemy until one can attack again. These differences are enough to torpedo any agreement after it is signed.

In Arabic there are three kinds of peace pacts: Hudna, Attwah and Sulha. They have their roots in tribal law from the Arab world.

The Hudna is a fundamental principle recognized by every Arab for its role in history as well as in politics. It is a legal concept applied in both intra- and inter-tribal grievances and is a temporary stage. The Hudna is a vehicle to achieve the next stage, Attwah, a non-time bound or long term ceasefire. A final peace settlement is not reached until the next, final stage of peace, the Sulha.

There is no doubt that Palestinians consider the current discussion about "ceasefire" a Hudna. It is the only word being used in the Palestinian media, and Palestinians use the word consistently in personal discussions, including with me, in which Attwah and Sulha are not being used.

The most famous Hudna took place in 628 when the prophet Mohammed entered into a peace pact with the elders of Medina in the town of Hud ay Biyyah. The truce was to last for 9 years, 9 months, and 9 days. After two years, Mohammed violated the treaty and attacked and defeated the tribal leaders.

This story from the Koran teaches followers of Islam two important lessons. That one can make a treaty with non-believers when you are weak and it is in your best interest, and after you have revitalized your strength you may break the treaty. It is the Koranic or Muslim version of a Trojan Horse -- the gesture or the gift becomes the catalyst for your enemy’s defeat.

Other examples can help clarify these terms, their historical validity, and their cultural implications. In Arab history (including Arabs who live in Israel), the 1949 Armistice Agreements, signed in Rhodes between Israel and her Arab neighbors, is considered a period of Hudna. In English the treaty was called an armistice and in Hebrew Hafsakat Aish.

In September of 1993 Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Bill Clinton signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn. This was seen as a major step forward for peace. One month later in Cape Town, South Africa, Yasser Arafat called the Oslo Treaty a pact of Hud ay Biyyah. All those who heard his words knew the significance of this Hudna -- it was a treaty made in order to be broken at an appropriate time.

Ceasefire, once again the word is central to peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. If history has taught the negotiating parties anything, it has taught them that “ceasefire” is much more than one word. It has taught them that words are expressions of culture and politics, and for a lasting peace, these words must reflect a people’s aspirations and determination for peace.


Micah D. Halpern is a social and political commentator who resides in Israel.

Posted Thursday, June 5, 2003

http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&na…

[Joerver]

Britain in secret star wars deal
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday June 13, 2003
The Guardian

Britain has signed secret agreements with the US over the Bush administration`s controversial missile defence project, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.

The agreements cover America`s use of an upgraded early warning radar station at Fylingdales on the North York Moors and unspecified "technical cooperative programmes".

They also include what Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, described to MPs yesterday as an agreement which "prepares the way for fair opportunities to be given to UK industry to participate in the US programme".

Mr Hoon insisted that none of the agreements committed Britain to the "acquisition or deployment of a missile defence system". He described the agreements as "an important step forward" which would enable Britain to "improve our understanding of the capabilities of the US system... to inform any future decisions on missile defence for the UK or Europe as a whole".

The project is being pushed by Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, who says it is needed to counter threats from "rogue states" such as North Korea.

Critics are likely to seize on the agreements as further evidence that the government is committed to supporting the US project.

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, criticised the secrecy surrounding the deals. "What the UK needs is not another confidential agreement with the US on missile defence but an international and multilateral approach to the issue," he said.

Critics of the project say it is still technologically unproven.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003

English is full of hints, puns and pitfalls, especially if you speak it like a native
Philip Howard



Come off it, Gordon! It’s just not on. Endogenous convergence, my foot. But it is not your fault that we cannot understand a word you say.
No wonder that English is the hardest language. Natives like the Chancellor find it difficult enough to speak and write well. Those who are not native and to the mannerism born must find it impossible. Other languages seem to have more clarity, apparently stricter rules of grammar, less diverse vernacular, smaller vocabularies. English has 15 centuries of scrambled lexemes, idiom, slang and semantics. Scottish, British, Latin and Greek, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Norman French ...and then the imports from the round earth’s imagined imperial corners, from shampoo to sushi bars.

Few languages are as old and as mixed up as English. For endless changes can be rung on churchbells of the English tongue. And the English are the only race who prefer to ring permutations rather than tunes on their bells. English is campanology and callisthenics, judo and prize-fighting.

A German says precisely what he means. An Italian what he feels. With a Scottish Chancellor you have to work out what he means and feels by indirections and double entendres. And even then, you will often get him wrong. Things have come to a pretty pass. These things are sent to try us. Take your things off. “There you go!” (voilà?) says the nurse, handing you a laxative. “I trust that there may be a small delay,” replies the pedant.

My friend who loves word games has invented one called “Pliss?”. An au pair has learnt English with Teutonic thoroughness. She knows the words. But she still finds the idiom and vernacular impenetrable. You ask her, “How are you hitting it off with the other girls?” Appalled at another example of British hooliganism, she replies, “Pliss?”. And wonders why nobody warned her to pack her boxing gloves. In the soft fruit cage you stand up, stick your head through the netting, and complain: “These raspberries have gone bananas.”

Because of its complexity, English itself is full of unintentional jokes. For example the pun, of which Sam Johnson surprisingly disapproved, Dryden described as the lowest and most grovelling form of wit, and Ambrose Bierce defined as “a form of wit, to which wise men stoop and fools aspire”. However, I reviewed a solemn book by an American professor engagingly entitled, A Dictionary of Puns in Milton’s English Poetry. I had never thought of Milton as a funster. The prof had discovered more than 1,600 instances of double and doubtful meanings, including not only a broad range of puns, humorous and serious, conscious and unconscious, but also cruces, jingles, syntactical ambiguities, and meaningful textual questions.

Ambiguity makes English the most poetic language, from Shakespeare to Joyce. And pun makes it the funniest. For example, a recent advertisement: “Volunteers urgently needed to help stroke patients with speech problems.” This is on the lines of the classic hyphenation headline: “Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim.” From the TES: “A 15-year-old Croydon boy has been suspended by his head because of his long hair.” In the Pliss? box comes: “He said it is unlikely pollution is the cause and the fish bore no outward signs of disease — ‘These fish are perfectly healthy, except that they are dead’.” Misprints come into a neighbouring category. From Autosport: “At one time he was well up in the first ten places, but hitting a bride in Wales damaged the suspension and he dropped back.” “The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York has joined a group of Orthodox rabbits in condemning The Life of Brian.”

English orthography is itself a joke, except for those who are trying to learn it. Never guess, it is not safe: we say calves, valves, half but Ralph. Attempts to reform it are equally funny. In the freespeling (sic) campaign on the internet, 62 per cent of voters chose “hite” as a better spelling for “height”. Sexy, huh? And you lose the connection with “high”. Hi? Milton spelt the word “highth”. For “accident”, 58 per cent chose “axident”, suggesting false teeth revolving around an axis. And for “unconscious” 33 per cent went for “unconshus” and 24 per cent for “unkonshus”. The project is, of course, unkonshusly hilarious as well as wrong-headed. And it shows that it is just as well that English evolves by erosion, accretion and consensus, rather than by instant plebiscite among computer nerds. Though infotech is having a great effect on style, orthography and grammar.

But English can take it. It has and it will. It can survive even the semantic gobbledegook of Fifer Gordon Brown obfuscating his five tests. For English is the magpie language that belongs to all who try to use it, however clumsily. Sam and Dryden got it wrong for once. Ambiguity is a minor glory of English.

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003
In Major Assault, U.S. Forces Strike Hussein Loyalists
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


BAGHDAD, June 12 — American forces attacked an enemy camp in Iraq today, killing scores of fighters in the deadliest operation since President Bush declared on May 1 that the major fighting was over.

The attack began shortly after midnight when American warplanes conducted a surprise bombing raid against a site that allied officers said was being used to train anti-American extremists. American officials said the attack took place about 90 miles northwest of Baghdad.

After the bombing, Army Special Operations forces and troops from the 101st Airborne Division moved in on the ground, prompting a firefight.

The American forces suffered one casualty, a soldier who was wounded in the leg. An Army AH-64 attack helicopter was shot down during the attack, but the crew was not injured.

American officials said tonight that the operation was still under way and that details would be made public after it was completed.

In contrast to other American military operations this week just north of Baghdad, where the goal was to detain and interrogate suspected Baath Party loyalists and other remnants of Saddam Hussein`s deposed government, the operation today was a military attack in which the objective was to pummel the enemy.

American officers said that allied troops were facing resistance from Baath loyalists, former officials of the Iraqi intelligence agency, paramilitary forces and militants from Syria and other Arab countries who were crossing into Iraq to join the fight against the Americans.

Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the senior allied commander, said there was no indication that resistance throughout the country was centrally directed or that Mr. Hussein was leading it. Rather, he and other American officials described a situation in which remnants of Mr. Hussein`s government and its allies have been organizing separate and largely uncoordinated attacks in different parts of the country.

"I continue to see a decentralized, more localized command and control," General McKiernan told reporters today. "I do not see an Iraqi-wide command and control mechanism in place."

The top American civilian administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, offered a similar assessment of the resistance groups.

"They look to be groups who have spontaneously come together and are attacking us," Mr. Bremer said in a videoconference with reporters at the Pentagon. "These are groups that are organized, but they`re small. They may be five or six men conducting isolated attacks against our soldiers."

He acknowledged that the coalition`s inability to capture Mr. Hussein or recover his body was helping to fuel the resistance movement.

"I would obviously prefer that we had clear evidence that Saddam is dead or that we had him alive in our custody," he said. "It does make a difference because it allows the Baathists to go around in the bazaars and in the villages, as they are doing, saying, `Saddam is alive, and he`s going to come back. And we`re going to come back.` "

The continued resistance represents a new stage of the American-led operation here. After a lightning-fast invasion, the United States and its allies seem to be girding for a possibly prolonged test of wills.

The strategy of Mr. Hussein`s sympathizers appears to be to carry out hit-and-run attacks, create a steady trickle of American casualties and prompt the United States to withdraw its forces so that elements of the former government can return to power.

The American strategy is to uncover remnants of Mr. Hussein`s government and their allies and detain or kill them. The Americans also want to stop military and terrorist forces who may enter Iraq for the opportunity to attack them.

That involves military actions but also requires efforts to build ties to local leaders and the Iraqi public. Such ties are considered critical by the Americans to deprive former Baathists and other adversaries of a broad base of support and to acquire intelligence on their whereabouts and plans. In that sense, rebuilding Iraq`s institutions and infrastructure is not purely altruistic but is part of a larger security plan.

"I can`t tell you that by two months from now or a year from now that this will be a completely safe and secure country," General McKiernan said. "What I can tell you is that we will continue to keep an American military presence here for as long as it takes."

The American raid today took place at what the allied command said was a "terrorist training camp." A statement from the allied command said the raid was part of "the continued effort to eradicate Baath Party loyalists, paramilitary groups and other subversive elements." Some officials said the camp was a gathering point and training area for "extremists" who have been planning to attack American forces.

It seemed likely that they included Arab fighters from outside Iraq. But officials did not say that the camp was directly linked to Al Qaeda.

The raid began at 1:45 a.m. Baghdad time when American warplanes bombed the camp. Then Special Operations forces and troops from the 101st Airborne Division attacked on the ground. A large number of fighters were killed, officials said.

An American official said that the downed helicopter was hit after American troops thought they had finished off the enemy but that some fighters had eluded detection and fired on the helicopter.

An American F-16 also crashed in Iraq today, but American officials attributed that to a mechanical problem, not enemy fire. The pilot bailed out and was not injured.

Today`s attack in western Iraq was one of several operations that were under way today. Near Balad north of Baghdad, the Fourth Infantry Division continued to search for Baath Party officials, former Iraqi military officials and other supporters of Mr. Hussein`s government in an operation called Peninsula Strike.

The aim of that brigade-size operation was to cordon off an area along the Tigris River that was believed to have become a sanctuary for anti-American elements and to carry out searches, including for caches of money that American officials worry is being used to reward Iraqis who attack American forces.

The American military said that it had detained 397 people during the search of the area. Of those, 59 have been released, it said, because they were underage, elderly or of no use to American officials who have been gathering intelligence.

In Falluja and Habbaniya, just west of Baghdad, soldiers from Spartan Brigade continued patrols to track down fighters who have mounted attacks on American troops.

The military operations are part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq. American military commanders are also imposing controls on weapons. Iraqis will be allowed to keep weapons at home for defense. The police, the new Iraqi military, bodyguards and militias that are specifically authorized to carry weapons will also be allowed to have arms.

But Iraqis who do not have permission to have such weapons are required to turn them in. Iraqis have until Sunday to hand over the weapons without risking detention. But so far, only a small number of weapons have been turned in. They include 113 pistols, 386 automatic rifles, 10 antiaircraft weapons and 249 grenades.

That suggests that the abundance of small arms and heavy weapons in Iraq is likely to remain a major concern for the American soldiers, who will have to start confiscating arms that are not turned in.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003
U.S. Will Tighten Rules on Holding Terror Suspects
By ERIC LICHTBLAU


WASHINGTON, June 12 — Federal authorities said today that they planned to use stricter standards for identifying and locking up terrorist suspects in light of concerns raised in a recent report that hundreds of illegal immigrants were mistreated after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Law enforcement officials plan to make at least 12 structural changes that were recommended in a report issued last week by the Justice Department inspector general, according to interviews with officials at the agencies affected by the report. Nine other recommendations are being actively considered, they said.

The move to embrace the bulk of the changes appeared to signal a greater acknowledgment of shortcomings in antiterrorism and detention policies than Justice Department officials had publicly admitted.

The recommendations that law enforcement officials have signed off on go to the heart of the criticisms leveled by the inspector general, officials said, and could portend significant changes in how illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism are investigated, arrested and detained.

Inspector General Glenn A. Fine`s report found that few of the 762 illegal immigrants arrested after Sept. 11 had clear ties to terrorism, but that many were held for months in what the report characterized as harsh conditions, often without access to lawyers. Inmates in Brooklyn were subjected to physical and verbal abuse, the report found.

Attorney General John Ashcroft and his aides defended the department`s conduct after the report was released, saying they "make no apologies" for doing everything in their legal power to aggressively deter another attack on American soil.

But officials at the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which now handles immigration, have been scouring the report to determine how the problems it spotlighted can best be addressed. About a half-dozen agencies and offices within the two departments, including the F.B.I., the Bureau of Prisons and immigration operations, are affected.

Among the 12 recommendations that officials said they were ready to adopt are developing clearer criteria for determining which illegal immigrants are terrorist suspects, improving lockup conditions and policies for those in custody and giving immigration officials — rather than the F.B.I. — more authority to remove a suspect from custody.

Officials at different law enforcement agencies are still reviewing the other nine recommendations and are likely to accept many of those as well, officials said, adding that none has been rejected outright. The agencies affected by the report are expected to give their responses to the inspector general by mid-July on how they plan to follow up, if at all, on the recommendations.

Immigrant rights advocates cautioned, however, that even if all the recommendations were adopted, they might not go far enough to ensure that illegal immigrants suspected of terrorism were given proper access to lawyers, judicial review and adequate conditions of confinement.

Michael Chertoff, the assistant attorney general who leads the criminal division, said in a letter to Congress last week that he expected that the F.B.I. and domestic security officials would develop a better system for classifying subjects of terrorism investigations "at the appropriate level of concern."

The inspector general found that the F.B.I., particularly in New York City, made little attempt to determine whether the illegal immigrants arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks had true connections to terrorism.

The report suggested that the authorities arrested many illegal immigrants — most of them Middle Eastern — who became entangled in the terrorism investigation by chance through traffic stops, anonymous tips and other means. Investigators found that many suspects were simply grouped into categories "of interest" to the terrorism investigations and subjected to restrictive and sometimes abusive conditions of confinement as a result of that classification.

Mr. Chertoff said he expected the authorities to develop better systems to classify terrorism suspects, to set deadlines to release those cleared of terrorist links, to share information among agencies and to formalize a "crisis management plan" that defines responsibilities in the event of a similar national emergency.

"These enhancements would further reduce the potential for impinging on civil liberties," Mr. Chertoff said.

Law enforcement officials said they had already begun to make some structural and policy changes even before the inspector general`s report was released, and they expected to make a host of further changes to reflect Mr. Fine`s highly critical conclusions.

In one important change, immigration officials said they were no longer waiting for the F.B.I. to let them know if they could release or deport an illegal immigrant "of interest" in a terrorism investigation. Instead, immigration officials began notifying the F.B.I. this year that they planned to remove someone and then give the F.B.I. the chance to step in if it can show that the suspect could be linked to terrorism. Officials are now seeking to formalize and strengthen that policy.

Illegal immigrants taken into custody "will no longer automatically be considered a special interest case just because they happen to go to the same flight school or register at the same Department of Motor Vehicles office as one of the hijackers," a senior immigration official said.

Like others interviewed about the recommendations, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the topic`s sensitivity.

Such changes are being made "really in response to our frustration" over policies after the Sept. 11 attacks, the immigration official said.

"We were answering to the F.B.I. in more ways than we thought we ever would," the official added.

Immigration officials said they expected that the greater level of scrutiny would be likely to lead to fewer illegal immigrants being identified and detained as possible terrorism suspects. Fewer than 24 suspects remain in custody, the official said.

A senior F.B.I. official said the bureau planned to adopt a more consistent set of criteria for classifying suspects so that illegal immigrants in New York City were not treated more harshly than those picked up in other parts of the country. But the official added that the analysis would be case by case, and that it would not necessarily mean fewer terrorism suspects.

"You have to go for uniformity," the official said. "You can`t just raise or lower the bar. It will depend on the situation."

While F.B.I. officials acknowledged a clear need to refine their internal policies, they rejected the suggestion from the inspector general that they had gone too far in the months after Sept. 11.

F.B.I. officials said they believed that the current debate obscured the climate of public fear and the logistical challenges faced by the F.B.I. after the attacks.

Joseph Billy Jr., who oversees counterterrorism in the New York office of the F.B.I., said: "Yes, we`re going to work to improve the process. A lot of it is really about better communication."

"But you have to remember the tenor of the times after 9/11," he said. "New York had 3,000 people killed. We were the target. Was what we did out of the realm, considering the times we were in? I don`t know."

Among other changes, Justice Department officials have decided to adopt a number of recommendations from the inspector general concentrating on the treatment of prisoners, a law enforcement official said.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003
In Iraq, Things Really Aren`t That Bad
By GEORGE WARD


WASHINGTON
Two months after the fall of Saddam Hussein`s regime, Iraq is widely depicted as a nation in chaos, with armed gangs dominating Baghdad`s streets amid a widespread breakdown of public services. Having returned from Iraq two weeks ago, I believe this picture is distorted. In fact, we may soon look back at the postwar looting as only a bump in a long road.

Before the war, those of us planning for post-conflict Iraq worried about these possibilities: up to one million refugees, widespread food shortages, epidemics, acute homelessness, a shutdown of the oil industry and general lawlessness.

In the end, only the last became reality. Particularly in Baghdad, large-scale looting and street crime have severely damaged public facilities, and made it difficult for ordinary Iraqis to reclaim their lives.

Why did this happen? First, an excellent war plan spared civilian targets and achieved swift victory with a relatively small force. Yet this force was neither of the right makeup nor equipped to provide postwar security. Also, planners had hoped that significant numbers of Iraqi police would remain on duty after the conflict. Hope, it is said, is not a plan, and should not have been one in this case. We knew that Iraq`s police forces were corrupt, politically tainted, despised by the population and ill trained, and thus should not have expected them to play a helpful role. Third, American civilian and military planners have been slow to get on the same page on security.

Still, Iraq is in most respects further along the road to recovery than we could have expected before the war. All major public hospitals in Baghdad are again operating. Sixty percent of Iraq`s schools are open. Nationwide distribution of food supplies has resumed. Despite some damage to the oil wells, petroleum production exceeds domestic needs, and exports should begin again soon. More Iraqis are receiving electric power than before the war. This progress is the result of efforts by capable Iraqi civil servants working with experts from the coalition governments and international humanitarian groups.

The long-term goals in Iraq now are public security, a transition to a representative system of government and the creation of a free-market economy. To achieve these goals, we need to take three short-term steps.

First, within two months every Iraqi police station should receive a small group of trained international advisers, armed and with power of arrest. The United States should step up its efforts to recruit foreign constabulary and military police forces, particularly from Islamic countries.

As soon as the oil industry begins turning a profit on exports, we should give every Iraqi family a monthly payment. This would instantly dispel the popular myth that the coalition`s intent was to seize Iraq`s oil assets. It would eliminate widespread dependence on government food rations and could jump-start the consumer economy.

Last, pending the organization of an interim Iraqi government, coalition planners should help start grass-roots forums on shaping the country in each of Iraq`s 18 provinces. Such discussions should be led by neutral third parties and include all Iraqi groups, including women. A democratic tradition exists only in the Kurdish north. Iraqis are divided by religious, ethnic, tribal and ideological schisms.

Most popular debate now focuses on past injustices rather than future possibilities. No democratic Iraqi government will long survive unless it maintains popular support. By creating a nationwide dialogue, the coalition could foster the emergence of a new generation of leaders able to rise above tribal and religious divisions.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003
The Vanishing Uranium

President Bush cannot be pleased to know that his State of the Union address last January included an ominous report about Iraq that turns out to have been based on forged documents. The incident is an embarrassment for Mr. Bush and for the nation, and he should now be leaning on his aides to explain how they let fabricated information about Iraq`s nuclear weapons program slip into his speech. The answer might help explain whether Washington deliberately distorted intelligence to rally the nation for the war against Iraq.

In the address, Mr. Bush said the British government had learned that Saddam Hussein had recently tried to get large quantities of uranium from Africa. It is now clear that this accusation was mainly based on counterfeit papers that falsely implied that the West African nation of Niger could be supplying uranium to Iraq. The documents contained obvious factual errors that should have been readily detectable by intelligence analysts.

The Niger uranium story first started making the rounds of Western intelligence agencies late in 2001. The charges seemed plausible because Iraq was known to have been trying to enrich uranium in the late 1980`s and Niger was one possible source of uranium fuel. But the supporting documents never checked out. Some bore what was alleged to be the signature of Niger`s minister of energy and mines, but the man in question had been out of office many years before the sales negotiations were supposed to have taken place. And any actual sales contracts would have had to be arranged not with Niger`s government, but with the international consortium that actually controls the country`s entire uranium supply.

The C.I.A. heard about at least some of these problems from a former ambassador with African experience who looked into the matter at the agency`s request in early 2002. His report that Niger denied the allegations was passed along to other government agencies, including the White House. But the C.I.A. appears not to have concluded that the story was unreliable. As a result, no effort was made by administration officials to keep it out of speeches and documents dealing with Iraq, including the State of the Union address.

It remains to be seen whether Iraq pursued a nuclear weapons program in recent years. But along with the many other questions that have arisen about Iraq`s unconventional arms since the end of the war, the matter of the forged documents needs to be explored fully by Congress and a White House advisory board that reviews the performance of intelligence agencies. The American people are entitled to know as much as possible about factors that influenced Washington`s decision to go to war. It is especially troubling when the president is put in the position of making alarming claims about a nuclear weapons program that do not stand up to serious scrutiny.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

White House in Denial
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Let me give the White House a hand.

Condoleezza Rice was asked on "Meet the Press" on Sunday about a column of mine from May 6 regarding President Bush`s reliance on forged documents to claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. That was not just a case of hyping intelligence, but of asserting something that had already been flatly discredited by an envoy investigating at the behest of the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice acknowledged that the president`s information turned out to be "not credible," but insisted that the White House hadn`t realized this until after Mr. Bush had cited it in his State of the Union address.

And now an administration official tells The Washington Post that Mr. Cheney`s office first learned of its role in the episode by reading that column of mine. Hmm. I have an offer for Mr. Cheney: I`ll tell you everything I know about your activities, if you`ll tell me all you know.

To help out Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney, let me offer some more detail about the uranium saga. Piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it, the tale begins at the end of 2001, when third-rate forged documents turned up in West Africa purporting to show the sale by Niger to Iraq of tons of "yellowcake" uranium.

Italy`s intelligence service obtained the documents and shared them with British spooks, who passed them on to Washington. Mr. Cheney`s office got wind of this and asked the C.I.A. to investigate.

The agency chose a former ambassador to Africa to undertake the mission, and that person flew to Niamey, Niger, in the last week of February 2002. This envoy spent one week in Niger, staying at the Sofitel and discussing his findings with the U.S. ambassador to Niger, and then flew back to Washington via Paris.

Immediately upon his return, in early March 2002, this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus, for two main reasons. First, the documents seemed phony on their face — for example, the Niger minister of energy and mines who had signed them had left that position years earlier. Second, an examination of Niger`s uranium industry showed that an international consortium controls the yellowcake closely, so the Niger government does not have any yellowcake to sell.

Officials now claim that the C.I.A. inexplicably did not report back to the White House with this envoy`s findings and reasoning, or with an assessment of its own that the information was false. I hear something different. My understanding is that while Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet may not have told Mr. Bush that the Niger documents were forged, lower C.I.A. officials did tell both the vice president`s office and National Security Council staff members. Moreover, I hear from another source that the C.I.A.`s operations side and its counterterrorism center undertook their own investigations of the documents, poking around in Italy and Africa, and also concluded that they were false — a judgment that filtered to the top of the C.I.A.

Meanwhile, the State Department`s intelligence arm, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, independently came to the exact same conclusion about those documents, according to Greg Thielmann, a former official there. Mr. Thielmann said he was "quite confident" that the conclusion had been passed up to the top of the State Department.

"It was well known throughout the intelligence community that it was a forgery," said Melvin Goodman, a former C.I.A. analyst who is now at the Center for International Policy.

Still, Mr. Tenet and the intelligence agencies were under intense pressure to come up with evidence against Iraq. Ambiguities were lost, and doubters were discouraged from speaking up.

"It was a foregone conclusion that every photo of a trailer truck would be a `mobile bioweapons lab` and every tanker truck would be `filled with weaponized anthrax,` " a former military intelligence officer said. "None of the analysts in military uniform had the option to debate the vice president, secretary of defense and the secretary of state."

I don`t believe that the president deliberately lied to the public in an attempt to scare Americans into supporting his war. But it does look as if ideologues in the administration deceived themselves about Iraq`s nuclear programs — and then deceived the American public as well.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 13, 2003
`Some Crazy Guy`
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Last year I tried to illustrate just how far to the right America`s ruling party has moved by quoting some of Representative Tom DeLay`s past remarks. I got some puzzling responses. "Who cares what some crazy guy in Congress says?" wrote one liberal economist, chiding me for being alarmist.

Some crazy guy? Public images are funny things. Newt Gingrich became a famous symbol of Republican radicalism. By contrast, most people know little about Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader. Yet Mr. DeLay is more radical — and more powerful — than Mr. Gingrich ever was.

Maybe Mr. DeLay`s public profile will be raised by his success yesterday in sabotaging tax credits for 12 million children. Those tax credits would cost only $3.5 billion. But Mr. DeLay has embedded the credits in an $82 billion tax cut package. That is, he wants to extort $22 in tax cuts (in the face of record budget deficits) for every dollar given to poor children.

But the really important stories about Mr. DeLay, a central figure in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, involve his continuing drive to give his party a permanent lock on power.

Consider the case of Westar Energy, whose chief executive was indicted for fraud. The subsequent investigation turned up e-mail in which executives described being solicited by Republican politicians for donations to groups linked to Mr. DeLay, in return for a legislative "seat at the table." The provision Westar wanted was duly inserted into an energy bill. (Republican leaders deny that there was any quid pro quo.)

There`s every reason to believe that the Westar case is unusual only in the fact that the transaction came to light. Under Mr. DeLay`s leadership, Republicans have established a huge fund-raising advantage, based not just on promises — special interests have always been able to buy favorable policies, but never so brazenly — but also on threats. Mr. DeLay pioneered the "K Street strategy," which — in a radical break with tradition — punishes lobbying firms that try to maintain good relations with both parties.

Then there`s the Texas redistricting story.

Normally states redraw Congressional districts once a decade: Texas redistricted after the 2000 census. But under Mr. DeLay`s leadership, Texas Republicans are trying to increase their advantage in seats with a second redistricting. This in itself is an unprecedented power grab.

But it gets worse. Texas Democrats responded with a parliamentary maneuver, walking out to deprive the state Legislature of a quorum. In response, hundreds of state law enforcement officers were diverted from crime-fighting to search for the missing Democrats — assisted, yes, by the Department of Homeland Security.

A telling anecdote: When an employee tried to stop Mr. DeLay from smoking a cigar on government property, the majority leader shouted, "I am the federal government." Not quite, not yet, but he`s getting there.

So what will Mr. DeLay and his associates do with their lock on power, once it is firmly established? They will push through a radical right-wing agenda. For example, expect to see much less environmental protection: Mr. DeLay has described the Environmental Protection Agency as "the Gestapo."

Above all, expect to see the wall between church and state come tumbling down. Mr. DeLay has said that he went into politics to promote a "biblical worldview," and that he pursued President Clinton because he didn`t share that view. Where would this worldview be put into effect? How about the schools: after the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay called a press conference in which he attributed the tragedy to the fact that students are taught the theory of evolution.

There`s no point in getting mad at Mr. DeLay and his clique: they are what they are. I do, however, get angry at moderates, liberals and traditional conservatives who avert their eyes, pretending that current disputes are just politics as usual. They aren`t — what we`re looking at here is a radical power play, which if it succeeds will transform our country. Yet it`s considered uncool to point that out.

Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality.






Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

Covert Unit Hunted for Iraqi Arms
Amid Raids and Rescue, Task Force 20 Failed To Pinpoint Weapons

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A01


A covert Army Special Forces unit, operating in Iraq since before the war began in March, has played a dominant but ultimately unsuccessful role in the Bush administration`s stymied hunt for weapons of mass destruction, according to military and intelligence sources in Baghdad and Washington.

Task Force 20, whose existence and mission are classified, is drawn from the elite Army special mission units known popularly as Delta Force. It sent a stream of initially promising reports to a limited circle of planners and policymakers in Washington pointing to the possibility of weapons finds. The reports helped feed the optimism expressed by President Bush and his senior national security advisers that proscribed weapons would be found.

Thus far, military and intelligence sources said, the expectations are unfulfilled.

Even skeptics of Task Force 20`s progress in the weapons hunt speak admiringly of the team`s exploits on its other assignments, in which its role was concealed. The team captured Palestinian guerrilla leader Mohammed Abbas in Baghdad in mid-April and the Iraqi scientists nicknamed Mrs. Anthrax and Dr. Germ; it fought a bloody battle behind Iraqi lines to prevent a catastrophic release of floodwaters from the Haditha Dam; and it retrieved Pfc. Jessica Lynch, an Army prisoner of war, from a hospital in Nasiriyah.

Task Force 20`s principal assignment is to "seize, destroy, render safe, capture, or recover weapons of mass destruction," according to a Special Operations mission statement. To that end it staged raids ahead of the U.S. and British ground advance to seize suspected caches of nonconventional arms, gathered hundreds of weapons samples and captured as many as half of the "high value" weapons scientists and Baath Party leaders now in U.S. custody. Its role in the search for illicit arms, military and intelligence sources said, turned out to be far more important than that of the search teams operating in the open.

Yet Task Force 20 has come no closer than its widely publicized counterpart, the 75th Exploitation Task Force, to the Bush administration`s declared objective. Sources with firsthand knowledge of its mission and personnel, and others with access to its reports, said the team has found no working nonconventional munitions, long-range missiles or missile parts, bulk stores of chemical or biological warfare agents or enrichment technology for the core of a nuclear weapon. The administration cited all those components specifically as part of Iraq`s concealed arsenal. The arms were forbidden to Iraq under U.N. Security Council mandate, and Bush used them as his primary argument for war.

The Defense Department has not made public Task Force 20`s preliminary findings, which include a cache of land mines that U.S. analysts believed to be designed for dispersal of liquid contents. The mines were an unexpected discovery made more than 24 hours before the war began on March 20. A "direct action" team from Task Force 20 swept into a military base in Iraq`s western desert, near Qaim, to preempt the firing of chemical-armed Scud missiles that U.S. intelligence suspected of being at the site. The team killed the Iraqi garrison guards but found no missiles. It found the mines in a bunker nearby.

Subsequent testing, at the Navy`s Biological Defense Research Directorate in Silver Spring and at an undisclosed overseas laboratory, persuaded some U.S. government analysts that the mines once held botulinum toxin, according to two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. But mines are not considered offensive weapons, and these had deteriorated so much that identification of their contents might be disputed, the sources said. United Nations inspectors reported in 1999 that Iraq had considered biological land mines but had no mines "suitable for filling with liquid BW agents."

"There`s extreme caution of judgment," said one military official conversant with the discovery. "They don`t have at this juncture great confidence that anything they have found constitutes a smoking gun."

Until very recently, the principal focus of the U.S. Central Command, which directs the search for illegal weapons, was a methodical survey of the 87 top-priority facilities identified in the "integrated master site list" maintained at the Defense Intelligence Agency.

More than 900 specialists and tens of millions of dollars of detection and laboratory equipment were devoted to the survey, and its leaders said publicly that they expected to find large caches of chemical and perhaps other weapons at the sites. That effort, a high-ranking national security official said Wednesday, was "a waste of time."

The Defense Department`s new public emphasis is on "people, not buildings," as one officer put it. Some officials said previously that Iraqis would have to lead the United States to the concealed weapons. But it is now clear, from an examination of Task Force 20`s work, that the Defense Department and intelligence agencies have already put that strategy to the test for 100 days.

It is possible, as some administration officials assert, that "exploitation" of files and captured Iraqis -- the intelligence term for using one lead to generate another -- may have brought the search to the brink of major results.

"People who say there are no weapons are going to be quite embarrassed within weeks or months, when the material comes out," the high-ranking official said. He said that "there are things we are finding that are in train," under preparation for public disclosure, but he declined to elaborate.

But many of those most knowledgeable about Task Force 20`s work, some of whom observed it at close quarters, said there is no sign of decisive evidence in the information gathered to date. They said most of Task Force 20`s successes -- seizing files, wanted scientists and potentially "hot samples" of lethal substances -- came early in the war.

Intelligence specialists at the team`s Baghdad airport headquarters, where many of the most important Iraqi prisoners are held, are interrogating leaders of the former Iraqi weapons program in cooperation with the CIA and the DIA. But the highest-ranking Iraqi weaponeers -- including Rihab Rashid Taha, known in the West as Dr. Germ, and Huda Salih Mahdi Ammash, a Texas-trained microbiologist dubbed Mrs. Anthrax -- have disclosed almost nothing.

"Most of the very senior people, the [deck of 55] cards people, are saying very little," said a career national security official who is in a position to give an authoritative assessment. "What they are saying is largely BS -- `I was not very close to Saddam,` `I don`t know anything about WMD.` It`s all very orchestrated."

Though the weapons hunt was Task Force 20`s primary assignment, some of its greatest successes came in the three additional missions for which it was organized.

One was "direct action" against time-sensitive targets in enemy-held territory. Among the disaster scenarios envisioned by Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the Central Command chief, before the war was the prospect that Iraqi forces might destroy the Haditha Dam, which holds vast floodwaters on the Euphrates River 130 miles northwest of Baghdad. Its demolition would likely have killed a great many Iraqi civilians, "caused an ecological catastrophe and flooded the Euphrates plain, which was a primary approach to Baghdad" for the 3rd Infantry Division, a knowledgeable officer said.

Task Force 20, including a detachment from the Army`s 75th Ranger Regiment, took the dam intact after three to four days of intense combat beginning April 2. It found no evidence that the Iraqis in fact attempted to blow up the dam.

Task Force 20 was also assigned to capture or kill "high-value targets," the U.S. military`s euphemism for high-ranking wanted Iraqis. Some, such as Taha and Ammash, played important roles in the weapons program, and others, including Abbas, were sought for unrelated reasons. The team`s third mission was prisoner rescue, and it led the mission to retrieve Lynch from her Iraqi hospital bed in early April.

In its weapons hunting assignment, the special mission unit at the core of Task Force 20 had many advantages over the Defense Department`s more public search teams. The teams operating openly lacked reliable communications gear, Arabic linguists, on-call helicopters and personnel with experience in Iraq. They often visited sites without knowing the extensive histories of U.N. inspections there. One team leader did not recognize Iraq`s second-largest nuclear waste storage facility.

"We do not have the capability to fight for intelligence," the leader of one search team said. "We do not have the capability to fight for materiel. We do not have the capability to take people for questioning against their will. There are other units in the armed services that do that."

Task Force 20 employs the best-trained combat forces in the U.S. military. It can launch a mission with less than an hour`s notice and communicate securely from anywhere in Iraq. It is equipped with the most advanced detection technology, including DNA identification of pathogens. Its biological and chemical laboratories, from the Theater Army Medical Laboratory, fit inside a collapsible tent that could be transported on the back of a Humvee. And it has full-time access to stealthy helicopters -- MH-60 Pave Hawks, MH-47 Special Operations Aircraft, and AH/MH-6 Little Bird gunships -- that enabled it to move covertly and defend itself.

Task Force 20 was able to reach most of its early target sites before they could be stripped by Iraqi insiders or looters from the general population. Because of that, the team took many more potentially "hot samples" than the openly operating search units. It has shipped hundreds of samples to Army and Navy laboratories in Maryland, one senior officer said, including about 90 this month. Knowledgeable sources said that none of the samples has produced a definitive hit.

Site survey teams attached to conventional military units, which most often found their targets looted and burned, occasionally learned to their chagrin that mysterious U.S. forces had already been there. Col. Richard McPhee and his subordinates at the conventional headquarters took to calling them "secret squirrels." In one case, Task Force 20 was still working when a survey team arrived. Its leader, who did not provide details of his unit or mission, ordered the survey team to leave.

"They were all in uniform, but some were obviously civilians -- long hair, guts on them, some old guys," said a regular Army officer who was present. "There was no attempt at deconfliction at all," he added, using the military term for avoidance of duplicate effort.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

The Static-Filled Face of Freedom
Iraqi TV Station Poor but Thriving

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A12


KARBALA, Iraq -- Unshaven, imperious and weary from overwork, Khalil Tayyar lives in a cloak-and-dagger world , rife with conspiracies and hidden agendas.

He casts a wary eye at the Americans and their designs on Karbala TV, the fledgling station he set up a week after the fall of president Saddam Hussein`s government. The Iranians, he insists, are not far behind. Ever so lightly, he has negotiated with the clergy, who wield great authority in a city considered one of the most sacred in Shiite Islam. As for the city council, he has no doubt it wants to attach strings to the salaries it pays his employees.

"I`m afraid they`re going to take my station," said Tayyar, 45, a burly, brusque man.

Who? he`s asked.

"God knows," he answers, shaking his head. "Freedom has many enemies."

In a provincial town better known for pilgrims than paparazzi, Tayyar is the equivalent of a media mogul, managing to broadcast with 20-year-old equipment and a 100-watt transmitter. His programming is uneven -- news footage set to elevator music and camera work that evokes cinema verité. But driven by ambition and buffeted by enemies real and perceived, he is fighting for the fundamentals of civil society -- freedom of the press and intellectual independence -- in a society deprived of them for more than three decades.

That is, if nothing breaks down.

"This is my best friend!" Tayyar shouted, hugging the old, French-built equipment for the transmitter, a bird`s nest of black cables and dusty white wires, some of them taped, hanging from the back. "Every day we pray it will work. That`s the truth."

In mid-April Tayyar left his hobby of collecting old cameras and, with a staff of 10, some of them lifelong friends, started broadcasting from a few dusty, dilapidated rooms at the post office. The group began as volunteers, donating a voice mixer, televisions, computers, three cameras, 1970s-era videocassette recorders and a few dollars to cover the costs of jury-rigging the control panels. The transmitter, once used to jam broadcasts from neighboring Iran, was appropriated from the post office -- looted, some might say.

The staff was long on enthusiasm and short on expertise, but within a week, the station had broadcast round-the-clock footage of a Shiite pilgrimage that drew more than 1 million to the gold-domed shrines housing the remains of the prophet Muhammad`s grandson, Imam Hussein, and Hussein`s half-brother, Abbas.

Since then, Tayyar has broadcast seven hours a day -- from 5 p.m. to midnight -- delivering a mix of religious programming, Iranian-produced serials, cartoons, nature shows, locally produced news and taped broadcasts from Arabic-language satellite news networks.

Money is in short supply. He estimated he needs more than $650 a month to operate. Frustrated, he pulled from behind his cluttered desk a white plastic bag of donations. It contained about $30. And then there`s the equipment. "It`s junk," Tayyar said.

The U.S. soldiers occupying Karbala treat Tayyar with a mix of admiration and exasperation. Lt. Col. Michael Belcher, the senior Marine officer, recalled a two-hour interview during which Tayyar lectured him for 90 minutes on journalistic ethics.

"He is fiercely independent," said Maj. Michael Samarov, Belcher`s operations officer.

When Samarov`s staff approached Tayyar last month asking him to air public service announcements warning about unexploded ordnance and urging residents to boil water, Tayyar refused. So the Americans, the undisputed authorities in town, insisted.

"Look, you`re going to put this on or else," Samarov recalled his staff telling Tayyar. "The `or else` is: You`ll put the public safety announcements on or we`re not going to allow you to broadcast." Tayyar, Samarov said, grudgingly agreed.

"I have to say I respect him," said Samarov, whose staff plans to run background checks on Tayyar`s employees, keeping an eye out for ties to religious groups or Hussein`s intelligence services. "Saying no to us cannot be terribly easy. He`s obviously doing it for a matter of principle."

Tayyar said he did not recall the exchange with the U.S. officers. What he said he remembered was another request -- refused by him -- to air an announcement by Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Iraq.

"My answer was very diplomatic," said Tayyar, sitting at his desk behind a picture of the shrine of Imam Hussein. "Diplomatic in that I heard their opinion and, at the same time, I didn`t surrender my position."

Tayyar likes to cultivate a larger-than-life image, as close to Lou Grant as a Shiite holy city is likely to accommodate. "Quiet down!" he shouts to some staff gathered outside. "Tone down the voices!" He boasts of his work schedule, insisting that over the past 45 days, he has had better relations with the TV station than with his five children.

With the bluster comes insistence on the right to refuse. An Iranian television crew visited him last week. They offered him much-needed microphones and stands and suggested a cooperative agreement. Suspicious, he declined.

"He`s a good man, but he`s very tense," said Ali Kamouna, the head of Karbala`s city council. "He`s always yelling and shouting."

Kamouna and his staff are waging a tug of war with Tayyar over the station`s future. This month, Tayyar`s staff received $50 payments as municipal employees, and Kamouna and his deputy, Abdel-Amir Jawad, have contended that the station belongs to the city council. They reason that the antenna belonged to Hussein`s Information Ministry, of which they are the legal successor.

Sitting at his desk in the bare-bones council office, Jawad called Tayyar "a friend and a brother" but hinted that he was running the station only because the council couldn`t find a replacement.

"The problem is that the TV station wants to work independently. We agree, but they should cooperate with us," Jawad said. "We believe the TV station should be supervised by the local council. Definitely, definitely."

"I respect his point of view," he added, "but there`s a difference between respect and agreement."

"My station is not for sale," retorted Tayyar. "If they pay salaries, that doesn`t mean they`re buying our minds or our ideas."

In a city where the clergy enjoy great respect and authority, Tayyar subscribes to a strict moral code in broadcasting. There`s no music, no scantily dressed women. Sports footage avoids showing female athletes. Religious programming -- Koranic recitations, invocations and the call to prayer -- occupy anywhere from a half-hour to two hours of the seven-hour broadcasts. Abdel-Mehdi Salami, the ranking cleric in Karbala, said Tayyar has not turned down any request.

"We respect him very much," Tayyar said. "He`s very happy with us."

The local news broadcasts are less religious than amateur. In a segment on the daily newspapers, the camera hopped and skipped from article to article, inducing a hint of vertigo. Another segment featured footage of the launching of a water treatment plant, a five-minute take set to elevator music. Mixed in during the week were reports on efforts to capture car thieves, a competition for the station`s new emblem, the delivery of new uniforms to the city`s police officers and an update on the restoration of electricity.

In one segment, a reporter aired a litany of complaints over the doubling of taxi fares. That was followed by an interview with the city official in charge of transportation. "Very soon, we can solve all these problems," the official promised.

Even that level of accountability has delighted some residents, who seem to view the station as a source of pride.

"Before, we saw Saddam on one channel, then we saw Saddam on another channel. When the signal went off, we`d hear Saddam. Even in our dreams, we heard his voice," said Tahrir Sadeq, a 32-year-old hotel manager. "It`s better than before."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

A `Maggie Moment` In Europe


By David Ignatius

Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A29


BERLIN -- Call it the "Maggie Moment." It comes along when public-sector unions act so belligerently to protect their selfish interests that they give pugnacious politicians such as Britain`s Margaret Thatcher an opening for reform.

That moment of confrontation has arrived in continental Europe -- most notably in strike-torn France. The politicians are talking tough, but it`s still not clear they have the guts to push through fundamental change.

Ronald Reagan seized such a moment in 1981 when he defied a strike by the powerful air-traffic controllers union. The union leadership thought it had a stranglehold on U.S. air transport and could demand whatever it liked. In the past, cowed American politicians had always caved in -- but Reagan fired the unionized strikers, hired nonunion replacements and never looked back.

Reagan`s victory marked a fundamental shift in the balance of power between labor and management in the United States -- setting the stage for both a booming U.S. economy and a measurable shift in the distribution of national income away from labor and toward capital.

Thatcher had her moment soon after her election in 1979, when the British public finally became fed up with the unending wave of strikes by the National Union of Mineworkers. At bottom, the workers were demanding that the government maintain employment by keeping open inefficient mines that were running out of coal. Until Thatcher, British politicians had always capitulated to the demands of this militant public-sector union.

Thatcher`s final victory over the miners in 1985 broke trade-union power in Britain. As in America, this opened the way for a long boom in Britain -- and, critics argued, an increase in inequality.

Because the miners were essentially a conservative force -- seeking to protect their own welfare at the cost of society`s -- Thatcher`s tough stand seemed to me a progressive blow against the British class system. Certainly, she helped make Britain more of an "opportunity society" and opened the way for the "New Labor" politics of Tony Blair. Now the moment to defy union power has arrived for continental Europe. That is especially clear in France, where public-sector unions are leading an outrageously selfish fight to prevent reform of their pension system.

Under current rules, public-sector workers get to retire after 37.5 years, instead of the 40 years required for private workers. The government of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin wants to remove this imbalance, which is economically untenable in addition to being unfair.

But to maintain their favored position, public unions are tying France in knots. As any recent visitor to Paris can attest, the city has been snarled by striking transport workers. A tourist hasn`t needed a guidebook so much as a list of which Metro lines are being struck that day. It`s an intolerable abuse of power -- and yet the French are tolerating it. Some polls seem to back the strikers, and motorists wait in queues as if they`re dealing with an act of God rather than one of arrogant union power.

Raffarin is pressing ahead with pension reform, though it must be said he hasn`t gotten much support from President Jacques Chirac. Meanwhile, Germany`s Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is resisting union objections to a package of labor-law reforms that would make the German economy somewhat more flexible.

Busting unions isn`t something that polite European social democrats like to discuss. But unless the economic conservatism symbolized by union power is curbed here, Europe seems likely to continue suffering from slow growth, high unemployment and the export of jobs abroad. Much as I dislike the inequality that comes with a dynamic market economy, I hate the torpor of the union-enforced status quo more.

Standing offstage are two forces that may accomplish the job of transformation, even if the European politicians knuckle under. The first is the addition of 10 members to the European Union. The average per-capita income among the 10 is about 35 percent of what workers in the 15 "Old Europe" countries make. That kind of gap cannot persist; eventually it will destroy protectionist trade unions and their power base.

The second spoiler is Britain, which announced this week that no, thank you, it will not be joining the European monetary union. Why should the Brits join a system still dominated by the sort of trade-union conservatism that Thatcher worked so hard to jettison 20 years ago? Better for the Brits to press for change from the outside and eventually embrace a monetary union that symbolizes dynamism, rather than stasis.

The Maggie Moment is here. But does Europe have politicians who are bold and courageous enough to create a prosperous future?



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

In the Red Over Code Orange


By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Friday, June 13, 2003; Page A29


Some months ago, during a family trip to Florida, we were all astonished to look up at one of those blinking highway signs that usually report traffic jams or construction.

On this sign, the first blink told us that the nation was on Code Orange. The second noted that this constituted a high-level terrorism alert. But it was the third and the fourth blinks that made our jaws drop: "Sorry for the inconvenience," the friendly sign said. "Have a nice day."

And so it is that our country has tried to domesticate even the fear of terror. No way will we let terrorist threats get in the way of our nice days.

Perhaps putting terror into the same category as fender benders or bad weather is part of a healthy human way of forgetting fear and getting on with life. In Lebanon during the war years of the 1980s, the question "What`s it like out?" usually referred to shelling, not the elements.

But if terror warnings have become routine, government hasn`t adjusted its own routine as to who should pay for what. This is a serious problem for our nation`s cities, already hemorrhaging jobs and revenue in a shaky economy.

"When the orange alert goes on, it rings at City Hall, not at the State House and not at the White House," says Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino, the outgoing president of the United States Conference of Mayors.

The conference estimates that when Washington raises the threat level to Code Orange, it costs the nation`s localities $70 million per week. Menino figures that in Boston alone, Code Orange costs about $100,000 per day. "We have to put police on alert," Menino said in an interview. "We have to put fire on alert. We need more EMTs. People go on overtime. We have to staff emergency centers. All that is coming out of your operating budget."

Menino is a fiercely local, matter-of-fact guy whose speech patterns make no concessions to media-age homogenization; his Boston accent is as thick as the creamiest New England clam chowder. When he says the only elective office he wants is the one he holds, you believe him.

Menino is a Democrat, and his argument meshes with his party`s claim that President Bush hasn`t backed his talk about homeland security with money.

Yet Menino doesn`t sound very partisan when he praises Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge -- "It`s easy to have a dialogue with him" -- and he insists that Republican and Democratic mayors largely agree on what`s at stake. "There`s no Democratic Party or Republican Party," he says. "There`s a Mayors` Party."

The irritation of the Mayors` Party spilled out at the Conference of Mayors meeting in Denver that ended this week.

"The most fundamental reason we have a federal government is to provide for the common defense," said Mayor Martin O`Malley of Baltimore, chairman of the conference`s homeland-security task force. Yet the common defense against international terror has become a local burden. "When we`re threatened by foreign attack," he said in an interview, the cities provide "the front-line troops."

The homeland security argument has also deepened a long-standing rift between governors and mayors. Rep. Barney Frank, Menino`s fellow Massachusetts Democrat, likes to say that Washington is the only place in the country where, when a governor walks into a room, the response is: "The grass roots are speaking! We must listen!"

The mayors are a lot closer to the grass roots, yet Washington has a habit of sending money through the state capitals. "So where is the money?" Menino asked his fellow mayors in Denver. "Ask your state government! They are in the process of slicing and dicing the money. And by the time we see it, it may only pay a small fraction of our needs."

Menino, a realist, supported additional federal help to states as the best available alternative to more direct aid to cities. "We stood up for fiscal relief for states when the governors were silent," he says. Menino hopes that the governors might at least use their leverage to encourage more regional cooperation on issues related to terrorism.

It`s easy to be cynical about money battles among levels of government. But there is something amiss when the cost of providing homeland security requires mayors to move police away from their normal crime-fighting duties. And it`s troubling that the financial burdens may force these mayors to lay off some among the very cops and firefighters who are carrying the domestic burden of the battle. As O`Malley says, financing the struggle against international terror "off firehouse bingo proceeds and the local property tax" seems a strange choice for the world`s only superpower.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[CheapThrill]

.


USA ™

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/28/usa.html


By Kalle Lasn


The history of America is the one story every kid knows. It`s a story of fierce individualism and heroic personal sacrifice in the service of a dream. A story of early settlers hungry and cold, carving a home out of the wilderness. Of visionary leaders fighting for democracy and justice, and never wavering. Of a populace prepared to defend those ideals to the death. It`s the story of a revolution (an American art form as endemic as baseball or jazz) beating back British Imperialism and launching a new colony into the industrial age on its own terms.

It`s a story of America triumphant. A story of its rise after World War II to become the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world, "the land of the free and home of the brave," an inspiring model for the whole world to emulate.

That`s the official history, the one that is taught in school and the one our media and culture reinforce in myriad ways every day.

The unofficial history of the United States is quite different. It begins the same way -- in the revolutionary cauldron of colonial America -- but then it takes a turn. A bitplayer in the official history becomes critically important to the way the unofficial history unfolds. This player turns out to be not only the provocateur of the revolution, but in the end its saboteur. This player lies at the heart of America`s defining theme: the difference between a country that pretends to be free and a country that truly is free.

That player is the corporation.

The United States of America was born of a revolt not just against British monarchs and the British parliament but against British corporations.

We tend to think of corporations as fairly recent phenomena, the legacy of the Rockefellers and Carnegies. In fact, the corporate presence in prerevolutionary America was almost as conspicuous as it is today. There were far fewer corporations then, but they were enormously powerful: the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson`s Bay Company, the British East India Company. Colonials feared these chartered entities. They recognized the way British kings and their cronies used them as robotic arms to control the affairs of the colonies, to pinch staples from remote breadbaskets and bring them home to the motherland.

The colonials resisted. When the British East India Company imposed duties on its incoming tea (telling the locals they could buy the tea or lump it, because the company had a virtual monopoly on tea distribution in the colonies), radical patriots demonstrated. Colonial merchants agreed not to sell East India Company tea. Many East India Company ships were turned back at port. And, on one fateful day in Boston, 342 chests of tea ended up in the salt chuck.

The Boston Tea Party was one of young America`s finest hours. It sparked enormous revolutionary excitement. The people were beginning to understand their own strength, and to see their own self-determination not just as possible but inevitable.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document`s signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren`t allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn`t buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War. Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed."

President Lincoln`s warning went unheeded. Corporations continued to gain power and influence. They had the laws governing their creation amended. State charters could no longer be revoked. Corporate profits could no longer be limited. Corporate economic activity could be restrained only by the courts, and in hundreds of cases judges granted corporations minor legal victories, conceding rights and privileges they did not have before.

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Post-Santa Clara America became a very different place. By 1919, corporations employed more than 80 percent of the workforce and produced most of America`s wealth. Corporate trusts had become too powerful to legally challenge. The courts consistently favored their interests. Employees found themselves without recourse if, for example, they were injured on the job (if you worked for a corporation, you voluntarily assumed the risk, was the courts` position). Railroad and mining companies were enabled to annex vast tracts of land at minimal expense.

Gradually, many of the original ideals of the American Revolution were simply quashed. Both during and after the Civil War, America was increasingly being ruled by a coalition of government and business interests. The shift amounted to a kind of coup d`état -- not a sudden military takeover but a gradual subversion and takeover of the institutions of state power. Except for a temporary setback during Franklin Roosevelt`s New Deal (the 1930s), the US has since been governed as a corporate state.

In the post-World War II era, corporations continued to gain power. They merged, consolidated, restructured and metamorphosed into ever larger and more complex units of resource extraction, production, distribution and marketing, to the point where many of them became economically more powerful than many countries. In 1997, fifty-one of the world`s hundred largest economies were corporations, not countries. The top five hundred corporations controlled forty-two percent of the world`s wealth. Today corporations freely buy each other`s stocks and shares. They lobby legislators and bankroll elections. They manage our broadcast airwaves, set our industrial, economic and cultural agendas, and grow as big and powerful as they damn well please.

Every day, scenes that would have seemed surreal, impossible, undemocratic twenty years ago play out with nary a squeak of dissent from a stunned and inured populace.

At Morain Valley Community College in Palos Hills, Illinois, a student named Jennifer Beatty stages a protest against corporate sponsorship in her school by locking herself to the metal mesh curtains of the multimillion-dollar "McDonald`s Student Center" that serves as the physical and nutritional focal point of her college. She is arrested and expelled.

At Greenbrier High School in Evans, Georgia, a student named Mike Cameron wears a Pepsi T-shirt on the day -- dubbed "Coke Day" -- when corporate flacks from Coca-Cola jet in from Atlanta to visit the school their company has sponsored and subsidized. Mike Cameron is suspended for his insolence.

In suburban shopping malls across North America, moms and dads push shopping carts down the aisle of Toys "R" Us. Trailing them and imitating their gestures, their kids push pint-size carts of their own. The carts say, "Toys `R` Us Shopper in Training."

In St. Louis, Missouri, chemical giant Monsanto sics its legal team on anyone even considering spreading dirty lies -- or dirty truths -- about the company. A Fox TV affiliate that has prepared a major investigative story on the use and misuse of synthetic bovine growth hormone (a Monsanto product) pulls the piece after Monsanto attorneys threaten the network with "dire consequences" if the story airs. Later, a planned book on the dangers of genetic agricultural technologies is temporarily shelved after the publisher, fearing a lawsuit from Monsanto, gets cold feet.

In boardrooms in all the major global capitals, CEOs of the world`s biggest corporations imagine a world where they are protected by what is effectively their own global charter of rights and freedoms -- the Multinational Agreement on Investment (MAI). They are supported in this vision by the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other organizations representing twenty-nine of the world`s richest economies. The MAI would effectively create a single global economy allowing corporations the unrestricted right to buy, sell and move their businesses, resources and other assets wherever and whenever they want. It`s a corporate bill of rights designed to override all "nonconforming" local, state and national laws and regulations and allow them to sue cities, states and national governments for alleged noncompliance. Sold to the world`s citizens as inevitable and necessary in an age of free trade, these MAI negotiations met with considerable grassroots opposition and were temporarily suspended in April 1998. Nevertheless, no one believes this initiative will remain suspended for long.

We, the people, have lost control. Corporations, these legal fictions that we ourselves created two centuries ago, now have more rights, freedoms and powers than we do. And we accept this as the normal state of affairs. We go to corporations on our knees. Please do the right thing, we plead.

Please don`t cut down any more ancient forests. Please don`t pollute any more lakes and rivers (but please don`t move your factories and jobs offshore either). Please don`t use pornographic images to sell fashion to my kids. Please don`t play governments off against each other to get a better deal. We`ve spent so much time bowed down in deference, we`ve forgotten how to stand up straight.
The unofficial history of America™, which continues to be written, is not a story of rugged individualism and heroic personal sacrifice in the pursuit of a dream. It is a story of democracy derailed, of a revolutionary spirit suppressed, and of a once-proud people reduced to servitude.


Excerpted from Culture Jam: The Uncooling of America™ https://secure.adbusters.org/orders/culturejam (Kalle Lasn, William Morrow/Eaglebrook, 1999).

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-wander13…
COLUMN ONE


Nomads in Hussein`s Reach
Even the Bedouins, whose tough but free way of life in the desert posed no threat to the dictator, got caught in his regime`s tentacles.
By Robyn Dixon
Times Staff Writer

June 13, 2003

NEAR THE IRAQ-KUWAIT BORDER — Sheik Wallay Rakan draws no lines in time, no measurements in months or days. His life moves in seasons. The signposts that mark his road are the births of his children, the loss of his camels, the death of his eldest son.

So he can`t tell the exact year when the black days began. But when he had to sell his last, favorite camel, Aliyan, he knew he was losing his grip on survival.

He sits cross-legged, his back ramrod straight, under the roof of chaotically stitched sacks that line his low, black-wool Bedouin tent. His face is chiseled, proud, impassive. His eyes are as black and mournful as the story he tells.

His son brings a tin bowl of tart sheep`s milk, and Rakan watches sharply as a guest receives his hospitality, then smiles with approval when a compliment is offered. Before the day is out, he`ll be offering to slaughter a sheep for the stranger under his roof.

Rambling through the desert, singing to the sky, playing games with stones to pass the time, Bedouin nomads in southern Iraq seemingly posed scant threat to Saddam Hussein. Yet even they were caught up in his regime`s tentacles, which curbed their freedom and hastened the decline of their ancient way of life. Their experience illuminates just how thoroughly the Hussein regime dominated the lives of ordinary Iraqis, even those far from the world of cities and politics.

Out in the flat desert sands, Bedouins such as Rakan and his friend Shaty Bassat tried to avoid officialdom, shunning the documents and pieces of paper that inundate a city dweller. They were not interested in a regulated life or the man called Saddam Hussein.

But officialdom was interested in them. And even out in the sandy plains, there was no way to escape the regime, which reached everything, like fine dust blasted by the wind into every crevice.

Hussein`s regime banned them from wandering freely across the border to relatives in Kuwait. Their teenage sons were conscripted for the army, where those who deserted were often caught and executed. In a final blow, Hussein diverted the rivers running south to block water to resistance forces. That was catastrophic for the Bedouins, whose source of life dried up.

"I don`t care for governments or politics. It`s not my business," said Bassat, whose family of six usually travels close to Rakan`s. "All I did was I took my animals and my family and traveled from place to place.

"In my father`s time there was no Saddam," he said through an interpreter. "You could go wherever you wanted and stay wherever you wanted. It was a beautiful life."

They call that time "before." The precise years are hazy, but one of the main dividing lines between "before" and the present desolation was 1991, when the government cut the water supplies to areas of southeastern Iraq to punish rebel factions.

Rakan, 61, said he had to sell his three camels after that because he could not find feed for them in the desert. He also sold his horse and all but two of his 15 donkeys. He has just 30 sheep left, a fraction of what he once owned.

"Aliyan was my friend," he said, with a fond smile for his favorite camel, whom he suspects was turned over to butchers after he sold it. "He was very smart. I`d put the water on his back, and he`d find his own way home. When I smoked, he came up to me because I used to give him a puff of my cigarette. I put the cigarette near his nose, and he inhaled it.

"I kept Aliyan to the end, then I had to sell him. When I started to lose my animals it was a huge loss for me, because it is my life."

Their memories of the past are not idealized. Life was always tough; but now, they say, it`s becoming impossible. They cling to a precarious existence — camping for a few weeks at a time at one place or another, usually near a highway or settlement where they can get water.

Under Hussein, they became dependent on food rations. With the rations gone, the families are selling off their remaining livestock to buy food — typically bread, sugary tea and homemade sheep`s yogurt. Sometimes they have rice or lentils.

A grown sheep fetches the equivalent of $100. They used to sell only the lambs, to keep the size of their flocks stable. But both men`s flocks have gradually shrunk, and in time they could lose all their animals, and their only means of income.

"Of course we love our animals, but what can we do, if there`s not enough food for them and not enough water? It`s difficult to survive with our animals. We can`t live without salaries in this new world," Rakan said.

At 54, Bassat appears much older, with a hacking cough. He passes his time sitting, smoking, worrying about survival.

As a young man, shepherding his sheep, Bassat wafted dreamily through the hours. Neither Rakan, Bassat nor their children went to school.

"I`d call my sheep with a special call. I`d drive my camels and take all the animals, the cows, the sheep and horses and donkeys, all together into the big desert until early evening," Bassat said.

"I used to sing to myself alone. Nothing bothered me. I did not have to think about the future. I was just singing and playing with stones or something."

Springtime was magical, the happiest time. Everything was green. The air was perfumed with the nectar of flowers and filled with the calls of birds, and there was plenty of water.

Brewing coffee offered a chance to socialize. As they ground the beans, Bedouins would bang a large pestle against the side of a brass mortar, so that it sang like a bell.

"We made music by ringing the coffee grinder to announce we had fresh coffee," Bassat recalled. "Uncles and cousins and all the family would come and talk."

They traveled from place to place as they wanted, with the men on horses or camels, and the women walking behind. (Today, they often rent taxis or trucks for long journeys.)

At weddings there was singing and dancing, and the shooting of rifles and pistols in the air. Great platters of rice with whole roasted lambs were prepared for 200 or more relatives, and the celebrations went on for nearly a week.

At 15, Rakan married Jamela Faraj. "I`d seen her. She was my cousin.

"I was dying for her. I was crazy for her," he said.

But she was not prepared for what marriage meant.

"I did not love him. I was afraid. I was 10 years old. I was just a child," she said.

Married life brought with it hard work: rising at dawn to milk the animals, collect wood, build the fire and make bread. At first, she often burned the food and her rice was gluey, but her husband did not complain. In time, she learned to love him.

"When we moved to another place, I would pack up the camels and ride the horse. She had to walk behind me. She was stronger than me because she was younger," Rakan said.

She never asked him for a television, electricity or city comforts. Now both Rakan and his wife dream of an easier life in the city. The daily struggle for survival has worn Rakan out. He wants to swap his ceiling of stars for a brick house and a town job with steady pay. But that seems beyond their reach.

Bassat also married a cousin, paying 300 Iraqi dinars to her family. He had never seen her under her black Bedouin mask. A bride`s price, he said, was based on her beauty, and his cousin was expensive.

"It`s like a car," he said. "Some are expensive. Some are cheap." His bride bore him six sons and 18 daughters.

For Faraj, Rakan`s wife, the happiest moment was the birth of her first child, a son, Ahmed, and the days of sweet motherhood that followed. Her blackest time came 15 years later, when Ahmed was executed for deserting the army during the Iran-Iraq war.

To Bassat, "before" meant he didn`t have to carry nationality papers and was free to wander the countryside. He is not clear on the year or dates but vividly recalls the changes.

"Before, no one had nationality papers, because Bedouin don`t care for papers," he said. "Then they offered us houses and promised a good life with electricity, better than the Bedouin life, just so they could control the Bedouin, so we couldn`t run away in the desert.

"Before, when someone died, we`d bury him in the desert. Then they started to send someone to check the graves and the body and there was all kinds of bureaucracy."

Bedouins were offered land on condition that they give up a nomadic life. But Bassat could not give up wandering. He had his relatives look after the land. But they too deserted after the land became unviable when the waterways were cut.

Nationality papers also meant national service. Bassat served 15 years in the army, because he repeatedly deserted. Each time he ran away, several more years were added to his service. Like Rakan`s oldest son, two of Bassat`s nephews were executed for desertion.

As Iraq waged war against its neighbors Iran and Kuwait, the Bedouins were barred from crossing or approaching Iraq`s borders. Those who were caught defying the ban had their animals confiscated.

The regime`s program to dry out marsh areas in southeastern Iraq to choke opposition fighters was the most puzzling and catastrophic change for the Bedouins. The Bedouins were not the target of the policy, which came in reprisal for the 1991 uprising in the south. But they were caught in the middle. Because of the water shortages and the salinity problem that plagues Iraq`s south, the land deteriorated. Fodder became more difficult to find.

"Saddam was a tough leader. He dealt with thieves and the opposition by killing them. There was no negotiation. So that`s why he hurt us, because he needed to punish them by blocking off the water," Bassat said.

Rakan`s father had shown him secret places in the desert where water could be found. But after 1991, they dried up or the water became brackish.

"You can`t go into the desert without knowing where to get water," Rakan said.

For weeks, his family has been bivouacked close to a place where he can find a broken water pipe, not far from a highway, where army convoys and international humanitarian agency vehicles rumble by.

There is no time to think of rest. Rakan sits, brow knitted, with one thought dominating his mind, like a bleak desert view devoid of life. The savage, grinding problem of survival is all that occupies him.

"I just think how to stay alive, always. I think how to get the family enough food and water," he said.

By evening, he decides to move on, three hours northward by road toward the city of Nasiriyah. At dawn the following day, he loads his family and dogs into an ancient Chevrolet taxi with an Iraqi-built timber shell. He ties half of his remaining few dozen sheep onto the roof, the others he herds into the crowded cab.

"This way of life is dying out. It`s almost finished. Everyone who can will leave the Bedouin life and go to the city.

"This is my life. I`d like to stay the same. But there is no way to survive in this life."


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq13ju…

U.S. Operation Yields Fury in Central Iraq
A teacher`s death in custody has become a focal point of opposition to the American sweep in a former stronghold of Saddam Hussein.
By Michael Slackman
Times Staff Writer

June 13, 2003

DHULUIYA, Iraq — The men lined up along both sides of a table, digging their hands into piles of rice and lamb that had been set out for lunch at the funeral for Mehdi Ali Jassim.

Jassim, 53, was a teacher, a father and, now, another wedge in the relationship between U.S. troops and Iraqis.

The locals say the soldiers beat Jassim to death when they swept into this town in a massive operation this week to root out resistance fighters who have been ambushing U.S. troops. The U.S. military says that Jassim died of a heart attack.

It almost doesn`t matter who is right. The anger is palpable in this town of former Baath Party officials and favored citizens of Saddam Hussein`s government.

"The Americans are going into people`s houses and killing them," Zaid Sami, 33, said as he stood inside a rundown one-table billiard hall where Hussein`s picture still hung on the wall. On the dusty, unpaved streets outside, U.S. troops patrolled in their Humvees and armored vehicles.

The benefits of allegiance to Hussein dot this city of 50,000 people, where many live in large, two-story villas with landscaped gardens and green lawns that are as out of place in this sun-scorched land as palm trees might be in New York. The United States military said Dhuluiya and several other surrounding communities had become refuges for former Hussein loyalists who were attacking Americans across central Iraq.

With fresh attacks coming daily, early Monday the Army launched "Operation Peninsula Strike," a comprehensive invasion of this Tigris River region about 35 miles north of Baghdad involving more than 4,000 soldiers. They attacked from land and water and air. They came in hard and fast.

"There was no American force here, so this became a sanctuary of sorts," said Maj. Michael Fenzel of the 173rd Airborne Division, who participated in the Monday invasion of this city and whose forces now patrol it.

But Fenzel said that after storming the community and capturing what they believe to be "valuable" prisoners, the Army is trying to shift its focus to win over Dhuluiya`s people.

"Now we are getting out into the community," he said, "trying to tell people what we are doing and why we are here."

Although the use of force succeeded in toppling Hussein, the Army recognizes that it does not offer a viable long-term solution to stabilizing Iraq so that U.S. troops can one day go home. The battle to win acceptance from the local population may prove to be far more difficult than the military operation.

And one reason is Jassim, the dead teacher. He has become a focal point for the anger this community feels after losing its privileged status. Jassim`s funeral was a "who`s who" of the community — and of the former government. There was a judge, a general, a prominent businessman and the leader of the local tribe.

"The old regime, the old state, we were officials in that state," said Sheik Hussein Ali Saleh al Legi, leader of the Jabbor tribe and its 15,000 members. "Are we all to be treated as criminals?"

The sheik is an influential man in his community. His family has held the position of tribal leader since the early 1900s. And he insists, at least publicly, that there were no resistance forces in their community.

"It`s just a pretext," he said. "They are coming here to kill us. They have come to kill, and they have killed."

Legi`s home has a large green front lawn where he pitched a tent and set up more than 100 chairs for the mourners who had gathered to commemorate Jassim. The men cried as they hugged one another. Then their anger spilled out, instantly and without coaxing.

The words could have been spoken in Fallouja, another stronghold for Sunni Muslims west of Baghdad that benefited under Hussein`s rule. They complained that everything in postwar Iraq is bad, that there is no electricity, no running water and no security. They complained that the Americans had promised liberation, and served up only occupation.

And they denied any culpability, either for the state of their country or the actions of the U.S. forces. They denied that they were shooting at the soldiers, or that they condoned shooting at the soldiers, or that they harbored people who shot at the soldiers.

Then they promised that if the soldiers don`t leave, they will shoot at them.

"The people have to resist. They have to fight for their honor, for their dignity," said Qahton Aid, 46. "They promised to establish an interim government. If this promise is not fulfilled, it means that even a child who can carry a weapon will fight them. Even women."

The road that leads into this town crosses the Tigris River, and there are checkpoints on both sides. The anger at the Americans begins there, at the gateway to the community.

Staff Sgt. Dillard Johnson has been in Iraq since the earliest days of the war. He and his soldiers from the Army`s 7th Cavalry fought all the way to Baghdad. Instead of heading home, as expected, they were sent here to find and kill Hussein supporters.

That is what they have done.

"We killed a few guys the other day," Johnson said. "They were going to ambush us; the captain said, `Kill them,` and we did." But now, instead of being home in Florida, where his son is scheduled to have surgery soon, he is on a bridge checking cars and residents for weapons. His assessment of Iraqis is this: "If you ask these people nicely to do something, they won`t do it until you yell at them. The way the culture here is, they don`t have any social skills."

On the other side of the river, the 173rd Airborne was blocking the road. Every car that had waited in line to cross Johnson`s checkpoint was now stopped on the bridge. Hazim Ibrahim was holding his 2-year-old nephew, Mohammed, in his outstretched arms. The child was the size of a 1-year-old and obviously ill.

"My baby is sick," Ibrahim said to a soldier standing guard at the bridge. "He is going to die."

The soldier radioed ahead: "I`ve got a guy here with a baby that is sick."

"I am sorry, but we have to hold him," came the reply.

The soldier was distraught. Ibrahim was distraught too. Finally the soldier arranged for the car to pass, but it had to leave five of its passengers behind. Only the driver, the father and the baby could go.

"If I don`t see the car go back to the hospital, I am going to go back and arrest them," the soldier said before they drove off.

About an hour later, one of the passengers walked into town and told everyone he could about how the soldiers had made him walk. He didn`t mention the bit about the baby. The rumor spread, and the anger grew.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goodby-…
COMMENTARY



The Path From Crises to Triumph
Bush could earn historic dividends with a new emphasis on diplomacy and global institutions
By James Goodby and Kenneth Weisbrode
James Goodby is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth Weisbrode is a member of the Atlantic Council of the United States.

June 13, 2003

History is full of missed turning points, incandescent moments when a unique conjunction of people and events made a complete transformation in international affairs seem tantalizingly close, only to flicker out.

Moving into the final third of his presidential term, George W. Bush can claim to have set off the sparks of a new world order.

He has put relations with China and Russia back on a positive track via quiet diplomacy. His military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have removed harsh and hostile regimes and opened the door to democracy in those countries. He has tied up loose ends from the 1990s and cleared the deck in the Middle East, overthrowing Saddam Hussein, agreeing to withdraw most U.S. troops from Saudi Arabia and convening the Aqaba summit. In Europe, he has helped to redefine NATO`s role and, perhaps without intending to, he has laid the basis for a Euro-Atlantic security community in which the European Union and Russia become major players. He has mobilized a major offensive against global terrorism.

But Bush must know that these achievements are short-term fixes at best. Unless he creates a foundation for order-building diplomacy, the last 30 months will go down as one of those failed opportunities to restructure global affairs.

Imagine what would have happened if Harry Truman, George Marshall and Dean Acheson had thrown down the gauntlet to the Soviet Union in the early years of the Cold War but put nothing in place to project their vision into the future?

It could have happened that way. Acheson wrote that "only slowly did it dawn upon us that the whole world structure and order that we had inherited from the 19th century was gone."

What if there had been no NATO, no international financial institutions, no support for the nascent European community, no overarching doctrine of containment? What if they had said in 1949, "The mission determines the coalition"?

Bush is in danger of becoming a Truman without consequences. The administration`s rhetoric and actions flit between crises and visions, between short-term reactions and long-term proclamation of strategic goals. Like his predecessor, Bush has favored the urgent (or what he has said was urgent) over the important.

What is needed is less emphasis on public posturing — jawboning — and more stress on, in the president`s words, a "patient accumulation of success." Bush and his advisors must dispel the widespread impression that they are deeply, almost pathologically, impatient with diplomacy.

That means a quiet but serious resumption of traditional American support for international institutions, multilateral cooperation and the rule of law. Small steps could begin the process: Bush could urge the U.N. Security Council to make fuller use of the nuclear experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency in order to halt weapons proliferation. In the Middle East, talks could resume on establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, including both Iran and Israel. A less hostile attitude toward the formation of an international criminal court could be adopted, and a real alternative to the Kyoto environmental agreement could be proposed.

Combined with the creation of new regional and global institutions, or the reinforcement of existing ones, such small steps could lead to lasting results. Truman, Marshall and Acheson saw this clearly; the international order they built endured beyond their lifetimes.

President Reagan saw it as well. Like Bush, he understood how to use force. But he and his secretary of State, George Shultz, ultimately turned to laws, organizations and alliances to translate turmoil into triumph. Reagan`s second administration revised its hawkish policy toward the Soviet Union and set about, using such tools, to negotiate an end to the Cold War.

Now it is the turn of the Bush administration. Unless it too follows the lead of Truman and Reagan, history will record that all its successes were built on shifting sands, leaving little behind.



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-halperi…
COMMENTARY


9/11 Detainees` Treatment Casts a Deep Shadow
Ashcroft used a cloak of secrecy to violate the rights of hundreds.
By Morton H. Halperin and Ken Gude
Morton H. Halperin is director of the Washington office of the Open Society Institute. Ken Gude is a policy analyst at the Center for National Security Studies, the named plaintiff in the Freedom of I

June 13, 2003

The abuses against the immigrant detainees who were rounded up after Sept. 11 have been amply detailed in a report released by the Justice Department`s inspector general.

Many of the detainees were kept in unnecessarily harsh confinement, denied access to counsel and family and not informed of the charges against them for weeks or months. Some were beaten. They were automatically denied bail and many were jailed even though they were never charged with any serious crime. The inspector general`s report also confirms that many of those detained were never suspected of terrorism but were simply caught up in the wide net cast after 9/11.

But the ultimate abuse, in our opinion, was the shroud of secrecy ordered by Atty. Gen. John D. Ashcroft over the entire process.

On Sept. 20, 2001, he directed the department`s chief immigration judge to keep secret all information about the detainees. As a result, the government refused to disclose the names of those arrested and then closed their hearings to the public. This made any outside review of the Justice Department`s actions virtually impossible; the department was not accountable to anyone outside the government until the inspector general`s report was released this month.

And the report is only the tip of the iceberg. The inspector general examined the cases of only 119 out of the 762 aliens detained.

Before the report`s release, Ashcroft repeatedly asserted that at no time were the rights of the detainees violated. He told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Dec. 6, 2001, that "all persons being detained have the right to contact their lawyers and their families." That claim was false. The inspector general "found that the Bureau of Prisons` decision to house Sept. 11 detainees in the most restrictive confinement conditions possible severely limited the detainees` ability to obtain, and communicate with, legal counsel."

The attorney general has also claimed that the uncompromising application of punitive detention before trial was justified because it targeted suspected terrorists. But the inspector general said the FBI made little or no effort to distinguish between detainees who were the subjects of the Sept. 11 investigation and those who were encountered by investigators "coincidentally." That failure caused the prolonged and extremely harsh detention of individuals whom the government never suspected of terrorist activity.

Remarkably, even in the face of a 198-page report detailing numerous rights abuses, the Justice Department still maintains that the law was "scrupulously followed and respected."

Where in the law does it allow for the physical abuse of individuals in government custody?

The government remains stubbornly determined to keep secret the identities of the detainees. It has appealed a federal court`s order to release the names; the appeals court`s decision is pending. And it is clear from the Justice Department`s "no apologies" response to the inspector general`s report that it is not taking seriously the findings or recommendations.

Congress should demand that the Justice Department release the names of the detainees, and it should act to prohibit secret arrests and secret hearings in the future. Unfortunately, at the House Judiciary Committee hearing, members never even addressed the secrecy of the arrests.

In his opening statement on June 5, the attorney general very powerfully read aloud names of those who were murdered on Sept. 11. I hold out hope that at some appearance before some congressional body, some attorney general will read aloud names of those who were detained, jailed and beaten in the aftermath of that tragic day.



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wolfsth…
COMMENTARY


Stop Hunting Iraqi Scientists and Start Recruiting Them
Putting weapons experts in new jobs works in favor of the U.S.
By Jon B. Wolfsthal
Jon B. Wolfsthal is an associate in the Carnegie Endowment`s nonproliferation program and a former nonproliferation policy advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy.

June 13, 2003

Regardless of whether Saddam Hussein had actual chemical or biological weapons, it is known with absolute certainty that Iraq had a large and well-trained cadre of scientists and technicians capable of producing such arms.

Also, the United Nations in the mid-1990s verified that Iraq had an advanced understanding of nuclear weapons and a team of experts that could have produced a weapon had Iraq acquired the critical nuclear materials. Most of these experts remain in Iraq, but many are on the run or in hiding from U.S. authorities.

Although the U.S. continues to make progress on tracking down and capturing Hussein`s top leadership, the record is not as strong when it comes to finding and working with the several thousand people who were responsible for Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction programs.

The U.S. continues to pursue the many weapons experts as war criminals, and even those not emblazoned in a deck of cards fear prosecution for their roles in Hussein`s weapons programs. It is not clear that U.S. intelligence even knows who all of the scientists are, and the decision to freeze out the U.N. weapons inspectors who worked with many of these people for years has hampered finding and engaging this critical group of Iraqis.

Some of these Iraqi scientists may know where weapons are located in Iraq, and they might be willing — or induced by economics or passions — to sell them to other countries or factions in Iraq. Fears that Hussein may be alive also could be used by his loyalists to direct the actions or motivate weapons scientists to act against U.S. interests.

Even if no weapons exist, these at-large scientists might know the location of weapon precursors or be willing to use or sell their skills to help other countries or groups. The most radical scientists might even be willing to use their skills to fight against the U.S.

Any of these developments would seriously undermine U.S. security, threaten U.S. troops in the region and reduce the value of having fought and won the war in the first place.

Fortunately, there is a model for another approach. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S., Europe and Japan worked together to engage former Soviet weapons scientists to ensure that they would not sell their skills or any materials on hand to make a living. The establishment of science centers in Moscow and Ukraine served as matchmaking services to employ former government scientists in civilian research. More than 50,000 scientists found jobs in peaceful enterprises and were redirected away from the former Soviet weapons complex.

The same approach should be adopted in Iraq. Instead of hunting down these experts, the majority of them should be offered formal amnesty in exchange for their cooperation.

The top managers of Iraq`s weapons programs and those responsible for the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran should not be eligible for this treatment, and punishing them could be a powerful message to future WMD program employees in other countries. But the others should be given new opportunities to work, and their skills should be channeled into rebuilding Iraq. Experts in chemical weaponry could be used to help rebuild Iraq`s petrochemical industry, and biological weapon experts could make great contributions to Iraq`s pharmaceutical industry.

The case of the missing WMD in Iraq is likely to occupy the public and the Congress for some time. But we cannot allow this important issue to overshadow the real security risks that remain in Iraq any more than we can allow other countries, like Iran or North Korea, to use the current focus on Iraq to advance their weapon ambitions.




Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Your Vegan Holistic President
Sure an odd, spiritual guy like Dennis Kucinich doesn`t have a chance in hell. But it sure is nice to dream
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, June 13, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/




And then the new 2004 president had the gall, the unutterable nerve, to actually set up an official Department of Peace to promote, you know, nonviolence and human rights. That big jerk.

And then he repealed the snide and vicious USA Patriot Act, and promoted legit environmental causes and sustainability and actually tightened EPA restrictions and strengthened the Clean Air Act, gasp oh my God what the hell is he thinking.

And then it was revealed that, oh dear God what anti-American blasphemy, he eats no meat or dairy, and prefers organic and kosher foods and actually cares about issues of personal holistic health and therefore isn`t a smirking well-funded crony of the toxic beef industry or big agribiz, and hence the bloated lobbyists from those groups are no longer swimming in favoritism and payola and what the hell is the world coming to.

And furthermore, he isn`t particularly vehemently religious, not in the normal sense anyway, not Christian or strictly Catholic or Baptist or whatever Bush claims to be, Born-Again Failed-CEO Warmonger, I believe.

And in fact he`s actually a rather unique amalgam, a loosely observant Roman Catholic who observes kashruth due to the influence of his longtime Jewish girlfriend, and yet who also supports alternative beliefs, has practicing Muslims on his staff, supports spiritual exploration, knows Shirley Maclaine personally, gives his own personal money to alternative spirituality research. What the hell? This cannot be.


And that damn hippie liberal, he actually wants to legalize medical marijuana, and he supports the rights of the poor and the working class, and more protections for the oceans, and universal health care and a reduction in military spending, and actually wants to change the world`s opinion of the U.S. as this despised unipolar rogue into a more cooperative powerhouse role-model peacemaker. Oh dear. That does it. We`re gonna be invaded by China any day now, for certain.

Let us imagine, just for a moment, just because it`s entirely implausible and because it feels so utterly odd, that such a leadership, such an open and distinctive viewpoint, actually ran this nation.

Let us imagine the horror. Imagine the savage blow to the all-American mega-machismo, to the hardcore GOP hawks and the freerepublic.com psychopatriots and the Christian Bible gropers and the stunned CEOs, the insult to the giant angry fist of self-righteousness America now represents were someone like, say, Dennis Kucinich, the humble long-shot progressive Democratic congressman candidate from Ohio -- the one who represents all those viewpoints listed above -- to actually became president.

Is it really all that radical? Is it really all that extreme to try and imagine a truly connected national leadership that promotes international cooperation and spiritual openness and the sacredness of the environment and a genuinely holistic worldview, one who actually attempts to connect with and listen to its populace?

Why does this seem so far off, so utterly impossible? Have we gone so far down the road of BushCo-style isolationism and dread and knives-out bile that we can`t even entertain a serious alternative, the notion that we actually could, as a country, stand for something as radical as peace?


Are we so deeply and repressively beaten down with war and terror and fake Orange Alerts and the idea that we absolutely positively must, no matter what, have a cold and corporatized iron-fisted leadership hell-bent on expanding American empire at all costs, that we can`t even conceive of a sincere and pacifistic alternative?

Apparently, we are. That far gone. That far removed from what this nation actually stands for, stood for. At least for the moment. The tyranny of fear is in control. We are so absolutely goddamn certain we are facing a brutal and heartless world that wishes us perpetual violent ill that we simply must have an equally heartless and guns-drawn pseudo-fascist leadership to match it.

This is, quite simply, utter bull. We have chosen our own path. We have actively elected to become the strong-arm rogue superpower. We have created our own warmongering circumstance far, far more than it has been imposed on us.

Get this. According to his Web site, Dennis Kucinich`s proposed Cabinet-level peace appointee would seek to not merely make nonviolence an organizing principle of society but actually strive to make war archaic, to "endeavor to promote justice and democratic principles to expand human rights ... and develop new structures in nonviolent dispute resolution." Man. What a heretic.

Is Kucinich the ideal candidate? I have no idea. He is merely one of the most interesting, indeed a longshot and probably flawed and it`s true that he just recently flip-flopped on abortion rights, and is maybe just a bit overly pro-labor, and who knows what else, and he could be trouble for the Demos in terms of shaking up the unified message the party so desperately needs right now.

But let`s just use him as our example. Let`s use his unique candidacy as a mirror to reflect how far we have careened down the path of indignation and megalomania and the idea that we, as a nation, are somehow locked into this warmongering, hateful mode, this hostile role as schoolyard bully of the world.

How shockingly naive it seems, how utterly childish to think we could have a president who actually promotes peace and empowers the U.N. and works toward interconnectedness, and in this day and age. Don`t you know the world is at our throat? Don`t you know it`s all eye-for-an-eye and dog-eat-dog and only the strong survive and kill `em all before they come and eat our innocent babies?

Yeah right. How very sad. No one seems to remember. No one truly recalls the overwhelming sentiment just after 9/11, a stunned and saddened nation rethinking its core values, a deeply historic opportunity for a radical reshaping of America`s world position and policy, our intentions, our national agenda.

We could`ve chosen a Kucinich-style path. We could`ve easily chosen peace and cooperation and humanity and communication. BushCo chose the exact opposite.

And now, here we are. Globally disrespected, almost universally feared and loathed and resented, our economy hammered, the vicious GOP war machine cranking on all cylinders, openly lying about the justifications for war, huge numbers of misguided citizens truly believing 9/11 is a valid excuse to annihilate Iraq and slaughter thousands, maybe Syria and North Korea and Libya and Lebanon and who knows who else, next.

And Kucinich`s Department of Peace? Ha. What a joke. What a sad, far-fetched, disheartening, impossible joke.

. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

White House guts the roadless rule

Friday, June 13, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


THE BUSH administration`s doublespeak about the environment reached a new level of shamelessness with this week`s announcement that it is "retaining" the rule to protect roadless areas in national forests.

Its announcement emphasized that its new plan would prohibit logging in about 95 percent of Alaska`s national forests.

Let none be fooled: What the Bush administration did this week was carve huge exceptions and loopholes into a thoroughly vetted, well-balanced popularly supported plan to protect the ever-shrinking swaths of untrampled national forests. The plan, approved by President Clinton in his last days in office, had been the subject of 600 public hearings that produced an overwhelming avalanche of favorable comments.

The Bush administration has been working to undermine the roadless rule since inauguration day. Its latest scheme was unveiled on Monday by Mark Rey, a former timber industry lobbyist who now serves as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment.

Bush has undercut the Clinton roadless rule in two significant ways.

-- It exempts Alaska`s Tongass and Chugach national forests, which include old-growth trees that provide critical habitat for grizzly bears, bald eagles, wolves and other threatened species.

-- It allows governors to seek exceptions to the logging and road-building restrictions for a variety of possible reasons, including fire safety, access to private property and boundary adjustments.

The Bush administration has tried to downplay the significance of its adjustments to the roadless rule. It emphasizes, for example, that the immediate effect of the Tongass exemption will be to open about 300,000 acres to logging -- but, the fact is, those timberlands are spread across more than 2 million acres of pristine valley.

Also, the deference of timber decisions to governors is certain to result in intensified logging. It is no secret that the industry has its most influence in capitals of some of the heavily forested Western states.

As approved by Clinton, the roadless rule did provide flexibility to thin small-diameter trees to reduce fire danger or to build roads for access to private property. The Bush administration`s arguments for the new rules are phony and transparent. This is all about logging.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

I have a dream
..........................................................................................................
BUSH LEFT HOLDING THE BAG!
Posted June 9, 2003 thepeoplesvoice.org

by Dan Dvorak

Unlike the other rogue Republican Presidents before him, George W. will be left swinging in the wind by his handlers as he attempts to extricate himself from the lies and deception in which he wrapped himself. He violated every domestic and international law pursuing political and financial gain for himself and his friends through the destruction and invasion of a sovereign nation against the will of the world, including the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process. He will soon have to account for his crimes.



Tricky Dickey Nixon insulated himself from his high crimes and misdemeanors through his close knit organization who would have all fallen on their swords for the treasonous leader to “protect the presidency” which would have extended his rule maybe even beyond legal limits and would certainly have added four, six....maybe 8 more years to War in Vietnam. Except for the dumbest move in all world politics since the beginning of time, that being Nixon’s secret tape recording of himself and everyone in his inner circle as they discussed their crimes and illegal actions. Over 50 of Nixon’s staff, cabinet and directors were either indicted, found guilty, jailed or confessed to a virtual encyclopedia of felonies and misdemeanors. Only Nixon escaped thanks to a final shielding and insulation from prosecution as a result of a Presidential Pardon “for any and all crimes that MAY have been committed...” by a grateful President Ford.



Regan was likewise shielded from his crimes and those of his administration. He was always given “plausible deniability” while his underlings carried out his orders and took the heat when things went sour. With the assassination attempt and later on loosing his marbles, he needed the assistance of his devoted wife and her Ouija board to insulate Ronald from responsibilities of his government. His aspirations and goals had to be put on hold until his replacement could be sworn in.



George Bush I, chip of the old Ronald McDonald block, retained Regan’s entire criminal enterprise and then some. Rogue military men conducted their exploits and illegal deals with terrorists, while defying Congress and engineering further erosion of America resulting in investigations and criminal trials which landed many in jail, found most everyone in the administration guilty of something, but Bush himself escaped unscathed, protected by all those loyalists that surrounded him. Not one of them would give up their Commander-in-Chief, regardless of the deal offered. Bush himself did nothing to hurt himself and avoided shooting himself in the foot by not making himself available for questions about Iran-Contra, all the while claiming that he knew nothing of the scandal. He did know enough to pardon everyone on his way out.



Nothing above will carry over to the new Commander-in Thief. Bush II the Omni-Potent has stuck his face and his mouth way out ahead of his Iraq invasion, using every possible opportunity to make it known that HE himself has decided to take action, and that “you’re either with us or against us” or that he doesn’t care what anyone else thinks, he didn`t’t even care if anyone else would join us in this invasion, he decided to make war on Iraq and that’s that! His link of 9-11 to Iraq was pure magic, as was his guarantee that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction. With his assurance that the U.S.A. itself was in “eminent danger”, he indicated that he was on a mission from God and had His blessings, which the Far Christian Right rubber stamped. Think of the difficulty Bush will have in laying this failure on God for being wrong. Even Faldwell will have a hard time swallowing that one.



Undoubtedly, Ashcroft, Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the usual suspects are busy behind the curtain pulling the strings while Bush dances, but they are leaving HIM out front this time and when it hits the fan, they could all claim they were following the orders of Bush himself. Not one of them will shield Bush II. They will have finally wised up.



Call it lessons learned from the 80’s. After all, why sacrifice dozens while ONE accomplishes the same thing. The criminal back room remains viable, while Bush is left to twist in the wind!
http://liberty.hypermart.net/editorials/2003/BUSH_LEFT_HOLDI…

© Copyright 2003 All rights reserved by Dan Dvorak

[Joerver]

Increasing Collateral Damage; or, Genocide for Fun and Profit
June 7, 2003
Satire by Colin Cohen

"War," Shakespeare once wrote, "exceeds peace as far as day does night; it`s sprightly, waking, audible, and full of vent." And with war comes many glorious side effects -- most notably, collateral damage. This term, a fairly modern one, was developed by our overly-conscientious American military complex to soften public resistance to the justified homicide of non-combatants -- those who are in the way of achieving a desired and just military objective.

The term "collateral damage" came into vogue during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. This was the first major conflict for the United States military since the Vietnam War, a war many generals believe was lost not on the battlefield, but on television. They believed that if they had only understood marketing and public relations better, the outcome would have been quite different. For example, if only the "Massacre at Mai Lai" could have been called the "Inopportune Kinetic Targeting of the Local Populace at Mai Lai," the American public would have quickly forgiven and forgotten the honest mistake of slaughtering over three hundred innocent men, women, and children.

The first Gulf War proved just how media savvy the military complex had become. Not only did they come up with cute catch phrases such as "collateral damage" and "smart bombs," they also controlled the flow of information to the media establishment by having former military officers appear on television to properly dehumanize mass casualties. And they used the "new media" to anesthetize war -- making it appear as a video game, something the average American could understand, appreciate, and even empathize with.

And what was the outcome of these efforts? Not only did America win the war quickly -- restoring the duly unelected leader of Kuwait, and reestablishing the free and inexpensive flow of oil from the area -- but the military was able to murder an estimated 35,000 civilians without protest from either the American Left or the world community. It didn`t even matter that half the dead were children -- they were simply a Stalinian statistic.

Collateral damage in Iraq, of course, didn`t end with the conclusion of hostilities. The United States had to punish Saddam Hussein by killing -- according to United Nations estimates -- a half-million of his Iraqi children through the use of sanctions. When told of this number, former US secretary of state Madeline Albright said that it was perfectly acceptable. And she was right. After all, many of these children would eventually grow into soldiers, who would then hamper future military operations, plans of which were being developed as soon as the War ended. By destroying an entire generation of Iraqis, we were simply "decapitating" one of Hussein`s greatest "assets."

The 1990s was truly a great time to be an American. The economy was thriving; and with the fall of the Soviet Union, we were able to freely police the world in fun places such as Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo -- inflicting collateral damage whenever we felt the urge -- the right and the privilege of being the lone superpower. But then, something bad happened. Our enemies wrongfully came to the conclusion that they too could inflict collateral damage . . . on us. This conclusion, of course, was wholly illogical, as they had no sharp-talking generals, no fancy vocabulary, and no video games. What was worse was that instead of inflicting collateral damage through the use of smart bombs, their weapon of choice was suicide attackers -- a clear violation of the Geneva Convention, which clearly states that the mass slaughter of human beings must be carried out exclusively through gentlemanly means.

The attacks started out small -- mostly against our proxy in the Middle East, Israel. We condemned the attacks, but mostly ignored them. After all, they weren`t killing Christians. But then came September 11, 2001. The day we as Americans finally awoke to our innate superiority. Now we could finally inflict collateral damage without any hesitation due to some misconceived notion of morality.

Afghanistan was our first target. They were superficially indirectly responsible for the attacks on September 11; but more importantly, they were easy to attack. And besides, no one liked them anyway, not even the Iranians -- so there wouldn`t be much of a fuss. Also, Americans were so mad, we didn`t care whom we killed -- just as long as they were Muslim and sufficiently different from us. Again, we had lots of generals on television showing us all sorts of fun new video games, and we easily crushed the infidels.

However, according to the Boston Globe, we only killed approximately one thousand civilians, and far less than fifty percent of them were children. This was truly a troubling development. How could we possibly teach these people a lesson -- thou shall not challenge the United States -- if we allowed so many of their civilians to remain alive? It`s a mistake that has haunted us ever since, as the ungrateful Afghanis have consistently scorned the freedom we imposed on them; and instead of properly bowing to us in the streets, they constantly make petty demands on us for insignificant things such as food, water, and shelter. And that`s only when they`re not taking potshots at our brave soldiers, those who have graciously sacrificed the comforts of home to teach these people blind subservience to the American flag and to our great Christian god.

Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately, we quickly got bored with Afghanistan; and as the president`s poll numbers started to slide when Americans selfishly became focused on mundane issues such as feeding their families, a new enemy had to be found. But who? Why not our old friend Saddam Hussein? He was still in power; and thanks to those crippling sanctions imposed on Iraq since the first Gulf War, they were the perfect enemy. Even though we had already killed much of their population, there were still many left, especially as Muslim populations have a tendency to rabbit-like increases.

Thus began the second Gulf War. However, as opposed to the first one, when the world was united to turn back a ruthless dictator who had unjustly overthrown another ruthless dictator, we didn`t have a convincing enough argument. Actually, we didn`t have any argument -- despite the best efforts of all the screenwriters working in the White House. So, it was up to us alone to inflict collateral damage. But as the cliché goes, "the more, the merrier."

Preliminary results of the War, though, are quite discouraging. There have been only a few thousand civilian casualties; and again, a far lower percent of dead children. As the occupation progresses, we have seen slight increases of both these numbers, but only slight. We can only come to the conclusion that this great crusade, while done with the best of intentions, has, like in Afghanistan, come up somewhat short.

The heart of the problem, I believe, is that we have a muddled policy regarding collateral damage, a policy which we need to make far more succinct. I propose that instead of making collateral damage a hidden side benefit of our policy, it must become the cornerstone of it; and it must be taken to the next logical level. I call for the mass extermination of enemy populaces, a policy that will enrich us both economically and politically. It is a policy that we should not be ashamed to state openly.

By eliminating populaces, we will not only eliminate current and future enemies, but we will also gain control over their natural resources -- whatever those resources may be -- resources that we should`ve controlled all along considering we use them the most. We will also get what the Nazis called "Lebensraum" -- living space for us to breathe. Of course, the world may very well protest. But even if they do so sufficiently and with a loud enough voice, we could simply hand control of these resources to our not-so-secret proxies, the multinational corporations.

Unfortunately, when we say "the mass extermination of enemy populaces," this conjures an ugly word in the English language: genocide. It conjures Hitler, Pol Pot, and Edi Amin. These men lamentably took a perfectly acceptable term, something that was practiced by heroic men from Biblical times onward (even God, in His infinite wisdom, practiced it on many occasions to teach us a much needed lesson) and bastardized it through their ignorance of the art of public relations.

Just as we invented the term "collateral damage," we must invent a term for genocide that the average American can accept and embrace. One possibility is "extreme collateral damage." Not only does it signify collateral damage at a much higher level, but the adjective "extreme" has come to be understood by our culture as something "cool." The term conjures not the brutal and senseless butchery of innocent people, but instead properly conjures Arnold Schwarzenegger`s next film.

However, this term just doesn`t seem creative enough -- it doesn`t sound like something that would come from the pen of one of those scribes from Madison Avenue. A better term, I think, is "aggregate disappearance." It sounds scientific enough without sounding too sterile; there`s a bit of mystery to it -- and best of all it`s accurate without being too accurate. People won`t be murdered, there will be neither blood nor cries of agony. People will just conveniently disappear.

So, where do we begin creating aggregate disappearances? One of the nations President Bush singled out when he made his eloquent, Churchillian speech about the "Axis of Evil" was Iran. They are a good choice, because as with Iraq, they have one of the world`s largest oil reserves, they are populated by heretics, and their name begins with the letter "I." Iran is the perfect training grounds for our little experiment in disappearing -- the final solution of a problem that`s been nagging us for more than twenty years.

The people of Iran, after decades of our unrelenting support for their benevolent tyrant, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, which included restoring him to power by unselfishly overthrowing the democratically-elected government of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, showed their appreciation by taking our embassy hostage, a clear violation of international conduct. And ever since, the Iranians have failed to show us the respect we deserve -- even after we helped Iraq develop chemical weapons that were used so effectively against the Iranian population during their little war in the 1980s.

The plan against Iran should be concluded as follows. As we already have a large military deployment in the Gulf region, it will not be difficult to turn our weapons toward Tehran and begin creating disappearances. This should be done without warning, in classic Blitzkrieg fashion, so as to preclude Western journalists from witnessing it and putting a negative spin on the carnage.

The Second Gulf War conclusively proved our forces can overrun any country with the type of speed that would envy even Hitler. Add to this our new policy of encouraging collateral damage, and it would not be unreasonable to expect that the battle would last days, if not hours. And if the international community complains or protests, we`ll just say that it was a necessary preemptive strike against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. We can manufacture all the evidence they need.

After we`ve liberated Iran and eliminated most of its enemy populace, we will have control of its vast oil reserves; and in combination with the oil we already control in Iraq, we could easily break the OPEC cartel and soon anticipate the return of ten-cent-a-gallon gasoline prices, which would spur unparalleled growth in our economy.

A question that will arise soon afterward, though, is what will we then do with the few remaining Iranians and the places in Iran that do not contain oil. Using our history with Native Americans as a precedence, we could create reservations for the locals, within which we`ll encourage alcoholism so as to keep the population docile. We`ll then bus them to work in the oil fields, in the Persian rug factories, in the fast food chains, and in the golf clubs that we`ll build across the country. If they behave themselves, we might even let them build and operate a few casinos. Finally, we`ll send over our best fundamentalist Christian missionaries to make certain that all these poor souls will be saved.

Once we`ve fully cleansed Iran, we`ll then free other countries. The next logical target would be the third member of the infamous Axis of Evil, North Korea. However, North Korea has almost no natural resources; and unlike the Middle Eastern nations, it might actually put up a fight. As such, it would clearly be better to sublimate North Korea through diplomatic means -- meaning that we`ll let the United Nations annoy it with sanctions until it starves to death.

The forth unofficial member of the Axis, Syria, would seem to be a better candidate for disappearing. While it has only modest oil reserves, it has enormous amounts of natural gas deposits, which is perfect for heating American homes cleanly and cheaply.

Our military is so strong that we may even be able to finish Syria and its citizenry at the same time we`re finishing Iran. And after Syria, it will be an easy task to wipe out the other oil producing states in the region, such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. Most of these Gulf nations have so few people that they will hardly be missed.

This purging will leave only a few oil producing nations outside our control, most notably Nigeria and Venezuela. Joyfully, both these nations are extremely unstable, and should acquiesce to their predestined fate without much enmity.

After we`ve taken control of almost all the world`s oil reserves and have eliminated a considerable amount of the world`s excess population, you might think that we as Americans will finally be able to rest. But one of the things that have always made us great is our ability to think outside the box. Wealth and world domination is not secured solely through the control of energy. There are nations abundant in gold, diamonds, and rich farmland -- all waiting to be liberated by us.

Yes, the task before us is immense and will require a unity of thought amongst all Americans -- a unity that must be achieved involuntarily if necessary. But, if done correctly and efficiently, our policy of aggregate disappearance will not only be highly profitable, but will also be a whole lot of fun as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/06/07_colla…

© Democratic Underground, LLC

[Joerver]

War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say
Simon Jeffery
Friday June 13, 2003
The Guardian

At least 5,000 civilians may have been killed during the invasion of Iraq, an independent research group has claimed. As more evidence is collated, it says, the figure could reach 10,000.

Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict.

Its latest report compares those figures with 14 other counts, most of them taken in Iraq, which, it says, bear out its findings.

Researchers from several groups have visited hospitals and mortuaries in Iraq and interviewed relatives of the dead; some are conducting surveys in the main cities.

Three completed studies suggest that between 1,700 and 2,356 civilians died in the battle for Baghdad alone.

John Sloboda, professor of psychology at Keele University and an IBC report author, said the studies in Iraq backed up his group`s figures. "One of the things we have been criticised for is quoting journalists who are quoting other people. But what we are now finding is that whenever the teams go into Iraq and do a detailed check of the data we had through the press, not only is our data accurate but [it is] often on the low side.

"The totality is now producing an unassailable sense that there were a hell of a lot of civilian deaths in Iraq."

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said he had not seen anything to substantiate the report`s figures. "During the conflict we took great pains to minimise casualties among civilians. We targeted [the] military. So it is very difficult for us to give any guidance or credence to a set of figures that suggest there was x number of civilian casualties."

IBC`s total includes a figure of at least 3,240 civilian deaths published this week by the Associated Press news agency, which was based on a survey of 60 Iraqi hospitals from March 20 to April 20, when the fighting was declining. But many other bodies were either buried quickly in line with Islamic custom or lost under rubble.

Prof Sloboda said there was nothing in principle to stop a total count being made using forensic science methods similar to those used to calculate the death toll from the September 11 attack: it was a question of political will and resources.

He said even an incomplete record of civilian deaths was worth compiling, to assist in paying reparations and in assessing the claim before the war that there would be few civilian casualties.

Lieutenant Colonel James Cassella, a US defence department spokesman, said the Pentagon had not counted civilian deaths because its efforts had been focused on defeating enemy forces rather than aiming at civilians.

He said that under international law the US was not liable to pay compensation for "injuries or damage occurring during lawful combat operations".

The Iraqi authorities estimated that 2,278 civilians died in the 1991 Gulf war.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/126411_iraqhosped.html

Iraq`s curse is our curse, as well
Friday, June 13, 2003

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

It`s hard to know whether to praise or curse those who bring us images of the world`s suffering -- particularly that in which we`ve had a hand.

So it is with the photo by the P-I`s Dan DeLong that ran on the front page of Wednesday`s newspaper. It is that of a 4-year-old girl afflicted with a brain tumor. Her bald head lies upon a small pillow, the shape of the tumor visible beneath her finely veined scalp. A bit of her rose-print dress peeks from behind the black sleeve of her mother`s robe as the woman wipes a tear from her crying daughter`s eye.

The child`s name is Kasak. Her mother`s name is Nakem. They are at the Mother and Child Hospital in Basra, Iraq. The doctor in charge of the hospital`s children`s cancer ward told P-I Foreign Desk Editor Larry Johnson that they would run out of drugs "in two to three weeks."

Iraq`s hospitals are in desperate need of drugs and equipment -- oh, and electricity and water. The mortality rate for the ward`s leukemia patients will jump from 20 percent to 80 percent without drugs.

Yes, Iraq has been torn by war. Yes, it`s clear that the country was ruled by a cruel despot who lived in luxury while children like Kasak were deprived. But as President Bush often pointed out, we were not at war with the Iraqi people. Notwithstanding unprecedented restraint by our military, Iraqi civilians have suffered many of the war`s casualties and much of its deprivations.

If we can accomplish such a swift and sure military victory, surely the world`s most powerful nation can at least assure that hospitals have power and water and the pharmaceutical essentials of saving and preserving lives.

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

Rob Kall: `You`ve been drafted`
Posted on Friday, June 13 @ 10:06:56 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Rob Kall, OpEdNews.com

This column was inspired by remarks made by Kim Gandy, the President of N.O.W., at the Take Back America Conference, on June 5, 2003

Seventeen months.

That`s how much time we have until we find out whether the US has been completely taken over. One of my readers suggested that we could have a Bush in the Whitehouse until 2016-- 2016! --with Jeb replacing George. I don`t want to, can`t and refuse to imagine the next thirteen years of my life under the shadow of a radical right wing governance.



At 52, that would take me past my 65th birthday. This is a nightmarish vision. So I am doing everything I legally can to insure that a stop is put to the morally reprehensible, unethical, unfair, corrupt, criminal policies of the current administration. And you should too. The next 17 months offer an opportunity you`ve never had before. You know in advance that there is some hope that you can contribute to removing the right wing from the Whitehouse and maybe from the Senate too. This is your chance to do more for your country, for the world, for your family and yourself than ever before.

The question are, what can you do? What have you done today? How passionate are you about committing to fighting to make the change happen? How big a change in your life are you willing to institute? You know that the assault on America, on democracy on the working and middle class is nothing less than a full blown pearl harbor attack, a declaration of war. Will you sit passively and cooperate like the vast majority of Poles and French did during world war two?

When Bush sent our young soldiers off to war, I felt sorry for them, knowing in my heart that Bush and Powell and Rumsfeld were lying about biological weapons, about nuclear weapons, about missiles, about connections with the AlQaida, about the connection between Saddam and the WTC 911 attacks. Lies that were sending our young men to face death, to face exposure to radioactive ammo... and the hate of the occupied Iraqi people. But those soldiers, many of whom had signed on with the military not to fight, but to dig themselves out of poverty, bravely faced their duty. Now, we know they were pawns, duped by the Bush regime as much as the congress was.

If you`re reading this, you are probably older than these soldiers. You may have never served in the military. But your country needs you now, perhaps more than it ever has before. And to make it harder, there is no overt draft, no clear, declared call to duty. But you know that the country is in desperate times. It is besieged on multiple fronts-- attacked by corporation and multinational entities that want to destroy our government-- the body that protects the weakest among us, that protects our shared assets-- the commons resources of nature, the ones we`ve built as a nation. They would use legal and political trickery to steal and or corrupt our minerals, our airwaves, our educational systems, our water, our lands, our energy resources.

We are being attacked viciously in a class war in which the greedy wealthy are attempting to reinstate a feudal society in which workers barely scrape by, with no rights, no recourse to democracy, justice or even freedom. One of the leading men of influence among the Bush cabal is Grover Norquist. His attitude towards government is to shrink so it is small enough to put in a bathtub so you can drown it. This is our government. The one that we used to depend upon to provide education, security, road maintenance, environmental protection, economic stability and responsible stewardship.

As Bill Moyers has said, "we are fighting a class war that the other side has already started and is winning."

And you have been drafted!

If you are reading this article, then you`ve found your way to a left wing, progressive, liberal source of information. Maybe you are already a convinced member of the choir. Maybe you are recently former republican who is ashamed by the actions of a government that`s put itself up for sale, a presidency that is not screwing one White House aide, but rather, is screwing millions of children, tens of millions of Americans, and billions of citizens of impoverished third world nations. Or maybe you are a democrat who has supported the war, having been fooled by the fraudulent lies that Bush and his cronies used to trick our nation and the handful of other nations that followed us into a morass that has proven.

Irregardless, you are at a point today where you must face the fact that your life as you knew it is over. You have been drafted. Fate, life, circumstances.... they have al come to a screeching halt. Look around you at your world. It is no longer the same. You can evade the draft, but it won`t be due to ethical reasons of conscience. Because this is an ethical draft that is calling upon you to do more than you ever did before politically, as an activist. You don`t see yourself as an activist? Neither did I a few months ago. Don`t see yourself as political? Hello!! Your life, your future has already been indelibly changed by laws that the Bush cabal has passed, by radically right-wing judges who have already been approved to lifetime jobs, where they can, on a daily basis favor corporations over humans, radical right wing perspectives over what we would see as fairness.

You have been drafted and you need to respond to the call. But it is not as easy as being crafted by the government. You have been drafted to act and there is no specific building where you go to sign up. The first thing you have to do is educate yourself. Sign up for some of the mailing lists that will alert you to opportunities to notify your legislators of your opinions. I`ve contacted my legislators more in the last three months than I did the whole rest of my life. Sign up for news mailing lists so you know what is going on in the world-- like the OpEdNews.Com mailing list, MoveOn.org and True Majority (If you are a publisher with a mailing list, or action enabling website please let me know and I`ll evaluate yours and consider adding it to the list, p articularly if you publish this article on your site. We all need to work to share resources. There is not enough communication between organizations.)

But don`t start there. Get angry and tell your friends and family. Don`t let them stay blissfully ignorant. Get active at a local level. Join the Greens and insist that they get behind the democratic candidate. Join the local Democratic party. I learned that our local people didn`t even have a web site, so I`m going to help build it.

Commit to your "enlistment" by allotting time every day, every week to taking action. Network your butt off. Expect your significant other to be annoyed, maybe even downright irate at times because of the level of your commitment (or enjoy the lessing of a partner who joins you in your passion.)

Become a recruiter. Yes. This is disorganized. Yes we need a whole new kind of leadership, since the democratic regulars have FAILED at recognizing both the immediacy of the need to act NOW and the readiness of progressive Americans to stand up and fight back, to stand up and fight for the rights American soldiers fought to defend. Expect frustration and chaos and confusion. But if we pull together, the leadership will emerge. The structures we will need to channel our anger, our energy and our willingness to sacrifice as recruits defending Democracy and Freedom and the integrity of our nation will develop. And it will happen soon.

We need progressive think tanks that are working hard on positions and policies and strategies for taking back the country from the far right-- strategies that will recruit both Democrats and Republicans to fight for justice and fairness and a return to the ideals built into the constitution by the founders. You need to support those think tanks now, and the presidential candidates you can get behind now, and every month until the elections. Read more about think tanks. Understand how the right wing think tanks like Heritage Foundation, PNAC, CATO Institute, etc. work. Volunteer to help a progressive one. Send them money. Tell all the people on your -mail forwarding lists to do the same. Did I mention to send money. The Right wingers have billionaires who put up millions. The left is just starting to draft and recruit its own billionaires. The American Majority Institute is a new think tank, to be headed by John Podesta, funded to the tune of $10 million and apparently guided by the middle of the road policy of the DLC and DNC-- the most ever for a progressive think tank. But we need five or ten more of them. The Heritage foundation receives over $25 million a year. This is not hard to reach. If some of the people who held on to their dot com wealth kick in, and celebrities speak wi th their wallets, and if you... give every month... then we can do it. We can build the WAR MACHINE we will need to take on the enemies of democracy who are encamped in the white house, retching their vile corporatist vomit on the altar of freedom. (and I am pro business-- just not rapacious over-reaching, humanity damaging business.)

Congratulations, new recruit. Sorry. We don`t have a uniform, not even a bumper sticker...yet. Now get to work. If you want me to let you know of opportunities to make a difference, or if you have any ideas drop me a line.

Rob Kall [e-mail] is the editor/publisher of OpEdNews.com, a progessive news and opinion website, and organizer of cutting edge meetings that bring together world leaders, such as the Winter Brain Meeting and the StoryCon Summit Meeting on the Art, Science and Application of Story. This article is copyright by Rob Kall, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11817&mode=nest…

[Joerver]

Barbershop Wisdom Says Bush in Trouble

By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service
June 12, 2003

"Bush is in trouble," he said.


This was neither a columnist nor a politician. It was my barber, Phil. And when Phil says that Bush is in trouble, he is.


Phil was born in the United States, but his parents are from Mexico. His Spanish is fluent. His intimate barbershop in San Jose reflects much of contemporary American society. His customers are U.S. citizens, but born everywhere: California, the Midwest, Latin America, East and Southeast Asia – they all come through. The TV is tuned to CNN, when there are no sports to watch.


"We knew that Saddam was a bad guy, but how many bad guys are there in the world? Are we going to go after them all?" Phil asks. "And where are all those weapons?"


I expect that Phil`s words are being echoed in many barber shops, beauty salons, taverns, ball fields, golf courses and around a lot of kitchen tables this month as Americans begin to ruminate on the Bush administration`s actions in Iraq.


It feels like public opinion on the war is beginning to turn. Like Phil`s, the unquestioned support of many for the war is beginning to erode. But why should there have been strong support in the beginning and during the conflict, and slippage now?


I think that the anthropologist, Margaret Mead, knew the answer. She would certainly have understood Phil. Mead witnessed four world conflicts: World War I, World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam wars. She knew a lot about American attitudes toward violence and conflict, and she would have understood Phil very well.


In her classic work, "And Keep Your Powder Dry," and in numerous other writings, Mead pointed out that Americans have four prevalent attitudes toward the use of violence:


– First, Americans see themselves as resorting to violence only in defense, never for aggression.


– Second, Americans say they use violence for altruistic, never for selfish purposes.


– Third, though Americans must put up a strong defense, they are never bullies.


– Finally, for Americans, violent action is a "job" with a finite length.


The Bush administration sold Americans the conflict in Iraq based on just these principles.


It was essential that the war be seen as defensive. Therefore there had to be weapons of mass destruction ready for imminent use. There also had to be an implicit tie between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, since the war had to be tied to an actual attack on American soil.


It was also essential that the war be conceptualized altruistically as a "war of liberation" designed to "bring democracy to Iraq" rather than a "war for oil" or a "war to establish American hegemony."


Because Americans are not bullies, every instance of civilian death, or destruction of non-military targets had to be seen as "accidental" or "collateral damage."


Finally, as President Bush stated on March 17, two days before military action began, the war had to be billed as short and limited in scope. Americans would do a job and get out.


Americans were in full support of the war, because it was sold to them using principles in which they already believed. In many ways, they were provided with rhetoric they could not resist. It was the sales job of the century.


However, for Phil and others, the bases on which Bush administration sold the war are cracking.


The defensive purpose of the war is now being called fully into question. Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. The al-Qaeda connection remains non-existent.


The altruistic nature of the war is being overwhelmed by stories of profiteering by American industrial interests with ties to the administration, like Halliburton, and continual reference to Iraq`s oil resources. The idea that the United States was bringing democracy to Iraq is fading as American viceroy Paul Bremer establishes his own hand-picked counsel of transition leaders headed by Ahmad Chalabi, widely viewed as an American puppet. The majority Shi`a population has been excluded from the process.


Americans are increasingly seen as bullies. They are no longer defending anything in Iraq, and so are treated as unwelcome occupiers by the citizens, who protest and fire on them. Some 41 have died since May 1, when President Bush declared that military action in Iraq had ended; some in accidents, others from enemy fire.


Finally, it looks like the idea of the Iraqi mission as a self-terminating job is a vain hope. The American military will be there for a very long time.


So, for Phil and for others, the Iraqi war looks like it was sold under false premises, and they are beginning to wonder why they bought it.


Margaret Mead had one other observation that is relevant here: Americans value straight dealing, and hate being cheated. When they are cheated, their anger knows no bounds.


Bush is in trouble.


William O. Beeman teaches anthropology at Brown University. He is editor of eight volumes of the work of Margaret Mead dealing with contemporary society.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16148

[Joerver]

Und nicht vergessen Amerikaner lieben Verschwörungstheorien.

Pass The Tinfoil Hat
by David Wildman

Most of America does not realize that Paul Wellstone`s tragic plane crash eight months ago was fraught with extremely bizarre circumstances. In much the same way that the populace was led to believe Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind 9/11, misleading ideas about the Senator`s death and his subsequent funeral were encouraged and promoted by the media, the FBI and the GOP.

The simple fact is that whether or not Paul Wellstone`s death was an extremely and possibly embarrassingly convenient accident for the Republicans or a successful assassination, everything that was suspicious and unusual about the circumstances has, intentional or not, been deftly ironed out of the popular consciousness. Now that America is starting to open up to the possibility that the Bush government may have knowingly lied about Iraq`s Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that the press was apparently complicit in passing along the lies, I decided to risk being labeled a tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy nut, revisit the Wellstone crash and set some things straight.

If anyone was a ripe candidate for assassination it was Wellstone. He`d once been the target of a possible attempt in Columbia in December of 2000. He was one of the few consistent critics of the Bush administration, voting against the Homeland Security act and the congressional resolution allowing Bush to use force against Iraq (although he did vote in favor of bombing Afghanistan). He was openly hated by both Bush administrations (Bush The First reportedly referred to him as “that chickenshit”) and was on the verge of winning his battle to retain his Senate seat against the hand-picked-by-George-W Republican challenger, Norm Coleman. This would have kept the Republicans from sweeping the Senate.

His death occurred eleven days before the election. If he had died just one day later, the Democrats could have left his name on the ballot, and he would have been a shoe-in as a sympathy vote. His wife died in the crash also, otherwise she could have taken over his seat and run in his place. This was what happened in 2000 with Senator Mel Carnahan, who died in a plane crash three weeks before his election. His wife survived, ran in his place and won. His opponent had been John Ashcroft.

None of this proves anything, but even the most unbiased observer would have to agree there is a bit of a funny smell to the whole thing.

Here`s what we know about the crash: on October 25, 2002 at 10:20 am, the Senator`s airplane, an eight-seat King Air 100, a top of the line model, was approaching Eveleth Virginia Municipal Airport in Minnesota. Wellstone was two miles from the runway; the last radio report said all was normal. Then, without any notification to the control tower, the airplane suddenly took a 180-degree turn in the opposite direction, speeded south and crashed in a muddy bog. The official explanation was pilot error and that there was a snowstorm and ice on the wings. If this were really the case, then we could reasonably put the issue aside and blame it on nature and bad luck.

But for some reason, the correct weather conditions were never broadcast. If the crash was an accident, why weren`t the facts given correctly? The media reported heavy snow and ice, but according to the bulk of the reports, including Doppler Radar maps put out by the National Weather Service, the temperature was 34 degrees, slightly overcast with a light, snowy drizzle and at least three miles visibility - hardly the snowstorm that media reports suggested. A local flight instructor, Don Sipola, reported that there was little ice and conditions were normal. While local pilots called the icing story “ludicrous” and Greg Spoden assistant state climatologist stated that visibility was about three miles, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune (10/26/02). Nevertheless, CNN`s Wolf Blitzer, while talking to a reporter on the scene, pushed the snow and ice scenario and ignored the reporter when she said unequivocally that weather conditions had nothing to do with the crash.

Even in bad weather, the pilots could have contacted the tower. They would have had at least two minutes to send some sort of message. Instead there was radio silence.

The FBI promptly arrived on the scene and, by the end of the day, released a report stating that there had been no assassination or terrorist activity, and that no flight recorder had been found. This instantly became the official word, but how could they have determined all that so quickly? Wasn`t anyone suspicious that such a politically charged incident could be wrapped up so succinctly? If it had been Bush on the plane, there would have been a huge government investigation into the circumstances.

We`ve seen plenty of evidence that the corporate owned press is reticent to criticize the current administration. At the time of the crash Bush was pushing for war. Then we were at war. Although there were off-the-record rumblings, Democrats were too cowed to demand action. The centrist DLC were probably on some level relieved, and no one in the media dared push any story that might embarrass the administration.

At Wellstone`s funeral tens of thousands showed up and Trent Lott was booed. The press cast the story exactly the way the Republicans wished it, as a slight to poor Lott, and a huge mistake by the Democrats. No one gave much credence to the fact that Wellstone`s supporters were all frustrated, angry and terrified that the GOP would pull off what they eventually did: total domination of the House and Senate.

The point is not that there is currently any solid proof that Wellstone was assassinated. It`s that, as with the debacle in Iraq, none of the right questions were asked by the press or the opposition party, either out of misplaced loyalty or fear of angering the powers that be and being labeled “unpatriotic.”

Now that the Bushies seem to have overreached and are starting to appear more vulnerable, maybe it won`t start to seem so crazy to ask some of these importtant questions.

http://www.weeklydig.com/dig/content/3717.aspx

[Joerver]

A deadly detour

June 14 2003

No one can read President Bush`s road map when it is covered in blood. Ed O`Loughlin reports.


On his first visit to the Middle East 10 days ago, President George Bush rode tall, wearing the new spurs that he`d won in Iraq. In Aqaba on the Red Sea he presided over the shotgun wedding of the prime ministers of Israel and Palestine, watching hawk-eyed as they exchanged reluctant vows on the King of Jordan`s lawn.

And when it was all over he jetted out, confiding to journalists on Air Force One that he planned to keep an eye on both sides to ensure they stood by their word. "It`s to keep the thing moving, " an expansive Bush confided. "I used the expression `ride herd`. I don`t know if anybody understood it in the meeting today." Perhaps not.

One week later Bush`s charges were stampeding off in a cloud of dust and cordite. The crunch came last Wednesday when a Hamas suicide bomber murdered 17 people and injured 100 more in Jerusalem. An hour later Israeli Air Force Apache helicopters killed two junior Hamas commanders on a crowded street in eastern Gaza City. The "collateral damage" from this "targeted killing" included five dead civilians. Dozens were wounded.

On Thursday afternoon the car of the senior Hamas leader, Yasser Taha, was hit by a barrage of helicopter missiles on another crowded Gaza street. Not targeted, but still slain, were Taha`s wife, his one-year-old daughter and four passers-by. Forty were injured.

By yesterday morning the death toll for the previous 48 hours was at least 37. Still, Hamas and the Israeli Government were both vowing to raise the stakes. As for Bush, he was lying low back in Washington. No one was riding herd.


This week was remarkable not just for the body count but for the swiftness with which Bush`s cocky first attempt at peacemaking was flung back in his face.

For Bush the moment of truth came early on Tuesday morning, when the first Apache raid of the post-Aqaba era hurled missiles at a car carrying the main spokesman of the Islamic group Hamas, Dr Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Rantisi emerged from the Gaza City attack injured but alive. Two bystanders were killed and many injured. Another botched Israeli air strike later that day killed three young girls from the same family.

The Rantisi attack surprised Israelis and Palestinians alike. True, the former pediatrician is a notorious anti-Semite and inciter of terror, but the attack came just as the moderate Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas, was hoping to get Hamas and other militant groups to agree to a ceasefire. The first thing the US expected Abbas to deliver as his end of the "road map" for peace was a halt to Palestinian terrorism.

In return, Israel was expected to start dismantling some West Bank settlements and to ease oppressive curbs on the movement of Palestinians. It was understood that Israel`s "targeted killings", while not outlawed by the road map, would be launched only in "ticking bomb" cases to prevent immediate attacks.

But by attacking Rantisi, the Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon, all but destroyed hopes that Hamas would agree to a ceasefire. Hamas responded with the usual vows of revenge, followed a day later by the Jerusalem suicide bomb.

After a brief interlude of hope, Israelis and Palestinians found themselves back mired in what in Northern Ireland they used to call "the politics of the last atrocity".

There is now a strong feeling that unless Bush does something very big, very soon, the "road map" will quickly join the Oslo Accords. Already, Abbas is seriously weakened. Most ordinary Palestinians mistrust him anyway because he owes his job to US and Israeli pressure. Bush and Sharon wanted to sideline the Palestinian Authority`s elected chairman, Yasser Arafat, because, they say, he sponsors terrorism. Although sidelined for now, Arafat remains popular, devious and very jealous of his subordinate. If Abbas cannot use the US and the road map to deliver concrete improvements in day-to-day Palestinian life - such as an end to Israeli raids and assassinations - he has no relevance to his people.

As for Sharon, even after sanctioning this week`s flurry of attacks he continues to insist that Israel will honour its obligations under the road map - while reserving the right to fight terrorism whenever and however it feels. To Palestinians, Sharon`s insistence on continuing the war against "the infrastructure of terror" means continued armed incursions by the Israeli defence forces, continued curfews and travel bans, continued assassinations and continued settlement. Continued occupation, in other words, and the death of the road map`s promise of a Palestinian state by late 2005.

Sharon`s strike against Hamas during a supposed trust-building period has made many wonder whether the old warhorse was ever serious about peace at all. Sharon can justly point out that a Hamas fighter was involved in a weekend gun attack that killed four Israeli soldiers in Gaza, losing his own life in the process. But as one Palestinian Authority official in Gaza put it, "by firing at Rantisi, Sharon knew well he would hit Abu Mazen [a respectful name for Abbas] instead".

In the Israeli newspaper Ma`ariv, the journalist Eli Bernstein noted that there have been a number of remarkably similar suspiciously timed air strikes since Sharon came to power: "January 14, 2002: After the first month of quiet since the violence broke out, and after Arafat ordered a ceasefire, Raed Karmi, the Tanzim commander in Tulkarm was assassinated. The reaction was not long in coming: a wave of horrific terror washed over the country ...

"July 23, 2002: In the course of feverish efforts to bring about a signed agreement between the Palestinian Authority and [Hamas], Salah Shehada, commander of the Hamas military wing, was assassinated. This assassination led to a wave of terror attacks ...

"March 8, 2003: Two hours only before the PLO convention met, which was meant to discuss the appointment of a new prime minister, Ibrahim Makadme, a senior Hamas leader, was assassinated. Two days afterwards a soldier was killed in a shooting attack ... and four were injured. At the end of the same month, a suicide bomber exploded in a Netanya cafe."

Sharon`s critics note that he has never formally said that he backs the road map. Most of the measures Israel put in place before Aqaba to ease Palestinian movements have already been rescinded on security grounds. The 10 settlement outposts which it dismantled early this week were all uninhabited: plans to dismantle five inhabited ones have been quietly shelved pending court hearings.

Optimists hope that Sharon and his hawkish security cabinet may simply have miscalculated the effect on Palestinian and world opinion of the bid to kill Rantisi. Perhaps, they say, Sharon really is as serious about peace as he sounded two weeks ago, when he referred for the first time to an Israeli "occupation" in the West Bank and Gaza and demanded of angry Likud party colleagues, "Do you want to stay in Bethlehem forever?" Perhaps.

Or perhaps Sharon really does want to hang on to the Arab territories which he helped to conquer as a soldier. Perhaps his public change of heart was just an elaborate dummy which he sold to Bush. Perhaps Sharon is simply tired and uncertain, and has no stomach for a fratricidal Israeli showdown with the fanatical hard-right settler movement, which the "road map" would require. It was a supporter of the settlers who murdered the former PM, Yitzak Rabin.

Bush may himself be wondering which Sharon he is dealing with - arch-hawk or newborn dove. On Tuesday Bush spoke relatively bluntly, saying he was "concerned that the [Israeli] attacks will make it more difficult for Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks. I also don`t believe the attacks helped Israeli security." Following Wednesday`s suicide bombing, however, Bush`s ire was directed solely at Hamas.

Sharon may have calculated that his own slap in the face to Bush will move further down the President`s list of priorities the longer the violence goes on. After all, the great crusader against international terrorism can hardly equate Arab suicide bombings with legitimate acts of self-defence by uniformed men and women in US-supplied helicopters.

Palestinians see things differently. On Wednesday night in Gaza`s Shifa Hospital, Rabab Zareb wedged herself carefully into a corner and wept in agony. Inside the door of the bare "intensive care" ward her 17-year-old son Ehab was surrounded by frantic doctors. He had just gone into convulsions and was screaming with pain from the Israeli shrapnel in his chest. "He was just walking down the street," was all his mother could say.

At the hospital morgue some Hamas supporters were paying respects to one of the two "targeted" victims of the first Israeli barrage, a 30-year-old Soffil Abu Nahe.

"He had three young sons," said one. "Yihye Ayash, four, Mou`hadin, three, and Salah Shehada, three months." The boys` names are those of senior Hamas leaders who, like their father, were "martyred" by the Israeli security forces. If peace does not come, they won`t need a road map to know where their future lies.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/13/1055220774688.html

[Joerver]

ZNet | Iraq

Anti-US Opposition In Iraq And The So Called Roadmap
An Interview with Robert Fisk

by Amy Goodman and Robert Fisk; Democracy Now; June 12, 2003

On June 11, 2003, Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman interviewed Robert Fisk, reporter with the Independent newspaper of London. He recently left Iraq where he was chronicling the rising resistance to the U.S. occupation. Ten American soldiers have been killed in ambushes across Iraq in the past 15 days including one yesterday in Baghdad who was attacked with rocket propelled grenades. Fallujah has been a hotbed of Iraqi resistance since April when U.S. troops fired into large crowds of civilians twice killing at least 18 people. Democracy Now! is a national listener-sponsored radio and television program.

------------------------------------------------

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Fisk, can you talk more about what you found there?

ROBERT FISK: I don`t think I`ve ever seen a clearer example of an army that thought it was an army of liberation and has become an army of occupation. It`s important perhaps to say -- I did mention it in [a recent] article that a number of those soldiers who were attached to the 3rd infantry division who were military policeman, American ordinary cops like one from Rhode Island, for example--they had a pretty shrewd idea of what was going on. You got different kinds of behavior from the Americans. You got this very nice guy, Phil Cummings, who was a Rhode Island cop, very sensitive towards people, didn`t worry if people shouted at him. He remained smiling. He just said that if people throw rocks at me or stones at me, I give them candies. There was another soldier who went up to a middle aged man sitting on a seat and he said, "If you get out of that seat, I`ll break your neck," and there was quite a lot of language like that as well. There were good guys as well as bad guys among the Americans as there always are in armies, but the people who I talked to, the sergeants and captains and so on--most of them acknowledge that something had gone wrong, that this was not going to be good.

One guy said to me, every time we go down to the river here--he was talking about the river area in Fallujah--it`s a tributary of the Tigris--it`s like Somalia down there. You always get shot at and you always get stoned, I mean, have stones thrown at them. Some of the soldiers spoke very frankly about the situation in Baghdad. One man told me--I heard twice before in Baghdad itself, once from a British Commonwealth diplomat and once from a fairly senior officer in what we now have to call the coalition, C.P.A., the Coalition-- for the moment forces or whatever it`s called--Authority, the authority that`s hanging on there until they can create some kind of Iraqi government--they all say that Baghdad airport now comes under nightly sniper fire from the perimeter of the runways from Iraqis. Two of them told me that every time a military aircraft comes in at night, it`s fired at. In fact some of the American pilots are now going back to the old Vietnamese tactic of cork screwing down tightly on to the runways from above rather than making the normal level flight approach across open countryside because they`re shot at so much. It`s a coalition provisional authority I`m thinking of, the C.P.A., previously an even more long fangled name. There is a very serious problem of security.

The Americans still officially call them the remnants of Saddam or terrorists.

But in fact, it is obviously an increase in the organized resistance and not just people who were in Saddam`s forces, who were in the Ba`ath Party or the Saddam Fedayeen.

There was also increasing anger among the Shiite community, those who were of course most opposed to Saddam, and I think what we`re actually seeing, you can get clues in Iraq, is a cross fertilization. Shiites who are disillusioned, who don`t believe they have been liberated, who spent so long in Iran, they don`t like the Americans anyway. Sunni Muslims who feel like they`re threatened by the Shiites, former Sadaam acolytes who`ve lost their jobs and found that their money has stopped. Kurds who are disaffected and are beginning to have contacts, and that of course is the beginning of a real resistance movement and that`s the great danger for the Americans now.

GOODMAN: We`re talking to Robert Fisk, who is just come out of Iraq. There`s a front page piece in The New York Times today, "GI`s In Iraqi City Are Stalked By Faceless Enemies At Night, and Michael Gordon writes about how organized the resistance is, how it seems to come alive at night and that what`s clear, he says , is some attacks are premeditated, involve cooperation among small groups of fighters including a system of signaling the presence of American forces: talking about the use of red, white and blue flares when forces come and then the attacks begin.

FISK: Yes, I`ve heard this. I also know that in Fallujah, for example, there`s a system of honking the horns of cars: when the vehicles approach, the American convoy approaches, there`s one honk on the horn. When the last vehicle goes by the same spot, there`s two honks on the horn, and the purpose is to work out the time element between the first hooter and the second because by that, they know how big is the convoy and whether it`s small enough to be attacked. That comes from a sergeant in the military police in Fallujah taking part in this actual operation which I described to you just now, which you read out from my report.

One of the problems with the Americans I think is that the top people in the Pentagon always knew that this wasn`t going to be human rights abuses ended, flowers and music for the soldiers, and everyone lives happily every after and loves America. You may remember when Rumsfeld first came to Baghdad, something your president didn`t dare to do in the end, he wanted to fly over in an airplane.

He made a speech which I thought was very interesting, rather sinister in the big hanger at Baghdad airport. He said we still have to fight the remnants of Saddam and the terrorists in Iraq, and I thought, hang on a minute, who are these people? And it took me a few minutes to realize I think what he was doing, he was laying the future narrative of the opposition to the Americans. I.E when the Americans get attacked, it could be first of all laid down to remnants of Saddam, as in remnants of the Taliban who seem to be moving around in Afghanistan now in battalion strength, but never mind. It could be blamed on Al Qaeda, so America was back fighting its old enemies again. This was familiar territory.

If you were to suggest that it was a resistance movement, harakat muqawama, resistance party in Arabic, that would suggest the people didn`t believe they had been liberated, and of course, all good-natured peace loving people have to believe they were liberated by the Americans, not occupied by them. What you`re finding for example is a whole series of blunders by Paul Bremer, the American head of the so-called coalition forces, at least coalition authority in Baghdad.

First of all, he dissolved the Iraqi Army. Well, I can`t imagine an Army that better deserves to be dissolved. But that means that more than quarter of a million armed men overnight are deprived of their welfare and money. Now if you have quarter of a million armed Iraqis who suddenly don`t get paid any more, and they all know each other, what are they going to do? They are going to form some kind of force which is secret, which is covered; then they will be called terrorists, but I guess they know that, and then of course they will be saying to people, why don`t you come and join us.

It was very interesting that in Fallujah, a young man came out to see me from a shop just after the American searches there had ended and said some people came from the resistance a few nights ago and asked him to join. I said, what did you say, and he said, I wouldn`t do that. But now, he said, I might think differently. I met a Shiite Muslim family in Baghdad who moved into the former home of a Saddam intelligence officer. This family had been visited three nights previously by armed men who said, you better move out of this house. It doesn`t belong to you unless you want to join us. The guy in Fallujah said that the men, the armed men who came to invite him to join the resistance had weapons, showed their mukhabarat intelligence identity card and said, we`re still being paid and we are proud to hold our I.D. cards for the Ba`ath Party. So, now you have to realize that Fallujah and other towns like it are very unlike Tikrit, are very much pro-Saddam. Fallujah is the site of a great munitions factory, it gave people massive employment. They all loved Saddam in the way Arabs are encouraged to love dictators or go to prison otherwise. But nonetheless, there is an embryo of a serious resistance movement now.

On top of this, you can see the measure of what I think is basically desperation. I`ve been writing about this in The Independent this morning in London, well, last night for this morning`s paper, and Paul Bremer now asked the legal side of the coalition provisional authority to set up the machinery of Iraqi press censorship. In other words, Iraqi newspapers are going to be censored. Controlled I think is the official word they use, but that means censorship.

That is the kind of language that Saddam used. Iraqis are used to a censored press; after all, they lived with it for more than 20 years under Saddam Hussein.

Now when you question the Americans about it, first of all they deny it. Then the British half accept it; then other people involved in the coalition say well it`s probably true, yes, it is true.

But the problem is the wild stories appearing in the Iraqi press. Now, of course there`s no tradition of western style journalism in Iraq. There are those that say it`s a good idea, no tradition for example of letting the other side have a say, checking the story out, going back on the ground and asking the other side for their version of events. It doesn`t exist. It`s a little bit, but not much. What you get after saying that Americans are going with Iraqi prostitutes, American troops are chasing Iraqi women, that Muslim women are being invited to marry Christian foreigners, that this is worse than it was under Saddam. I`m actually quoting from one particular newspaper called The Witness, which is a Shiite Muslim paper, basically that had its first issue the other day. Other newspapers carry reports of American beatings; they also carry reports of "I was Saddam`s double" , and the opening of mass graves. They`re not totally one sided against the Americans.

But you can see how the occupation forces, let`s call them by their real name, are troubled by this kind of publication because it seems to them to provoke or incite animosity towards the liberators of Iraq, which it is not meant to do. But of course the problem is that the Imams in the mosques are saying the same thing about the Americans. Now, the last quote I read from American official said that it may be necessary to control what the Imams were saying in the mosques; well, this is preposterous. I sat on Rashid Street in Baghdad a few days ago and listened to the loud speaker carrying the sermon of the imam from within the mosque.

I think he was saying the Americans must leave immediately, now. Well, under the new rule presumably he`s inciting the people to violence. What are we going to do? Arrest all the Imams in the mosques, arrest all the journalists who won`t obey, close down the newspapers? I mean what Iraqi journalists need are courses in journalism from reporters who work in real democracies.

You can come along and say, look, by all means criticize the Americans and put the boot in if you want to, but make sure you get it right. And if you also do that you have to look at your own society and what is wrong in it and how Saddam ever came about. He didn`t just come about because America supported Saddam which my goodness they did. But Bremer is not interested in this. What Bremer wants to do is control, control the press, control the Imams, and it doesn`t work. A lot of the incidents taking place now, the violent incidents are not being divulged.

GOODMAN: Robert, you were just talking about a lot of the attacks we`re hearing about--what seems like a good number, a lot of the attacks--on U.S. forces are not being reported.

FISK: I have a colleague, for example, who went down to Fallujah before the incident I was describing to you earlier, after two gunmen, one American had been killed in the fire fight, he reported, I spoke to both sides. On his way back he was traveling past the town of Abu Garab a rather sinister place where the huge prison is where Saddam executed so many prisoners, including an Observer journalist back in the late 1980`s.

As we were, as the colleague was passing by the town, he saw a young man come up and throw a hand grenade at American troops in the Humvee.

The grenade missed them and exploded in the canal and wounded six Iraqi children, a very clear account of what happened. I rang the coalition forces, the telephone didn`t answer as it very often doesn`t do. And no report ever emerged except in my paper that this incident had occurred.

Now, over and over again we keep seeing things, seeing small incidents occur, soldiers threatening people outside petrol lines because people are trying to jump the line and steal. And it just doesn`t make it back into the coalition record of what`s actually happening in Iraq. The danger here is not so much that we`re not being told about it because we can see and find out for ourselves. The danger is that the United States leadership in Baghdad, and of course, especially back in the White House and Pentagon is also not being told about it. Or if it is, information is only going to certain people who can deal with that information.

It`s very easy to say, well Iraq`s been a great success we`ve got rid of a dictatorship, the weapons of mass destruction which didn`t exist have now been destroyed or whatever interpretation you want to put on that. Human rights abuses have ended, certainly the Saddam kind. But if you try and if this information goes up the ladder every bit of it to people like Bremer, I`m not sure it all is--I think it should be--then you can see how the coalition doesn`t represent the reality.

One of the big problems at the moment is the Americans and, to some extent the British, particularly the Americans in Baghdad. They`re all ensconced in this chic gleaming marble palace, largest, most expensive palace. There they sit with their laptops trying to work out with Washington how they`re going to bring about this new democracy in Iraq. They rely upon for the most part former Iraqi exiles who never endured Saddam Hussein, who are hovering around making sure that they get the biggest part of the pie possible. When they leave the palace, when they go into the streets of Baghdad, the dangerous streets of Baghdad, they leave in these armored black Mercedes with gunmen in the front and back, soldiers, plain clothes guys with weapons and sunglasses.

One Iraqi said to me the other day "who did you think was the last person we saw driving through town like [this]?" I said, Saddam Hussein? They all burst out laughing, of course, they said, exactly the same.

We are used to this just like they`re used to press censorship. I think it`s difficult--you need to be in Baghdad to understand the degree to which there`s been this slippage of ambition and slippage in the ideological war. I was in small hotel called the Al Hama the other day--it has a swimming pool, 24-hour generators. Just going down to have a meal in the evening, I came across two westerners, one with a pump action shotgun, the other with a submachine gun passing me in the hallway.

I said, "Who are you?"

He said, "Well, who are you?"

"I`m a guest in the hotel. You have guns. Who are you?"

He said, "We work for D.O.D"

"Department of Defense, right?" (But he was obviously English--he had a British accent.) "Hang on a second you`re not American."

"No, we`re a British company that is hired to look after D.O.D. employees in Baghdad. That`s why we`re armed."

I said, "Who gives you permission to have weapons?"

He said, "The coalition forces, we`re here protecting them."

Now, how often have Iraqis seen armed plain clothes men moving in and out of hotels, they have for more than 20 years, now seeing them again. Well these guys are not going to string them up by their fingernails and electrocute them in torture cells. But again, the image, the picture is the same. The armored escort, limousines in the street, soldiers kicking down the doors searching for, "terrorists." The press censorship plans. Plain clothes armed men going into a hotel asking who you are immediately by asking them who they are, same system as before. It has this kind of ghastly ghostly veneer of the old regime about it. The Americans are not Saddam, they`re not murdering people - they`re not lining up people at mass graves, of course they`re not. But if you see through the eyes of the Iraqis, it doesn`t look quite that simple.

GOODMAN: We are talking to Robert Fisk, just came out of Iraq but you`ve also written about the so-called road map to peace. I just wanted to get your response to what happened yesterday in Gaza, with the Israeli helicopter gun ships attempting to assassinate the political leader for Hamas, Abdel Azziz Rantizzi. And also Bush strongly criticizing the attempted assassination on the part of the Israel.

FISK: First of all he didn`t strongly criticize them, he mildly, rather pathetically and rather cowardly criticized the Israelis. This was an attack which was meant to kill the political head of Hamas. And in the ghastly role which the Palestinians and Israelis play in their bloody and useless conflict, I can understand why the attack was made in that context.

But that attack did not kill Rantizzi, it killed a little child of five and a young woman. Now your president said that that was "troubling". That isn`t troubling that`s a shameful act, that`s a despicable thing to do. But there was no strong condemnation from Mr. Bush, he just said it was troubling. If a Palestinian had attacked Israeli forces or Israeli political leader involved in encouraging violence, had killed a little Israeli girl, and a young innocent Israeli woman Mr. Bush would not have called it troubling. He would have said it was a shameful, terrorist act, which it would have been. How can it work when the most powerful president of the most powerful state in the world, United States of America, can be so gutless and cowardly in condemning the killing of two innocent people.

It is not troubling. It is an outrage that those two innocent people died. Just as it would be if the Palestinians had done it. Just as it is when the Palestinians do do it. [For Bush]It is not an outrage. Not a tragedy. Not shameful. It is merely troubling. Like a flood is troubling or a heavy rainfall that kills people or a storm is troubling. In that context how can this new peace possibly work.

It`s called a road map, who invented the phrase road map? I suppose the poor old State Department and all the journalists dutifully used the word road map.

They can`t use peace process because that`s associated with Oslo and that failed. You remember the cliche for the peace process, always had to be put back on track. I suppose peace process was a railway line or a railway train so it presumably always has to be put back on the main road or back on the highway that is the cliche.

What has Sharon done? he`s closed down a few empty caravans on hilltops.

At large and continuing to expand Jewish settlements, the Jews and Jews only in occupied Arab land. What have the Palestinians done? Mahmoud Abbas says I`m going to finish terrorism, there`s going to be no more violence by the Palestinians and, bang, there immediately is. We have the three main violent groups, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa immediately carrying out the suicide bombing.

And then praised by Rantizzi, I remember thinking, he`s praising them, that`s against the road map so Israelis have got a green light to knock him off and they tried and failed. I remember interviewing Rantizzi along similar lines about six months ago in Gaza, as I was talking to him I saw an Israeli helicopter emerge in the window and his body guard looked around very nervously and I thought, oh, no, please go away and so I finished the interview.

But I always thought he was a target, he always had two gunmen with him all the time. That`s not the point. Rantizzi is a very tough Hamas man, a very ruthless man. He was one of the Palestinians who was illegally deported from Israeli prisons into Lebanon in 1992. I actually met him there in the southern Lebanon in the hills, when he was living rough, months after months in a tent.

This is a very rough character, very tough guy--grew up the hard way in guerrilla warfare as well as politics.

But when you`re going to have a situation where you have an Israeli prime minister who doesn`t want to end the settlements, who is indeed the creator of the settlements, and a Palestinian prime minister who can`t stop the intifada and a U.S. president who is so gutless he can only call a killing of a woman and a child troubling, what chance is there for a road map or peace process or any other kind of agreement in the Middle East?

GOODMAN: We`re talking to Robert Fisk, who is just come out of Iraq and who has reported extensively on the Middle East for more than 30 years.

I wanted to end, back in Iraq. CNN is reporting today that Ahmed Chalabi who has addressed the Council on Foreign Relations is saying that Saddam Hussein is moving in an arc around the Tigris River starting northeast of Baghdad.He said finding Saddam would just be a matter of knowing whom to talk to.He says based on information from credible sources, he believes the former Iraqi president wants revenge and has obtained two suicide bombing vests for attacks on U.S. forces. Chalabi says Saddam is paying bounty for every U.S. soldier killed. Your response?

FISK: I long ago gave up putting any credit in anything that Ahmed Chalabi says.The real issue is not where is Saddam Hussein, he could be sitting in Minsk or Belarus or he could be sitting in Tikrit or in the Iraqi countryside somewhere.Obviously there were plans to hide him in advance. You know this goes back to another issue of the degree of real effort to find him. Just look back, the Americans wanted to arrest Valadich and put him in the Hague. We were going to capture Osama bin laden, he`s still on the loose. We were going to capture Mullah Omar, he`s only got one eye, not difficult to identify. But he`s still on the loose. We can`t get vice president Ramadan in Iraq or Uday Hussein, the sons of Saddam. We can`t get Saddam himself. Can`t get Naji Sabri the foreign minister.

I was sitting in a restaurant in Baghdad a week and a half ago, at the next table next to me was Saddam`s personal translator. I sort of did a double take, I said, hi, how are you? I knew the guy. I`d known him for years and years. I said, are you okay? Fine, fine no problem, he was having a beer with friends. And he walked out. This is the same restaurant that later on I saw Paul Bremer walk into with several special forces men to protect him and his guests for dinner. I have to ask myself sometimes what`s going on. Ahmed Chalabi says that Saddam is moving in an arc, he maybe moving in a circle or square for all I know but it`s clear he`s still alive. That`s the point.

GOODMAN: Well, Robert Fisk, thank you very much for being with us.Robert
[/IMG]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&Ite…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

December 20, 2002

The Bush Rape Story
Is the Media Ignoring Zippergate 2?
by SEAN CARTER

There is a story floating around the Internet that is being ignored by the mainstream press. Normally, this would be a good thing because, le`s face it, information from the Internet is about as reliable as an airline`s baggage handling department. For instance, just last week, I received another e-mail from someone claiming that Bill Gates would give me all of his money if I forwarded the e-mail to ten friends.

Nevertheless, the story in question is 100% accurate. In fact, anyone with a computer and a modem can verify the story by downloading court documents. However, the accuracy of the story does not seem to be enough for the media. Apparently, this story does not meet its threshold of "responsible journalism."

Fortunately, if you`ve ever read my column, then you know that I am neither professional nor a journalist. Therefore, I will be happy to break the story for you.

President Bush is being accused of rape. This allegation is part of a lawsuit filed by a Texas woman, Margie Schoedinger. According to the complaint filed on December 3rd in Fort Bend County, Texas, the President and his men are accused of repeatedly kidnapping, drugging and raping Mrs. Schoedinger and possibly her husband.

No, I am not making his up. To be honest, I`m not nearly this creative. If I were, I`d be a novelist and not a humorist.

According to the complaint, in the fall of 2000, three unknown assailants attempted unsuccessfully to kidnap Schoedinger. When she reported the crime to the Sugar Land Police Department (remember, I`m not making this up), she was harassed by the police. She was treated similarly by the FBI. To make matters worse, her bank accounts were frozen, her husband lost his job, her academic records were expunged and she became the subject of 24-hour surveillance.

According to the complaint, this treatment was orchestrated by none of than the President of the United States. Schoedinger claims that Bush is attempting to pressure her into committing suicide. Of course, you may be asking why would the President do such a thing?

Well, according to the plaintiff, she personally asked Bush the very same question. Bush allegedly replied that he is concerned that Schoedinger may remember the numerous and repeated acts of sexual assault he has committed against her and her husband. His original plan was to simply kill the plaintiff. But since he couldnt go through with it, he decided to simply drive her crazy instead.

In her lawsuit, Schoedinger is asking for $50 million for "emotional distress, loss of freedom and ability to pursue Plaintiff`s own dreams, alienation of affection from Plaintiff`s spouse, loss of privacy, being disparaged on the Internet, and loss of Plaintiff`s ability to be a Christian writer."

Now, before you label me as a "crackpot" (although I suspect it`s probably too late for that), let me just say that I am somewhat skeptical of the plaintiff`s claims in this case. For one, the thought of the President repeatedly abducting a woman to sexual assault her and her husband strikes me as far-fetched. After all, we are talking about President George W. Bush not President Dennis Rodman.

The second clue that perhaps these allegations are unfounded is the fact that the plaintiff filed the complaint "pro se" or without the benefit of an attorney. In America, there are approximately 1 million lawyers, 990,000 of whom are desperately looking for work. The fact that Schoedinger could not find even one lawyer to represent her in this matter may something about the credibility of her claims.

Nevertheless, in my view, this does not absolve the mainstream media from its responsibility to cover the news. This lawsuit is not rumor or innuendo. It`s a fact. Sure, the allegations are ridiculous but perhaps no more so than Trent Lott`s claims that Strom Thurmond would have made a great president. Yet, the media has had no trouble covering the Lott story incessantly for the last two weeks.

Of course, some would argue that this type of story unnecessarily sullies the President`s reputation. This is simply not true. Now, that you`ve read this story, do you any less respect for the President?

In fact, if a story like this does anything, it actually makes us more sympathetic towards the President. For instance, in the past, I have made fun of Bush`s almost daily verbal gaffes. And, of course, I`ll continue to do so in the future. But I will feel bad about doing so from now on. After all, if I had women accusing me of raping them and their husbands, perhaps I`d suffer a few lapses in conjugation myself.

In short, the media should have reported the filing of this lawsuit. The media should trust the American people to be able to distinguish the truth from the lies. Now, if you will excuse me, I need to answer this e-mail from an exiled foreign minister in Zaire who is willing to give me $1 million if I help him transfer money from his Swiss bank account.

Sean Carter is a lawyer, comedian, public speaker and the author of "If It Does Not Fit, Must You Acquit?-- Your Humorous Guide to the Law". He can be reached at www.lawpsided.com.

http://www.counterpunch.org/carter1220.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

66% Expect Bush Victory, But Democrats More Optimistic Than In `91

Released: June 12, 2003

Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
About this Survey
Questionnaire

Summary of Findings

Most Americans believe President Bush will win reelection next fall, but Democrats are holding out hope for their party`s chances for success in 2004. Overall, two-thirds of registered voters (66%) think Bush will be reelected, compared with 22% who expect the Democratic candidate to prevail. In the fall of 1991, more than three-quarters of registered voters (78%) expected President George H.W. Bush to win the 1992 election.

Democrats are more optimistic about their chances now than they were in October 1991. Nearly half of registered Democrats (46%) think their party`s candidate will win next year`s election, while 38% expect Bush to prevail. In 1991, two-thirds of registered Democrats (67%) said they thought Bush would win the 1992 race. Independents also are less likely to say they expect a Bush victory (66% now, 82% then), while Republicans are about as confident as they were in October 1991 (91% now, 89% then).

The latest Pew Research Center nationwide poll of 1,000 Americans (including 749 registered voters), conducted June 4-8, finds that 62% of Americans approve of the president`s job perfromance, down slightly from last month (65%). The president`s job approval rating has declined from its recent peak of 74% in early April, shortly after the fall of Baghdad. Just prior to the war (March 13-16), 55% of the public approved of Bush`s job performance.

Bush continues to win overwhelming support from Republicans (92%). But positive ratings for the president have slipped among independents and Democrats since the end of the Iraq war. Currently, 56% of independents approve of Bush`s job performance, down from a recent peak of 73% in late March. Just four-in-ten Democrats give Bush a positive rating, down from 54% in early April.


Tax Cuts, Bush Trip Attract Little Attention

The public is showing little interest in the president`s major accomplishments of the past month ­ his signing into law of $350 billion in tax reductions, and his meetings with world leaders and efforts to jump-start the Mideast peace process. Only about one-in-five Americans say they followed those stories very closely (22% tax cut, 20% overseas trip).

Developments in Iraq continue as the top news story (46% very closely), although interest has declined since last month (63%). The infectious lung disease SARS also is attracting less interest: 28% say they followed reports on SARS very closely, compared with 39% in May.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Irak-Feldzug

Krieg zum Sonderpreis

Nach ersten Schätzungen hat der Irakkrieg die USA 62,5 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Das sind rund 13 Milliarden weniger, als der Golfkrieg von 1991 gekostet hat.

Washington - Die Zeitung "USA Today" berichtet, die Regierung in Washington habe den im März vom Kongress gebilligten Etat genau ausgeschöpft. Präsident George W. Bush bleibe damit ein zweiter Bittgang zum Kongress erspart, um mehr Geld einzufordern. Wäre es dazu gekommen, so das Blatt, habe die Gefahr bestanden, dass die Irak-Debatte neu entfacht worden wäre.

Der Golfkrieg von 1991 hatte nach heutigem Dollarwert 76 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Der größte Teil der Kosten wurde damals allerdings von den Alliierten der USA getragen. Diesmal entfallen praktisch alle Kosten auf die amerikanischen Steuerzahler.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Ich hoffe, dass das die endgültige Fassung der zweitägigen Kämpfen ist, gestern gab sehr unterschiedliche Berichte.

US troops kill 97 Iraqis in new attacks
Saddam loyalists posing problems two months after Bush declared major combat operations at an end

Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Saturday June 14, 2003
The Guardian

American forces, returning to large-scale combat in Iraq barely six weeks after President George Bush declared victory, have killed at least 97 Iraqi fighters during the past two days in battles against an increasingly sophisticated local resistance.

Six US soldiers were also injured in the raids directed at an area north of Baghdad that was a stronghold for many of Saddam Hussein`s most loyal supporters.

The assaults - intended to "eradicate Ba`ath party loyalists, paramilitary groups and other subversive elements", according to the US military - were ordered after a particularly deadly fortnight for the occupation forces, with 11 soldiers killed. The high casualty rate has sharpened criticism in the US of the Pentagon`s plans for postwar Iraq, with conservatives calling for a far heavier presence than the 150,000 American soldiers now in the country.

"What you are seeing here is a fundamental reassessment of the situation in Iraq in terms of political and military stability," said Daniel Gouré, a Pentagon adviser at the Lexington Institute in Washington.

"We have been operating on two assumptions, that once the war was over that Iraqis would rapidly move into peaceful mode, and second, that there would be a new political and economic spirit in the country. We discovered neither of those assumptions is true."

Amid the heat of the raids, military figures now speak openly of a prolonged period of combat.

"It is still a combat operation, but it takes on, as you can imagine, a significantly different nature than the decisive combat operations which have ended," Lieutenant General David McKiernan, the commander of ground forces in Iraq, said this week.

The American offensive began on Thursday night with an intense airstrike to destroy what was described as "a terrorist training camp". Paratroopers from the 101st Air borne Division, as well as special forces soldiers, then poured in on foot to clear out the remaining fighters.

Pentagon officials have suggested there were "foreign fighters" using the camp, although it was unclear who precisely was killed. Troops found about 80 surface-to-air missiles, 78 rocket-propelled grenades and 20 Kalashnikov assault rifles.

Yesterday tanks from the 4th Infantry Division were ambushed on a main highway heading north by fighters using rocket-propelled grenades. US troops fired back and killed four Iraqis. Then Apache helicopters were called in to chase down the rest of the group and another 23 people were killed, US central command said.

It was the first time such a large group had mounted an attack on a US position since the end of the war.

The return to full-scale combat operations is the latest in the series of changes Washington has made to its post-war plans since the undignified replacement of the administrator, Jay Garner.

The Pentagon has also extended the stay of some troops.

Earlier this month, the recently retired army secretary, Thomas White, accused the Pentagon of trying to gloss over the fact that troops would remain for months.

"It`s almost a question of people not wanting to `fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time," he told USA Today.

A two-week gun amnesty is due to end tonight. From tomorrow, troops will have the power to arrest anyone carrying a weapon without a permit. The number of weapons given up so far is low: 115 hand guns, 446 rifles and machine guns, 152 anti-tank weapons and 266 grenades.

An Arab newspaper yesterday received a handwritten letter purportedly from Saddam, warning all foreigners to leave Iraq by next Tuesday or face attack.

Abdel-Bari Atwan, the editor of al-Quds al-Arabi, the London-based daily, said the faxed letter had the same handwriting and signature as four others it had received.

guardian.co.uk/iraq



Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

http://www.monde-diplomatique.de/pm/2003/06/13/a0052.text.na…

Oder englische Kurzfassung im Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,977470,00.html

DAS BRITISCHE UND DAS AMERIKANISCHE WELTREICH IM VERGLEICH
Rücksichtslose und zänkische Diva der Weltpolitik
IM historischen Vergleich der Imperien der letzten Jahrhunderte arbeitet der renommierte britische Historiker Eric Hobsbawm die Unterschiede zwischen einer Kolonialmacht wie Großbritannien und einer militärischen Weltmacht wie den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika heraus. Das US-Empire der Gegenwart, gegründet auf den entscheidenden Machtfaktor einer konkurrenzlos überlegenen Militärtechnologie, scheint im Gegensatz zum vernünftigen Eigennutz des Britischen Empires eine wenig rationale Weltpolitik zu betreiben, die nicht einmal den eigenen Interessen dient.
Von ERIC HOBSBAWM *
* Marxistischer Historiker. Autor u. a. von: "Das Zeitalter der Extreme. Weltgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts", München (Hanser) 1995, und "Nationen und Nationalismus", Frankfurt/Main (Campus) 1992.

Die derzeitige Weltlage ist ein historisches Novum. Die großen Weltreiche früherer Epochen, das Spanische Reich des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts und das britische Empire im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, sind mit dem Imperium der Vereinigten Staaten der Gegenwart kaum zu vergleichen. Die Globalisierung besitzt eine völlig neue Qualität, die sich an drei Aspekten festmachen lässt: an dem weltumfassenden Integrationsprozess, an der technologischen Entwicklung und an den politischen Strategien.


Aspekt Nummer eins: Völlig alltägliche Operationen überall in der Welt sind derart ineinander verzahnt, dass eine Störung ihres Ablaufs sofort globale Auswirkungen hat. Das zeigt sich etwa im Fall der Infektionskrankheit Sars, die irgendwo in China ausgebrochen ist, aber binnen Tagen zu einer globalen Erscheinung wurde. Seitdem hat Sars nicht nur den weltweiten Personen- und Warenverkehr beeinträchtigt, sondern auch internationale Konferenzen und Institutionen, die globalen Märkte und sogar ganze Volkswirtschaften - und dies in einem zuvor undenkbaren Tempo.


Aspekt Nummer zwei: Die permanente technologische Revolution ist auf wirtschaftlicher wie militärischer Ebene zu einem ungeheuren Machtfaktor geworden. Ohne avancierte militärische Technologie kann kein Staat heute im globalen Maßstab Macht ausüben. Doch nur sehr große Staaten können militärtechnologisch mithalten. Dieses Kriterium der Größe spielte früher keine Rolle. Großbritannien etwa war im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, als es über das größte Weltreich seiner Epoche gebot, ein für damalige Maßstäbe lediglich mittelgroßer Staat. Und noch im 17. Jahrhundert konnte ein Staat wie die Niederlande eine wichtige weltpolitische Rolle spielen. Heute hingegen reicht es für einen Staat, der Weltmachtambitionen hat, nicht aus, wirtschaftlich stark und technologisch führend zu sein.


Der dritte Aspekt hat mit der Komplexität des politischen Systems zu tun. Die Epoche der Nationalstaaten ist nicht vorüber, und diese - nationale - Ebene ist nach wie vor die einzige, auf der Globalisierung nicht funktioniert. Das gilt zumindest für die Art Staat, in dem der einfache Bürger noch eine wichtige Rolle spielt. In der Vergangenheit konnten die politischen Entscheidungsträger über den Staat verfügen, ohne allzu viel Rücksicht auf die Meinung der Bevölkerungsmehrheit zu nehmen. Noch während des 19. und zu Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts konnten Regierungen davon ausgehen, das Volk im Prinzip hinter sich zu haben. Seither jedoch müssen sie mehr denn je den Willen der Bevölkerung und deren Handlungsbereitschaft in ihre Politik einbeziehen.


Im Gegensatz zum imperialen Projekt der Vereinigten Staaten - und dies ist in anderer Hinsicht etwas Neues - wussten alle früheren Großmächte und Weltreiche, dass sie nicht isoliert und nicht die Einzigen ihrer Art waren. Keines von ihnen strebte ernsthaft nach alleiniger Weltherrschaft. Auch hielt sich keines für unverwundbar, selbst dann nicht, wenn es sich im Zentrum der Welt wähnte, wie China oder das Römische Reich auf dem Gipfel seiner Macht. Die größte Gefahr, die dem internationalen System vor dem Kalten Krieg drohte, war das Streben nach regionaler Vorherrschaft - wobei die globale Reichweite staatlicher Macht, wie sie nach 1492 möglich wurde, nicht mit Ambitionen zur Weltherrschaft zu verwechseln ist.


Im 19. Jahrhundert war das britische Empire das einzig tatsächlich "globale", insofern sich seine Aktivitäten rund um die Erde erstreckten. Und in diesem Sinne kann man es als Vorläufer des US-Empires bezeichnen. Das kommunistische Russland dagegen träumte zwar auch von einer weltverändernden Rolle, aber selbst auf dem Gipfel sowjetischer Macht wusste man im Kreml sehr wohl, dass die Weltherrschaft unerreichbar war. Es wurden nie ernsthafte Anstrengungen in diese Richtung unternommen, auch wenn die Rhetorik des Kalten Krieges zuweilen anders klang.


Aber die Ambitionen der Vereinigten Staaten heute und die Großbritanniens vor über hundert Jahren unterscheiden sich erheblich voneinander. Erstens erstrecken sich die USA über ein riesiges Territorium und sind auch nach der Einwohnerzahl eines der größten Länder der Erde, mit wachsender Bevölkerungszahl (im Gegensatz zur Europäischen Union), da sie weiterhin fast unbegrenzt neue Einwanderer aufnehmen.


Zudem gibt es Unterschiede des politischen Stils. Auf dem Gipfel seiner Macht besaß und verwaltete das britische Empire ein Viertel der Erdoberfläche.(1) Die USA dagegen waren niemals eine echte Kolonialmacht, sieht man von einer kurzen Zeitspanne am Ende des 19. und Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts ab, also während der Hochzeit des kolonialen Imperialismus. Die USA stützten sich vielmehr auf abhängige bzw. Satellitenstaaten, und zwar vornehmlich innerhalb der westlichen Hemisphäre, wo sie so gut wie konkurrenzlos agieren konnten. Zudem verfolgten die USA im 20. Jahrhundert - im Gegensatz zu Großbritannien - eine Politik der bewaffneten Intervention in diesen Staaten.


Da zu früheren Zeiten die Kriegsflotte die entscheidende Waffe eines Weltreichs war, hat Großbritannien überall strategisch wichtige Marinestützpunkte und Versorgungshäfen in seinen Besitz gebracht. Von Gibraltar über St. Helena bis zu den Falklandinseln wehte - und weht - der Union Jack. Für die Vereinigten Staaten dagegen entstand der Bedarf an solchen Stützpunkten - sieht man von denen im Pazifischen Ozean ab - erst nach ihrem Eintritt in den Zweiten Weltkrieg 1941. Doch diese Stützpunkte erwarben sie im Übereinkommen mit einer "Coalition of the Willing", wie man sie damals zu Recht nennen konnte. Heute stellt sich die Situation ganz anders dar. Die USA haben erkannt, dass sie die direkte Kontrolle von sehr vielen militärischen Stützpunkten über die indirekte Kontrolle von Ländern sicherstellen müssen.


Das Commonwealth als Keimform der Globalisierung
ZUM Dritten besteht ein großer Unterschied in der Struktur der innerstaatlichen Machtausübung und der entsprechenden Ideologie. Das britische Empire betrieb Weltpolitik im britischen, nicht etwa in einem universell begründeten Interesse, wobei natürlich seine Propagandisten die nationalen Motive zuweilen auch in altruistischen Formeln artikulierten. Zum Beispiel wurde die britische Seemacht auch mit dem Kampf um die Abschaffung des Sklavenhandels legitimiert, so wie die USA ihre militärische Macht heutzutage des Öfteren mit dem Kampf für die Menschenrechte rechtfertigen. Ähnlich wie das revolutionäre Frankreich am Ende des 18. und das revolutionäre Russland am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts sind die USA eine Großmacht, die sich auf eine universalistische Revolution beruft. Das heißt, sie ist im Grunde der Meinung, die übrige Welt habe ihrem guten Beispiel zu folgen beziehungsweise müsse befreit werden. Es gibt kaum etwas Gefährlicheres als ein Empire, das seine eigenen Interessen in dem Glauben verfolgt, damit der ganzen Menschheit einen Dienst zu erweisen.


Das britische Empire war zwar in gewisser Hinsicht sogar noch globaler als die heutigen Vereinigten Staaten, denn seine Flotte beherrschte die Weltmeere so unangefochten und eindeutig, wie keine Macht von heute den globalen Luftraum kontrolliert. Aber Großbritannien strebte nicht nach globaler Macht - nicht einmal nach militärischer und politischer Kontrolle zu Lande in Europa oder Amerika. Das britische Empire diente den ökonomischen Interessen Großbritanniens, wobei es sich so wenig wie möglich in fremde Angelegenheiten einmischte. Es war sich der eigenen Grenzen durch seine geografische Größe und seine Ressourcen stets bewusst und hat nach 1918 seinen Niedergang auch völlig klar gesehen.


Auf der anderen Seite war das weltweite Empire der ersten Industrienation in gewisser Weise eine Keimform der Globalisierung, zu deren Entfaltung die britische Volkswirtschaft sehr viel beigetragen hat. Es war vor allem ein System des internationalen Handels, das im Laufe der Entwicklung seiner heimischen Industrie vor allem auf dem Export seiner industriellen Fertigwaren in die weniger entwickelten Länder basierte. Im Gegenzug wurde Großbritannien zum wichtigsten Importmarkt für Rohstoffe aus aller Welt.(2) Und als es später seine Rolle als industrielles Fertigungszentrum für die Welt einbüßte, entwickelte es sich zum Zentrum des globalen Finanzsystems.


Anders die Volkswirtschaft der USA. Ihr Hauptmerkmal war zunächst, dass sie die heimische Industrie auf dem potenziell gigantischen Binnenmarkt gegen ausländische Konkurrenz schützte, ein Protektionismus, der noch heute ein wesentliches Element der US-Politik ist (siehe den Beitrag von Ha-Joon Chang auf Seite 12/13). Doch zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts nimmt die US-Ökonomie keine so dominante Stellung unter den heutigen Industrieländern mehr ein wie noch vor einigen Jahren.(3) Darin zeigt sich eine entscheidende Schwäche des US-Empires. Die USA importieren heute riesige Mengen industrieller Fertigwaren, was sowohl bei den einheimischen Produzenten als auch bei den Wählern nach wie vor protektionistische Reflexe auslöst. Es existiert ein Widerspruch zwischen der Ideologie einer weltweit dominierenden und von den USA beaufsichtigten Freihandelspolitik einerseits und den Interessen wichtiger innenpolitischer Kräfte, die sich durch diese Ideologie kompromittiert fühlen.


Die Entwicklung der Rüstungswirtschaft stellt eine probate Möglichkeit dar, dieses Problem zu lösen. Und hier zeigt sich eine weiterer Unterschied zwischen dem britischen und dem amerikanischen Empire. Vor allem seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs hat die Akkumulation von Waffen in den USA ein für Friedenszeiten unerhörtes und in der modernen Geschichte nie da gewesenes Niveau erreicht. Dies dürfte der Grund für den bestimmenden Einfluss sein, den der "militärisch-industrielle Komplex" (den Begriff prägte Präsident Eisenhower) auf die US-Politik ausüben konnte. In den 40 Jahren des Kalten Kriegs haben beide Seiten geredet und agiert, als befänden sie sich im Krieg oder als ob jederzeit einer ausbrechen könne. Das britische Empire stand ein Jahrhundert lang - von 1815 bis 1914 - am Zenit seiner Macht. In dieser Zeit kam es nicht zu großen internationalen Kriegen.


Mehr noch: Trotz der offensichtlich ungleichen Machtverhältnisse zwischen den USA und der Sowjetunion hat Washington - schon vor Ende des Kalten Krieges - den Ausbau der eigenen Rüstungsindustrie immer weiter verstärkt, und dieser Trend hält bis heute an. Mit dem Kalten Krieg wurden die USA zur Hegemonialmacht der westlichen Welt, wobei sie sich allerdings als Kopf eines internationalen Bündnisses verstanden. Unter den Verbündeten machte sich natürlich niemand Illusionen über die wahren Kräfteverhältnisse: Die reale Macht lag in Washington und nirgendwo sonst. Die Europäer erkannten damals in gewisser Weise die Logik eines amerikanischen Imperiums an. Heute dagegen muss die US-Regierung davon ausgehen, dass ihr Empire und ihre Ziele keine echte Akzeptanz mehr finden. Von einer "Koalition der Willigen" kann keine Rede sein, die aktuelle Politik der USA ist unpopulärer, als es die irgendeiner früheren US-Regierung oder vielleicht sogar die irgendeiner anderen Großmacht je war.


Früher nahmen die Amerikaner ihre Führungsrolle so sensibel und zurückhaltend wahr, wie es solchen internationalen Bündnissen entspricht. Schließlich verlief die Frontlinie im Kampf gegen die sowjetischen Armeen mitten durch Europa. Dennoch war die Allianz auf die USA angewiesen, da sie auf deren Militärtechnologie angewiesen war. Und Washington hat seinen Widerstand gegen ein unabhängiges militärisches Potenzial in Europa nie aufgegeben. Die ständigen Zwistigkeiten zwischen den USA und Frankreich - seit den Tagen von General de Gaulle - rühren von der Weigerung Frankreichs her, ein Bündnis zwischen Staaten als ewige Allianz anzusehen, sowie von dessen Festhalten an einem eigenen militärischen Potenzial, an einer unabhängigen Produktion von Hightech-Waffensystemen. Trotz solcher Belastungen war diese alte Allianz jedoch eine echte "Koalition der Willigen".


Da sich nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion keine andere Macht mit den USA anlegen konnte oder wollte, ist es nur schwer zu verstehen, dass sich Washington plötzlich als eigensinnige, rücksichtslose und zänkische Macht aufspielt. Dies entspricht weder der bewährten und im Kalten Krieg erprobten imperialen Strategie noch den Interessen der US-Wirtschaft. Ohnehin ist die Welt von heute zu kompliziert, als dass ein einziger Staat sie dominieren könnte. Und die materiellen Vorteile der USA sind - von ihrer militärischen Überlegenheit bei den Hightech-Waffensystemen abgesehen - im Schwinden begriffen oder zumindest gefährdet. Die US-Volkswirtschaft hat zwar immer noch riesige Dimensionen, aber ihr Anteil an der Weltwirtschaft nimmt stetig ab. Zudem ist sie, auf kurze wie auf längere Sicht, durchaus krisenanfällig. Man stelle sich zum Beispiel vor, die Opec fasste plötzlich den Beschluss, alle Ölrechnungen in Euro statt in Dollar auszustellen.


Auf politischer Ebene haben die USA die meisten ihrer Trümpfe in den letzten 18 Monaten leichtfertig aus der Hand gegeben, auch wenn ihnen noch einige bleiben. An dem vorherrschenden Einfluss der US-amerikanischen Kultur und der englischen Sprache wird sich nichts ändern. Aber der entscheidende Vorteil bei allen imperialen Plänen liegt im Militärischen: Hier steht das amerikanische Empire völlig konkurrenzlos da, und das wird auf absehbare Zeit so bleiben. Keine andere Macht, auch nicht China, ist in der Lage, den technologischen Vorsprung der Amerikaner aufzuholen. Ob dieser für regional begrenzte Konflikte so entscheidende Vorteil ausreicht, um alle politischen Ziele durchzusetzen, ist ein andere Frage.


Die USA sind natürlich keineswegs darauf aus, die ganze Welt zu erobern. Wenn sie einen Krieg führen, wollen sie vielmehr proamerikanische Regierungen installieren und anschließend wieder nach Hause fahren. Doch dieses Konzept wird nicht aufgehen. Der Irakkrieg zum Beispiel war militärisch höchst erfolgreich. Darüber wurden allerdings die ganz praktischen Anschlussprobleme vernachlässigt. Wie etwa die Frage, wie man in einem besetzten Land die zivile Verwaltung und die wichtigsten Alltagsfunktionen in Gang halten kann, wie es die Briten in ihrem klassischen Kolonialland Indien getan haben. Und die USA machen sich etwas vor, wenn sie glauben, sie benötigten keine echten Verbündeten unter den anderen Staaten oder sie könnten ohne echte Unterstützung in den Ländern auskommen, die sie zwar militärisch erobern, aber nicht erfolgreich verwalten können.


Der Irakkrieg war ein Exempel für die Frivolität, mit der in Washington schwer wiegende Entscheidungen getroffen werden. Der Irak ist geschlagen, hat sich aber nicht unterworfen. Das Land war, obwohl es über große Ölreserven verfügt, so ausgeblutet, dass es leicht zu besiegen schien. Dabei war dieser Krieg in erster Linie eine günstige Gelegenheit für die USA, ihre Machtposition international zu demonstrieren. Das politische Ziel hingegen, von dem die Extremisten in Washington reden - die vollständige Umgestaltung der Nahostregion - hat nicht viel Sinn. Wenn sie die saudische Monarchie beseitigen wollen, wen sollen sie an deren Stelle setzen? Wenn es ihnen im Ernst darum ginge, die Karten im Nahen Osten neu zu verteilen, müssten sie zu allererst eins tun: Druck auf Israel ausüben. Präsident Bush sen. war dazu bereit, sein Nachkomme im Weißen Haus scheint es weniger zu sein.


Begriffe wie "axis of evil" oder "roadmap" sollen nicht etwa politische Konzepte bezeichnen, sie sind lediglich PR-Formeln, die nachträglich ein gewisses Eigengewicht gewinnen. Die geradezu erdrückende Fülle von "Neusprech", die unsere Welt seit dem September 2001 überschwemmt, ist ein klares Indiz für das Fehlen einer echten Realpolitik. Bush selbst ist kein Politiker, sondern ein Politikdarsteller. Und die Leute, die seine Regierung repräsentieren (inoffiziell wie Richard Perle oder offiziell wie Paul Wolfowitz), benutzen öffentlich wie privat dieselbe Rambosprache. Für sie zählt einzig und allein die unschlagbare Macht der Vereinigten Staaten. Das heißt konkret, dass die USA jedes Land besetzen können, wenn es nur klein genug ist und damit einen schnellen Sieg gestattet. Doch dieses Konzept ist keine Politik und erst recht kein Rezept für erfolgreiche Politik.


Imperialismus als Dienst an den Menschenrechten
FÜR die USA wird das innen- wie außenpolitisch gefährliche Folgen haben. Innenpolitisch droht einem Land, das die Welt kontrollieren will - und zwar mit vornehmlich militärischen Mitteln -, die ernsthafte und bislang beträchtlich unterschätzte Gefahr der Militarisierung. Außenpolitisch droht eine große Destabilisierung. Der Nahe Osten ist dafür nur ein Beispiel, denn die Region ist heute weit weniger stabil als noch vor zehn oder vor fünf Jahren. Nicht nur hier bewirkt die Politik der USA die Schwächung aller anderen - vertraglichen wie informellen - Übereinkommen, die eine gewisse Ordnungsstruktur gewährleisten. In Europa hat sie bereits das Nordatlantische Verteidigungsbündnis untergraben - ein Verlust, der wohl zu verschmerzen wäre. Aber der Versuch, aus der Nato eine globale Polizeitruppe im Dienst der USA zu formen, entlarvt das Ganze endgültig als Farce.


Auch die Europäische Union wird von Washington bewusst sabotiert. Und eine der großen Errungenschaften unserer Welt nach 1945 wird systematisch torpediert: die Entwicklung zum prosperierenden und demokratischen Sozialstaat. Dagegen scheint mir die Glaubwürdigkeitskrise der Vereinten Nationen weniger schwerwiegend zu sein. Denn sie konnten immer nur allenfalls am Rande agieren, da sie völlig vom UN-Sicherheitsrat - sprich: vom US-amerikanischen Gebrauch des Vetorechts - abhängig ist.


Wie soll die Welt den Vereinigten Staaten begegnen respektive ihre Macht eindämmen? Natürlich halten es einige Länder für günstiger, sich dem neuen Empire anzuschließen, weil sie davon ausgehen, dass sie nicht mächtig genug sind, um sich ihm entgegenzustellen. Gefährlicher sind freilich die Politiker, die zwar die vom Pentagon verfochtene Ideologie entschieden ablehnen, das imperiale Projekt aber dennoch mit dem Argument unterstützen, dass man in diesem Rahmen immerhin auf lokaler und regionaler Ebene gewisse ungerechte Zustände beseitigen könne. Diese Auffassung eines "Imperialismus im Dienst der Menschenrechte" wurde vor allem durch das Scheitern der europäischen Politik in den Balkankonflikten der 1990er-Jahre genährt. In den öffentlichen Kontroversen um den Irakkrieg hat sich nur eine Minderheit einflussreicher Intellektueller - zum Beispiel Michael Ignatieff und Bernard Kouchner - für die US-Intervention ausgesprochen, weil sie an die Notwendigkeit einer bewaffneten Macht glauben, die Ordnung ins Elend der Welt bringt. Nun lässt sich tatsächlich argumentieren, dass es Regierungen gibt, die so verbrecherisch und grausam sind, dass ihre Beseitigung ein Segen wäre. Aber das rechtfertigt noch nicht das daraus entstehende Risiko: eine Weltmacht, die sich im Grunde für den Rest der Welt nicht interessiert, weil sie ihn ohnehin nicht versteht, und die zugleich jederzeit in der Lage ist, militärisch zu intervenieren, wenn ihr irgendwo etwas nicht passt.


Vor diesem Hintergrund ist der zunehmende Druck auf die Medien zu sehen. In einer Welt, in der die öffentliche Meinung derart wichtig ist, wächst die Versuchung der Manipulation.(4) Im Golfkrieg 1990/91 bemühte sich die amerikanische Seite systematisch, eine Situation wie die in Vietnam zu vermeiden und zu verhindern, dass direkt aus den Kampfgebieten berichtet wurde. Vergebliche Mühe: Medien wie CNN waren in Bagdad vertreten und brachten Nachrichten, die der von Washington gewünschten Darstellung nicht entsprachen. Im jüngsten Irakkrieg versuchte man es mit dem Gegenteil und integrierte Journalisten in die Truppen vor Ort (die embedded journalists), um deren Sicht der Dinge zu beeinflussen. Nichts davon hat wirklich funktioniert, weshalb man sich bemühen wird, wirksamere Methoden zu ersinnen. Das Ergebnis könnte eine direkte, vielleicht als letztes Mittel die technische Kontrolle der Medien sein. In jedem Fall wird man das Zusammenspiel zwischen Regierungen und Medienkartellen noch wirksamer auszubeuten wissen, als wir es heute schon bei der Bush-Regierung mit Fox News beobachten können - oder in Italien beim Zusammenspiel Berlusconis mit sich selbst.


Das amerikanische Empire könnte aus innergesellschaftlichen Gründen ins Wanken geraten. Der aktuellste Grund liegt darin, dass die meisten US-Amerikaner an Imperialismus im Sinne von Weltherrschaft und Weltregierung sehr viel weniger Interesse haben als an ihrem eigenen Wohlergehen in den Vereinigten Staaten. Angesichts der kriselnden US-Wirtschaft werden sowohl die Regierenden als auch die Wähler irgendwann zu dem Ergebnis kommen, dass es weitaus wichtiger ist, die eigenen ökonomischen Probleme zu lösen, als sich auf weitere militärische Abenteuer in aller Welt einzulassen.(5 )Dies gilt erst recht, wenn die Kosten für künftige militärische Interventionen - anders als beim ersten Golfkrieg und auch weitgehend während des Kalten Krieges - in erster Linie von der US-Bevölkerung selbst getragen werden müssen.


Seit gut fünf Jahren steckt die kapitalistische Weltwirtschaft in der Krise. Zusammenbrechen wird sie natürlich nicht, aber es ist auch kaum anzunehmen, dass Washington seine ehrgeizige Außenpolitik bei ernsthaften inneren Problemen einfach weiter betreiben wird. Die Bush-Regierung verfügt - selbst nach den Kriterien des einheimischen Kapitals - über keine angemessene ökonomische Strategie für die USA. Und ihre Außenpolitik ist nicht einmal im Sinne der imperialen oder globalen Interessen der USA besonders rational, und für die Zukunftsperspektiven des US-Kapitalismus schon gar nicht. Das erklärt im Übrigen auch die politischen Kontroversen innerhalb der Bush-Regierung.


Es gab ja durchaus Zeiten, in denen das US-Empire anerkannt hat, dass seiner Macht Grenzen gesetzt sind - oder dass es sich zumindest so verhalten sollte, als ob es sie gäbe. Der Grund war natürlich, dass man die andere Weltmacht Sowjetunion zu fürchten hatte. Heute müssen wir an Stelle der Furcht auf andere limitierende Faktoren setzen: auf das aufgeklärte Eigeninteresse der USA und auf die mäßigende Wirkung der anderen Staaten.




deutsch von Niels Kadritzke

Fußnoten:
(1) Siehe dazu: Eric Hobsbawm, "Das imperiale Zeitalter. 1875-1914", Frankfurt/M. (Campus) 1992.
(2) Ebd.
(3) Siehe Chalmers Johnson, "The Costs and Consequences of American Empire", New York (Owl Books) 2000.
(4) Siehe "France protests US media ,plot` ", International Herald Tribune, 16. Mai 2003.
(5) Siehe "US unemployment hits an 8 year high", International Herald Tribune, 3. Mai 2003.

Le Monde diplomatique Nr. 7077 vom 13.6.2003, Seite 16-17, 582 Dokumentation, ERIC HOBSBAWM

© Contrapress media GmbH

[Joerver]

Nochmals Monde Diplomatique:
http://www.monde-diplomatique.de/pm/2003/06/13/a0057.text.na…

DIE US-AMERIKANISCHE PRÄSENZ IM IRAK
Ungeschicklichkeiten größeren Ausmaßes
NACH dem schnellen Sieg der USA über das Regime Saddam Husseins laufen im Irak die Vorbereitungen zur Bildung einer Übergangsregierung. Polizei und Verwaltung arbeiten wieder, sogar die Fußballmannschaft des Landes steht wieder. Und doch ist das Leben für die Iraker nicht leichter geworden, Lebensmittel werden knapp, es herrschen Chaos und Anarchie. Im entstandenen Machtvakuum haben sich lokale Stammesführer und religiöse Führer positioniert. Den Amerikanern wäre es am liebsten, wenn sie ihre militärische Präsenz nach und nach in eine ökonomische überführen könnten. Das wird nur gehen, wenn die Hoffnungen der Bevölkerung auf ein besseres Leben nicht enttäuscht werden.
Von DAVID BARAN *
* Journalist, Ottawa.

Nach Ansicht der US-Administration, die auf die Wirkung von Voraussagen vertraut, befindet sich die Wiederherstellung der öffentlichen Ordnung im Irak auf bestem Wege. Die Bildung einer Übergangsregierung wird demnach nicht mehr lange auf sich warten lassen. Die Stromerzeugung läuft wieder auf Vorkriegsniveau. Die Polizisten und die meisten Verwaltungsangestellten haben ihren Dienst wieder aufgenommen. Schulen und Universitäten sind wieder geöffnet. Sogar die irakische Fußballmannschaft steht wieder. Blieb nur noch eine Tennismeisterschaft in Bagdad zu organisieren, was der unterhalb des berühmten Hotels Palästina gelegene exklusive Club al-Alwija auch prompt getan hat - die ausländischen Journalisten saßen in der ersten Reihe.


Vom Irak aus betrachtet ein ganz und gar trügerisches Bild: Nicht irgendeine neue Verwaltung, sondern Unsicherheit herrscht im größten Teil des Landes. In der Hauptstadt gehen die Plünderungen weiter, zum Beispiel im Informationsministerium, nur 200 Meter vom amerikanischen Hauptquartier entfernt. Die tausende Polizisten, die wieder Dienst tun, sind an Tagen wie diesem nahezu unsichtbar, während in Gesprächen eine beunruhigende Geschichte nach der anderen kolportiert wird: Sie handeln von Mord auf offener Straße, Vergewaltigung oder Kindesentführung. Die Lebenshaltungskosten steigen, und die Löhne werden nicht einmal teilweise ausgezahlt. Auch die Lebensmittelvorräte, die die Menschen sich noch vor dem Krieg angelegt hatten, gehen in einigen Stadtvierteln allmählich zur Neige. Das Benzin wird knapp, ebenso das Gas zum Kochen.


Wie also sieht sie aus, die amerikanische Strategie für dieses Land, dessen Wirtschaft und dessen öffentliche Institutionen durch Saddam Husseins Regime missbraucht und untergraben wurden und die nun als Folge der Invasion völlig zusammengebrochen sind? Zwei Monate nach der Einnahme von Bagdad gibt es auf diese Frage seltsamerweise immer noch keine Antwort. Die Iraker selbst können nur rätseln, was diese Strategie betrifft. Irgendeine Aufklärung über deren Ziele haben sie nie erhalten. Außerdem hat sich eine Pattsituation entwickelt zwischen der Bevölkerung, die überzeugt ist, unter amerikanischer Vormundschaft zu stehen, und einer Besatzungsmacht, die ihrerseits wiederum überzeugt ist, ihre Mission im Wesentlichen bereits erfüllt zu haben.


Denn die Strategie der Amerikaner zielt auf die Bildung einer Übergangsregierung. Ihr soll die Aufgabe zufallen, sich um die Bedürfnisse der Bevölkerung und die praktische Bewältigung der zahllosen technischen Probleme zu kümmern. Die Präsenz der Amerikaner soll sich zum einen auf die militärische Besetzung und zum andern auf die Organisation von Verhandlungen zur Bildung dieser Regierung beschränken. Im Lauf der Wiederaufbauphase würde die militärisch-politische Präsenz nach und nach in den Hintergrund treten und, wenn die lokalen Infrastrukturen wieder hergestellt sind, an ihrer Stelle eine eher ökonomische Präsenz bestehen bleiben.


Eine solche Politik, deren Auswirkungen nicht sofort spürbar sind, setzt eine gewisse Trägheit der Bevölkerung voraus, als handle es sich um eine amorphe und beliebig formbare Masse. Doch hat die Bevölkerung in der Zeit, als sie sich selbst überlassen und mit dem Chaos konfrontiert war, längst ihre eigenen Strukturen aufgebaut. Die Ergebnisse der abgeschirmten Verhandlungen zwischen der US-Administration und den gerade erst aus dem Exil zurückgekehrten Oppositionsparteien wollte man lieber nicht abwarten. Religiöse und Stammesführer, die bei den Gipfelgesprächen außen vor geblieben waren, haben auf lokaler Ebene die Stelle des zerfallenen Staatsapparats eingenommen. Über das Machtvakuum hinaus gibt es auch ein Sinnvakuum, auf das solche unterschiedlichen Initiativen reagieren. Was also passiert wirklich außerhalb des begrenzten politischen Spiels, das die Aufmerksamkeit Washingtons und der Medien auf sich zieht, das aber bei den Irakern wenig mehr als Gleichgültigkeit hervorruft?


Nach der Verkündung verschiedener Vorwände für den Angriff auf den Irak hat Washington seine Militärintervention schließlich als "Befreiungskrieg" präsentiert. Von den edlen Absichten der Amerikaner ist trotzdem niemand überzeugt. Alle Welt sieht hinter der Intervention kein anderes Motiv als die Verteidigung der Interessen Washingtons. Die Truppen der Koalition sind nicht gekommen, um den Irak zu "befreien", sondern um ihn zu besetzen und sich seine Reichtümer anzueignen. Nur an der Frage, was sich aus der faktischen Besetzung nun machen lässt, scheiden sich die Geister.


Einige - es sind die wenigsten - legen einen unerschütterlichen Optimismus an den Tag. In ihren Augen sind die Zukunftsaussichten jetzt allemal besser, als sie es unter Saddam Hussein waren. Sie genießen eine Freiheit, für die sie lange dankbar sein werden - und wegen des amerikanischen Imperialismus, so bewusst er ihnen auch sein mag, machen sie sich keine großen Sorgen: "Lassen wir ihnen doch das Öl. Schließlich hatten wir ja vorher auch nichts davon." Egal, ob die künftige Regierung von Washington abhängig ist, Hauptsache, es ist Schluss mit Unterdrückung, Krieg und Entbehrungen.


Anders als man vielleicht erwarten würde, sind es nicht so sehr die vor dem Krieg Benachteiligten, die so denken. Die meisten von denen, die sich heute freuen, haben schon lange jegliches Interesse an Politik verloren. Andere unterhielten mehr oder weniger freiwillig enge Beziehungen zum Regime. Umgekehrt deckt sich auch die Gruppe der heute skeptischen oder gar unzufriedenen Iraker nicht mit den treuen Anhängern des Exdiktators. Im schiitischen Armenviertel al-Thawra in Bagdad, der so genannten Medinat Saddam (Saddam City), die jetzt in Medinat al-Sadr umbenannt wurde (nach einem 1999 ermordeten hoch angesehenen Imam), ist zum Beispiel die Mehrheit der Bewohner wider Erwarten der Meinung, dass sie "es vorher besser hatten".


Der Großteil der Leute ist einzig und allein mit dem täglichen Überleben beschäftigt und betrachtet den Sturz des Regimes unter dem Aspekt der materiellen Probleme und der daraus entstandenen Unsicherheit. Denn man lebte "vorher" insofern tatsächlich besser, als man "wenigstens gefahrlos auf die Straße gehen konnte". Wie soll diese Bevölkerung an eine bessere Zukunft glauben, wenn ihre Lebensbedingungen sich weiter verschlechtern? Wie soll sie von der Hochherzigkeit einer amerikanischen Intervention überzeugt sein, wenn deren greifbarer Nutzen noch immer auf sich warten lässt? Wenn im Gegenteil allmein das Gefühl überwiegt, dass "die Amerikaner nichts tun".


Tatsächlich werden weiter Waffen auf offener Straße verkauft. Völlig ungestraft fielen Kurden in die arabischen Städte im Nordosten des Landes ein, während die Einwohner von al-Thawra Strafexpeditionen gegen Wohnsiedlungen der Baath-Anhänger in al-Mussajeb und al-Iskanderia unternahmen. Die scheinbar einfachsten Probleme sind nach wie vor ungelöst. Die phänomenale Handlungsfähigkeit, die die Amerikaner während des Krieges an den Tag legten, ließ den Eindruck entstehen, sie könnten alles, wenn sie nur wollten. Umso größer ist das Unverständnis, mit dem die Iraker die offensichtliche Untätigkeit der Amerikaner seit dem Fall Bagdads aufnehmen.


Immer häufiger wird die Haltung der USA mit der Politik Saddam Husseins verglichen und als deren Fortsetzung empfunden. Die Besatzungsmächte haben sich in den Heiligtümern und den Sommerresidenzen des alten Regimes verschanzt. Dort agiert nun eine Macht, die illegitim wirkt, sich abschottet und mit der Wahrung ihrer eigenen Interessen beschäftigt ist. Abweichende Einstellungen werden, ohne zu zögern und ohne zu differenzieren, falls nötig mit Gewalt bestraft. So entsteht in den Augen der Iraker ein Regime, das seine Gegner zwar nicht foltert, wohl aber tötet und das es sich im Schutz seiner Festungen gut gehen lässt, sich auf eine selbst ernannte und dienstbereite Elite stützt, sich der Ressourcen des Landes bemächtigt und die Bevölkerung ihrem Elend überlässt.


So vermuten viele, dass hinter der Benzinknappheit eine politische Absicht steckt. Wenn man weiß, dass die Ölförderanlagen im Krieg verschont geblieben sind, ist die Versuchung groß, willkürliche Verknappung zu unterstellen, wie sie schon Saddam Hussein geschickt einzusetzen verstand. Es kursiert ein Spruch, der diese angebliche Rückkehr zu den alten Methoden ausdrückt: "Die Lehrlinge sind weg, jetzt kommen die Meister." Paradoxerweise bezieht die amerikanische Präsenz ihre Daseinsberechtigung aus der gleichen Quelle wie das Regime Saddam Husseins, nämlich aus der Furcht vor einem Machtvakuum und dem damit drohenden Chaos.(1) In einer Hinsicht sind die Iraker beinahe einer Meinung: Sie sind überzeugt, dass Washington letztlich deshalb nichts gegen die öffentliche Unordnung und die Verschärfung der Gewalt unternimmt und die Uneinigkeit der Iraker instrumentalisiert, weil es so die militärische Besetzung verlängern kann.


Die üblichen Reden und Parolen von der "Einheit des Iraks" verraten im Übrigen ein deutliches Bewusstsein über die Uneinigkeit im Land, die vielfältiger und komplexer ist, als es den Anschein hat. Die Kurden zum Beispiel sind in verschiedenen Gruppen mit konkurrierenden Interessen organisiert. Die sunnitischen Araber stellen streng genommen gar keine eigene Gemeinschaft dar. Die Schiiten wiederum unterstehen der unangefochtenen Autorität von al-Hawza al-Ilmija, ihrer höchsten religiösen Institution mit Sitz in Nadschaf, in der die geistliche und wissenschaftliche Elite der Gemeinschaft versammelt ist. Trotzdem gehören sie noch lange nicht ein und derselben Schule an.


Tatsächlich ziehen sich die Spaltungen nicht nur durch die "Glaubensgemeinschaften", sondern auch durch die Stadtviertel und Familien. Sie gehen sogar durch die einzelnen Individuen, die ohne weiteres die Ambivalenz in ihren Einstellungen zugeben. Manche der oben genannten Kategorien können sich auch überschneiden. Dass jemand mit einem konsistenten politischen Konzept oder scharf umrissenen Positionen aufzuwarten hätte, bleibt die Ausnahme. Nur wenige, insbesondere religiöse Persönlichkeiten fordern schon jetzt den Rückzug der amerikanischen Streitkräfte. Die übrige Bevölkerung hat eine zwiespältigere und differenziertere Haltung eingenommen. Die Iraker scheinen nach dem Zusammenbruch des Regimes desorientiert zu sein oder, wie einer von ihnen es nannte, "unter Schock" zu stehen. Angeblich durchschauen sie den Zynismus der amerikanischen Politik und empören sich nur in Maßen, als wäre dieser Zynismus, der im Westen so viele Emotionen ausgelöst hat, für sie selbstverständlich.


Einige erwähnen immerhin das mysteriöse Verschwinden der "Massenvernichtungswaffen" oder auch das vorgeschobene Argument der Verbindung mit dem Terrorismus. Aber bei aller möglichen Kritik würde doch niemand gegen die amerikanische Politik und ihre Verfechter lauthals Anklage erheben. Letztlich haben die Iraker aus all den Argumenten und Begründungen für den Krieg offenbar nur ein einziges Wort in Erinnerung behalten: "Freiheit". Auf sie richten sich ihre Erwartungen. Und was ihre Freiheit angeht, werden sie eines Tages Rechenschaft von ihren so genannten Befreiern fordern. Hat doch die Bevölkerung ihre "Befreiung" nicht nur als bloße Befreiung von der Herrschaft Sadam Husseins verstanden. Sie braucht sehr viel mehr als eine Freiheit, die nichts als Chaos und Faustrecht bedeutet und den Kampf aller gegen alle.


Wenn die US-Administration die Hoffnungen, die sie geweckt hat, enttäuschen sollte, wird sie erleben, dass sich von allen Seiten Protest erheben wird. Tatsächlich haben verschiedene politische Kräfte versucht, das Vakuum auszufüllen, das nicht nur durch den Zusammenbruch des Regimes, sondern auch durch das anschließende Ausbleiben einer amerikanischen Politik entstanden ist. Wie lange sich die Strategie der minimalen Intervention noch durchhalten lässt, wie lange ihr die Vernunft und Verantwortlichkeit der Iraker zugute kommen wird - das weiß derzeit niemand. Auch nicht, ob sich die Kräfte, die von der Übergangsregierung ausgeschlossen sind, widerstandslos einer Autorität beugen werden, der es an Legitimität fehlt.


Der Irak gleicht einem riesigen Monopoly-Spiel, für das die Amerikaner bloß das Brett frei geräumt haben, um dann im richtigen Moment einen Sieger nach ihrem Belieben einzusetzen. Bis dahin versuchen die anwesenden Spieler ihre Positionen zu festigen. Unzählige Parteien haben sich die verlassenen Plätze des gefallenen Regimes unter den Nagel gerissen. Die mächtigsten unter ihnen etablieren schon wieder ihre eigene Vetternwirtschaft, durchaus, wie die Iraker feststellen, "im Stil Saddam Hussein". Ahmed Chalabi erkauft sich Unterstützung, indem er für den Eintritt in seine Partei, den Irakischen Nationalkongress, die keine gesellschaftliche Basis hat, eine Belohnung zahlt. Dschalal al-Talabani, der Vorsitzende der Patriotischen Union Kurdistans, hat begonnen, Satellitentelefone und teure Waffen an bereitwillige Mitglieder einiger arabischer Stämme zu verteilen.


Schiitische Würdenträger haben den Zusammenbruch der staatlichen Institutionen genutzt, um ihre persönliche Macht auszuweiten. Das riesige Viertel al-Thawra, das mit seiner auf zwei Millionen geschätzten Bevölkerung jede Verwaltung vor eine schwierige Aufgabe stellt, ist mit einem sehr gut organisierten Netz junger Imame überzogen, Anhängern von Muqtada al-Sadr, einem aus der al-Hawza al-Ilmija hervorgegangenen religiösen Führer. Diese Imame finanzieren und leiten Krankenhäuser, islamische Kulturzentren, die nach dem Fall des Regimes gegründet wurden, und indirekt auch die zivile Verwaltung, die sich gegenwärtig um die elementaren Bedürfnisse der Bevölkerung kümmert.


Es zeichnet sich also eine komplexe politische Geografie ab, in der jede Stadt besondere Organisationsformen aufweist. In einigen Fällen, wie in al-Ramadi, spielen die Stammeschefs eine dominierende Rolle. In anderen sind es hauptsächlich die religiösen Führer. Manchmal arbeiten religiöse und Stammesführer bei der Bewältigung der anstehenden Aufgaben eng zusammen. Doch es gibt auch konkurrierende Mächte. In dem Dorf al-Hilla findet der lokale Potentat, der selbst ernannte und von den Besatzungsmächten anerkannte Gouverneur, nicht die Billigung des obersten Imams der Stadt, den die Amerikaner ihrerseits ignoriert hatten. Der Einfluss der religiösen Würdenträger erregt bei den Besatzern prinzipielles Misstrauen - offenbar merken sie nicht, was für ein gravierender Fehler es ist, sich diese Leute zum Gegner zu machen.


In Ansätzen macht sich bereits eine schärfere Opposition gegen die amerikanische Politik bemerkbar. Die schiitischen Kämpfer der al-Badr-Brigade(2), denen gestattet wurde, unbewaffnet in den Irak zurückzukehren, um ihre Familien wiederzusehen, haben sich inzwischen neue Waffen zulegen und ihre Geheimorganisation aufrechterhalten können. Auch die Muslimbrüder, islamistische Sunniten, sind jetzt im Westen des Landes aufgetaucht. Andere, nicht religiöse Widerstandsgruppen sind ebenfalls dabei, sich zu formieren. Verbittert über ihre schlechten Zukunftsaussichten, treffen sich beispielsweise Angehörige des Sicherheitsapparats mit Leuten von der ehemaligen politischen Polizei und planen gemeinsame Aktionen. Verschiedene religiöse und Stammesführer machen kein Hehl aus ihrer Absicht, auf den bewaffneten Kampf zurückzugreifen, falls die Amerikaner ihre Versprechen nicht einlösen.


Ein Aufstand wird in absehbarer Zeit von all diesen Initiativen jedoch kaum zu erwarten sein. Die Stämme und die religiösen Autoritäten sind von den fünfunddreißig Jahren des Baath-Regimes sehr geschwächt, die Bevölkerung ganz allgemein desorganisiert und kriegsmüde. Zudem ist sie sich der überwältigenden militärischen Stärke der Besatzer bewusst, deshalb sind Klugheit und Vorsicht geboten. Doch unter der Oberfläche nehmen die Figuren in einem politischen Spiel ihre Plätze ein, bei dem die Einsätze weit über den Rahmen dessen hinausgehen, was in Bagdad verhandelt wird.


So gesehen stehen die Besatzer vor allem vor zwei Problemen - vorausgesetzt, ihnen passieren keine irreparablen Ungeschicklichkeiten, wie die Verhaftung eines hohen schiitischen Würdenträgers, oder größere militärische Schnitzer. Einerseits haben sie in den Augen der Iraker die Pflicht, die Verantwortung, die sie mit der Invasion des Iraks auf sich geladen haben, auch zu tragen. Denn sie wussten sehr wohl, dass das von Saddam Hussein geschaffene politische System mit dessen Sturz völlig zusammenbrechen würde. Konkret: die unmittelbaren Forderungen der Bevölkerung sind die Wiederherstellung der Sicherheit und der Grundversorgung. Abstrakter gesagt, eine Mehrheit der Iraker hat ein dringendes Bedürfnis nach Hoffnung, nach einem Beweis für irgendeine Art von Fortschritt. Je verzweifelter die Iraker sind, umso größer ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass es zu Gewaltexzessen kommt.


Andererseits wird die Bildung einer Übergangsregierung dem politischen Spiel ein Ende setzen, natürlich zum Nachteil bestimmter Kräfte. Damit wächst die Gefahr, dass lokale Machthaber und ausgegrenzte Gruppen eine härtere Gangart anschlagen. Die Zentralregierung wird ihre Autorität nicht problemlos durchsetzen können. Sie wird von den Amerikanern gestaltet sein und über keinerlei eigene Sanktionsinstrumente verfügen - folglich wird sie große Schwierigkeiten haben, an die Stelle der vergleichsweise legitimen lokalen Machthaber zu treten. Zudem stellt eine Übergangsregierung eine leicht zu treffende Zielscheibe dar, gegen die man eher protestieren kann als gegen Besatzungsmächte. Am Ende werden diese Besatzungsmächte wahrscheinlich der Regierung zu Hilfe kommen müssen, damit sie ihr eigenes Volk wieder unter Kontrolle bekommt.


Wenn dieses ebenso unerhörte wie ungewisse, noch dazu schlecht vorbereitete Experiment einer Demokratisierung scheitern sollte, lassen sich daraus gewisse Schlüsse ziehen: Ganz bestimmt werden die Befürworter der Invasion den Irakern vorhalten, sie seien widerspenstig gewesen und hätten die einzigartige Chance, sich zu einer demokratischen Gesellschaft zu entwickeln, nicht zu nutzen verstanden. Zweifellos werden sie ein weiteres Mal ihr schlagendstes Argument anführen: die Verbrechen von Saddam Hussein, der Inkarnation des Bösen, die, koste es, was es wolle, beseitigt werden musste. So können sie denn auf jedes kritische Nachdenken über die Berechtigung ihres Unternehmens verzichten, eines Unternehmens, das so viel mehr Aussicht auf Erfolg gehabt hätte, wenn, ja wenn es bei diesem Abenteuer tatsächlich um die Freiheit gegangen wäre.


deutsch von Sigrid Vagt

Fußnoten:
(1) Siehe David Baran, "Die letzten Tage Saddam Husseins", Le Monde diplomatique, Februar 2003.
(2) Die Al-Badr-Brigade ist der bewaffnete Arm des Obersten Rats der Islamischen Revolution im Irak, einer Oppositionspartei, die zur Zeit des alten Regimes ihre Basis im Iran hatte und wahrscheinlich die aktivste und in Bezug auf subversive Aktionen erfahrenste Oppositionspartei des Landes ist.

Le Monde diplomatique Nr. 7077 vom 13.6.2003, Seite 18-19, 496 Dokumentation, DAVID BARAN

© Contrapress media GmbH
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung des taz-Verlags

[Joerver]

California guns for gas-guzzling SUVs
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Saturday June 14, 2003
The Guardian

California, which has led the world in many things, may be the first state to ban the big four-wheel-drive cars that the Americans calls sports utility vehicles - SUVs - and love and hate in equal measure.

The ban, it should be hastily pointed out, lest a civil war is provoked, would extend only to their purchase by the state.

Plans to introduce a law were announced this week by the state treasurer, Philip Angelides, and the state senate president and veteran radical John Burton.

"It is symbolic," Mr Angelides said. "It is a symbol to ... the auto manufacturers in this country and other state legislatures, but also it can save lives, it can save money, and do something about pollution."

About 10% of the state`s 73,000 vehicles are thought to be SUVs and they would be replaced, if the legislation went through, with cheaper cars that cost less to run: an SUV gets only 13 miles to the gallon. Mr Angelides and Mr Burton estimate that the saving would be about $14m over five years.

Other states, notably Massachusetts and Ohio, have considered such a move, and some local authorities have already acted, but a decision by California would have a big effect.

This is just the latest battle in the SUV war.

Earlier this year the Detroit Project, led by the columnist Arianna Huffington and the environmentalist Laurie David, placed satirical advertisements linking their ownership to support for terrorism: a spoof on a White House commercial which linked buying drugs to backing terrorists.

Other campaigns taunt SUV drivers by sticking notices under the windscreen wipers.

The Detroit Project argued that SUVs helped make the US too dependent on foreign oil.

The Union of Concerned Scientists says that if everyone who drives an SUV drove an ordinary car instead Middle East oil imports could be entirely ended.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

June 14, 2003

Voters and ministers lose trust in Blair
By Tom Baldwin, Philip Webster and Peter Riddell

`Tony the timid` savaged by colleagues as poll ratings plunge


TONY BLAIR faced a double blow last night as a new opinion poll showed that he had lost the trust of voters and some of his closest allies accused him of timidity in his Government reshuffle.
Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt are among senior ministers privately expressing exasperation at the abandonment of radical changes in the “boldness” agenda he had promised for Labour’s second term.

They are among the handful of avowed Blairites left in the Cabinet after the reshuffle and both were disappointed not to get new jobs. Sources close to the Defence and Trade Secretaries have told The Times that the shake-up underlined the weakness of the Prime Minister’s position at the end of a week which began with publication of a compromise deal negotiated with Gordon Brown on the euro.

A Populus opinion poll for The Times today shows that Mr Blair has lost the trust of a third of British people as a result of his handling of the Iraq war, even though a big majority still believe that military action was justified.

The poll, undertaken on Tuesday and Wednesday, shows that the row over government claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has damaged Mr Blair: a third of voters say they are now less inclined to trust him on other issues. Moreover, nearly three fifths of the public believe that the British and American Governments deliberately exaggerated the evidence that Iraq had such weapons.

Nonetheless, these doubts have not shaken people’s belief that the war was justified. More than two thirds say that the war was justified, regardless of Iraq’s arsenal, because it got rid of Saddam Hussein.

The trust findings are a fresh setback to Mr Blair, who has spent much of this week trying to sugar the pill of the Chancellor’s negative verdict on early euro entry. Plans to appoint a Cabinet-ranked Minister for Europe are believed to have been blocked by Jack Straw, not least because it would have diminished his own role as Foreign Secretary, and similar proposals to strip the Home Office of some probation and prison responsibilities were successfully opposed by David Blunkett.

One senior government figure said last night: “In any factory there can only be one gaffer. Reshuffles used to be about strengthening the Prime Minister’s position, but on this occasion he has been pushed around by everyone.”

Ms Hewitt is understood to have harboured hopes of becoming Health Secretary before being told last week that she would not be considered for the job. Her allies believe that this was because her Blairite credentials threatened to prolong Cabinet rows over NHS reforms. She remained out of the picture even after Alan Milburn’s decision to quit this week, by which time her aides were claiming that she no longer wanted to move.

Although Mr Milburn insisted that his departure was for personal reasons, other ministers point out that it followed bruising encounters with the Chancellor in the past year, not least on the introduction of foundation hospitals.

Mr Blair’s aides say that he would have resisted Treasury pressure to move Mr Milburn, but a number of the former Health Secretary’s allies believe Downing Street had not given him strong enough support. One government adviser said: “He was paying a very high price for being a moderniser and No 10 did not do much about it.”

John Reid, the new Health Secretary who is seen as Downing Street’s “fixer”, was holding policy discussions with officials yesterday. Dr Reid describes himself as having been “a Blairite before Blair had ever been heard of”, but his previous roles as Labour chairman and Leader of the Commons have made him acutely aware of backbench opposition to foundation hospitals and he is expected to consider further amendments to give the Bill an easier passage when it returns to the Commons this summer.

Last night Downing Street and the Treasury attempted to pre-empt weekend speculation about Cabinet tensions by denying any suggestion of a deal between Mr Brown and Mr Blair over the euro. Downing Street was also fighting off charges that Mr Blair had “botched” the reshuffle by failing to think through his constitutional changes. Iain Duncan Smith said that the Prime Minister was acting as a “tinpot dictator” who was treating the constitution as his personal plaything.

There was fresh confusion when Peter Hain, the new Commons Leader who is also remaining as Secretary of State for Wales, announced that the Wales Office would also survive. It later emerged that he was talking about a unit of civil servants that will work for him in the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

And Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Constitutional Secretary, found himself having to perform the duties of the Lord Chancellor, the job he wants to give up as soon as possible. To the surprise of peers he briefly took his place on the Woolsack, fully robed in gown and wig to act as Speaker.

Mr Blair completed his reshuffle last night, dismissing several veteran ministers, including Michael Meacher and Nick Brown. The former Education Secretary Estelle Morris returns as Arts Minister.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-713013,00.html

[Joerver]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-712827,00.html

June 14, 2003

Land of the brave, home of the free - or a junk culture, hooked on fantasy and with a military alienated from its own people?
Anthony Beevor



The war in Iraq may be over, but in the United States it is not back to business as usual. Bumper stickers say it all: “Never Prouder to be an American”, and, alongside a picture of the Stars and Stripes, the slogan: “These Colors Never Run.” In Washington DC, I saw a well-dressed man wearing a cowboy hat standing at a major intersection. He was holding aloft a banner which read “US get out of UN”. He acknowledged the hoots of support with a grin and a wave.
This confidence in American strength rests, however, on certain paradoxes. While Americans are proud of their military, this feeling is not entirely reciprocated. While the Iraq war demonstrated American military supremacy, it also laid bare how blunt that weapon can be. And, above all, the very display of strength against their enemies which Americans have required since 9/11 may provoke new dangers of the kind the nation has been fighting to prevent.

I was in Washington after lecturing at West Point on how warfare has changed since the Second World War. All the officers and cadets I spoke to could not have been more polite or have appeared more interested, but the culture gap appeared wider than ever. I urged them to step outside themselves. As tactfully as possible, I tried to explain that many foreigners saw their country not as “the land of the brave and the home of the free”, but as the source of a contagious junk culture devoted to self-indulgence and Hollywood fantasy.

The Bush Administration may believe in exporting American democratic and business values, using the US Army and Marines where necessary. But there is a tension between the cultures of the US military and the rest of America which mirrors the relationship between the US and the rest of the world.

The Pentagon commentator Thomas Ricks has pointed out in his book, Making the Corps, that many in the US military despise their own country’s civilian values. Rather like anti-American critics abroad, they see modern America as a decadent and selfish society, utterly lacking in self-discipline. The US Marine Corps even goes through phases of believing that the next war is going to be fought at home, with the slums of Los Angeles resembling Mogadishu.

At West Point I had the opportunity to explore further what sets the American warrior caste apart. The Iraq war pointed up some of the clear differences between the operational procedures of the US Army and the British Army. The American advance to Basra had demonstrated their undoubted strength in “force-on-force” operations. Iraqi forces simply melted away. But US troops had clearly received no training or preparation for the stabilisation phase, which was bound to follow. They did not even know how to set up proper road-blocks to check vehicles and prevent suicide attacks. Most striking of all, they seemed to want to keep the Iraqis they had come to liberate at arm’s length.

The moment the British had secured Basra, the order went out to remove helmets so that the local Iraqis could see human faces. It was a technique tried and tested in Northern Ireland. The American officers looked uncomfortable. They said that their troops could not possibly do that. It contravened fundamental instructions: soldiers were not allowed to remove helmet or body armour when on active service. “But don’t you see,” I said to a colonel in the Rangers, “that your helmets, sunglasses and body-armour make you look like imperial stormtroopers out of Star Wars?” To his credit, he acknowledged that that was probably the case. But the idea did not seem to have occurred to them that on peace-enforcement operations, you cannot have effective intervention without human interaction.

Soon after the US intervention in Bosnia in 1995 the American military thinker Edward Luttwak compared the role of peacekeeping forces with heavily armoured Roman legionaries on the borders of the civilised world keeping the barbarians at bay — even though terrorism had proved that we were living in a world without frontiers. It was also the time of the hi-tech/low-bodybag war, policing the new world disorder from the air or with missiles fired from distant warships. Just before operations in Kosovo began, General Morillon, a former French commander in Bosnia asked: “Who are these soldiers who are ready to kill but not to be killed?”

Nowhere does this hands-off approach create greater resentment than in the Arab world, where hi-tech warfare is seen as arrogant and cowardly. This Arab resentment is the military counterpart to the Islamic and Third World loathing of globalisation. Western armies are, of course, unapologetic. US tank units in the Gulf even adopted the AT&T advertising slogan — “Reach out and touch someone” — to boast of their superior range in weaponry.

It is hard for the US Armed Forces to accept that their crushing defeat of Saddam Hussein may prove a dangerous victory. For the Arab world, the only possible challenge to the total supremacy of the United States can come in the form of terrorist acts, what the Pentagon now defines as “asymmetrical warfare”. Islamic fundamentalists will not compromise in the struggle against “the Great Satan”. They reject official diplomacy just as they reject the idea of secular government. And any Arab leaders prepared to negotiate with the Americans or Israelis are liable to be assassinated. I fear that the asymmetrical power of the United States, however benignly intended, cannot avoid asymmetrical war.


The author’s Berlin The Downfall 1945 is published by Penguin.

Join the Debate on this article at [e-mail]

[Joerver]

June 14, 2003
Democrats Split on Challenging Iraq Arms Hunt
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ADAM NAGOURNEY


WASHINGTON, June 13 — The war in Iraq is once again dividing the Democratic Party, with Congressional leaders and presidential candidates struggling over how strongly to challenge President Bush about the failure so far to find biological or chemical weapons.

Many party leaders say they are hopeful that questions about the weapons can be turned into a powerful political issue. But others are concerned that it may backfire, given the strong public support for Mr. Bush`s war policies, the public`s apparent indifference to the absence of weapons and the prospect that such weapons could turn up any day.

Some Democrats asserted today that attacking Mr. Bush on the weapons question could undercut one of the president`s greatest strengths going into next year`s election, his success as commander in chief. Should no weapons be found, they said, Democrats could challenge Mr. Bush`s credibility on issues beyond the Iraqi conflict.

One presidential candidate, Senator Bob Graham of Florida, went so far as to compare Mr. Bush and his fellow Republicans to Richard M. Nixon. After Republicans announced they would hold closed-door hearings on the weapons issue, Mr. Graham accused the administration of "another shameful and dangerous display of secrecy," and suggested it had manipulated intelligence "to sell the decision to go to war."

On Capitol Hill, Democrats who were largely silent during the war have begun to challenge Mr. Bush. Some, like Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, have suggested that administration officials may have embellished intelligence reports during the buildup to war in Iraq.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said in an interview that "serious questions have been raised that need to be answered."

But other prominent Democrats, including such presidential contenders as Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have struck a far more cautious tone, with their aides warning that such attacks could end up hurting the Democratic Party, depending on how events play out.

Several polls have indicated that the public remains largely supportive of the war, and that people are not particularly concerned that the weapons that Mr. Bush said would be found have not yet been located.

Some Democrats who supported the war, notably Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, said they still thought it was likely that weapons would be found.

"The right tone is one of serious concerns but no allegations," said a senior adviser to one of the presidential candidates who, given the sensitivity of the issue, spoke on the condition that he and his candidate not be named. "I think we do ourselves a disservice to start screaming conspiracy. Let`s give them the time to search.

Of Mr. Bush, the adviser said that "if we take a run on this guy and they find them, he`ll come up at us stronger than ever."

In Congress, Republicans gave Democrats an opening this week by announcing that an inquiry into the administration`s Iraqi intelligence-gathering would be conducted largely behind closed doors. Some Democratic lawmakers pushed for open hearings that would, in a Washington tradition, create headlines during the slow months of July and August.

"Questions have arisen about who knew what, when and why," said Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, who was an outspoken opponent of the war. "In order for us to have what we need to make decisions, it is important that these questions be aired as publicly as possible."

These developments illustrate the way the war in Iraq, even with the formal conflict declared to be largely over, continues to bedevil the Democratic Party. Democrats said that at least two of their presidential candidates, Mr. Graham and Dr. Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont who built his campaign on a platform of opposing the war, have a lot riding on whether the administration, as both men have suggested, manipulated intelligence about biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.

At first, Dr. Dean aggressively challenged Mr. Bush`s credibility on the issue. But he has since held back as pressure on the administration has built in Congress. "Howard Dean said for a long time that the president didn`t make the case for war in Iraq," said Steve McMahon, one of Dr. Dean`s senior advisers. "Now the question is, was the case the president made based on facts or ideology?"

Some of Dr. Dean`s supporters said he would be vindicated if no weapons were found. At the same time, Mr. Graham, who is the latest entry into the presidential race, has attacked Mr. Bush`s credibility with a directness that has startled some rivals, who argued that Mr. Graham would be in political difficulty if weapons were uncovered.

Nonetheless, a number of Democrats, including an adviser to Mr. Graham, said they believed that the uncertainty surrounding the weapons could fundamentally damage Mr. Bush.

"The administration`s efforts to rally public support for the war at the front end led to the expectation that at the back end we would find weapons of mass destruction pretty quickly," said Geoffrey Garin, Mr. Graham`s pollster. "So to some extent the administration is being hoisted on its own petard."

But the risks for the Democrats are high. Mr. Bush has dismissed suggestions that he manipulated information, and Republicans were quick to try to paint Democrats as unpatriotic for raising such questions.

In announcing the closed-door hearings, Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Democrats of using the war for political gain. And Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said in an interview: "I think it`s political posturing. Democrats are politicizing a very important issue."

Democrats, in keeping with tradition and fearing they would be labeled unpatriotic, refrained from criticizing the administration during the war. That has changed with most American forces out of harm`s way.

Aides to several of the Democratic presidential candidates, as well as other Democrats, said the failure to find the weapons could provide opportunities to question Mr. Bush`s integrity, which has been seen as one of his greatest strengths.

"There has been a frustration in the Democratic Party that this president doesn`t seem to be held to the same standards that either his predecessor or his predecessor`s vice president were held to," said Anita Dunn, a Democratic consultant.

In the months leading up to the war, administration officials said they had intelligence indicating that Iraq had ties to terrorism and had made efforts to develop biological and chemical weapons. This week Mr. Bush said he was "absolutely convinced" that proof would be found that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons programs, even as the Pentagon released a study suggesting that some intelligence analysts were uncertain about that.

Given the overwhelming public support of the war, even Democrats said it was hardly certain that opinions would turn against the administration if no weapons were found.

In March, before the invasion began, a joint survey by Democratic and Republican pollsters found that 41 percent of the public believed that the war would "mostly be a success" if Saddam Hussein were removed from office but no weapons were found. That sentiment has grown since Baghdad fell, in no small part because people believe the weapons will be found, said Jeremy Rosner, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey.

Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, said a majority of the public did not believe that the Bush administration had deliberately misled them. "There is really not a credibility issue at this point," Mr. Kohut said.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 14, 2003
As U.S. Fans Out in Iraq, Violence and Death on Rise
By PATRICK E. TYLER


L HIR, Iraq, June 13 — American troops fanning out to reinforce allied control of Iraq came under attack again today in at least three separate places north of Baghdad. Retaliating, they killed at least seven people, military officials said.

The Americans who came under attack said that they had killed two of their assailants. Then, in a confusing encounter that produced contradictory versions of events, at least five more Iraqis were killed. Those Iraqis were characterized by local people as innocent bystanders, but the American military said they were attackers.

In the northern city of Mosul, at least one American soldier was seriously wounded when patrols came under fire from snipers — some of them hurling hand grenades — in the city center. The United States Central Command said that 74 people had been detained near Kirkuk, and that at least some were suspected of sympathizing with Al Qaeda. It was not clear if this indicated that at least some of those captured were not Iraqis, but militants from other Arab countries.

The American goal appears to be to keep the pressure on and whittle down these fighters until a new Iraqi authority is able to maintain order. This is not new resistance, military officials say, but rather old resistance that the American troops here are only now taking on as they extend their reach in Iraq, fanning out to areas north and west of the capital where they had less of a presence during the war than in areas in southern and central Iraq, which had to be controlled to clear the route to Baghdad. [Page A7.]

What appeared significant was that the muscular military campaign to uproot, arrest or kill the remnants of guerrilla fighters loyal to Saddam Hussein, who remains unaccounted for, has caused civilian casualties and is inflaming sentiments among the Iraqis.

In this patch of mud-brick homes 36 miles north of Baghdad, nearly everyone was asleep Thursday night when the explosion and gunfire erupted on the main road a quarter mile away.

A group of Hussein loyalists had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at an M1-A1 tank in a convoy of vehicles from the Seventh Armored Cavalry squadron. The soldiers returned fire and killed two Iraqis on the spot, military officials said. No Americans were hurt.

The next thing the villagers heard was an Iraqi voice that cried out from the dirt road that winds into the village, "The Americans are coming! Get out of your houses!"

In the heat of the night, only the moon illuminated the shorn wheat fields as men, women and children ran for the cluster of sheep and cows bedded down among the thistles, villagers said. Some of the villagers laid among the animals for cover, but some kept running.

Then came the rumble of the diesel engine armored personnel carrier and the clatter of its machine gun, they said. In a flash of tracer bullets and screams, the armored vehicle did its work, spraying the field, setting the brown wheat stubble on fire, and then roaring away.

Not all of the villagers got up. A 70-year-old farmer, three of his sons and a grandson died in the assault on the village. This morning, according to the villagers` account, military officials drove into the village and apologized for the attack.

"They said it was a mistake," said Rassaq Ali Jassim, 40, whose father and three brothers died. "They said it was dark and there had been an attack on the road. They apologized."

Military officials at the Seventh Armored Cavalry`s base near here said they could not confirm the villagers` account. One officer familiar with the attack said that American soldiers killed two Saddam Fedayeen fighters on the road near the village. He also said five "locals" were killed when armored units chased one or more attackers who escaped. A subsequent request to speak to an officer of the Seventh Cavalry drew no response.

The story of what happened late Thursday and early today in this tiny hamlet is a tale of grief for the clan of Shiite Muslims who today were erecting funeral tents for the wake that will occur here this weekend.

But the military response has done little to clarify what happened.

In contrast to the policy during the war in Iraq, the United States military has been more inclined to give specific figures for Iraqi casualties since President Bush formally declared an end to major combat hostilities on May 1. The perils of specifics became apparent today, when the United States Central Command issued a statement saying their forces had killed 27 Iraqis, four in the original exchange on the highway when the tank came under fire, and 23 more in a subsequent assault.

"Tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles reinforced with AH-64 Apache helicopters pursued the enemy personnel, killing 23 of the attackers," the military statement, which was widely reported, said.

Tonight, an official with the United States military command in Iraq said the report of the attack was wrong, and that seven people died. There was no elaboration of what happened in the village, where residents say five family members were killed by "indiscriminate" fire.

"This is our fortune," said Mr. Jassim. "First we were persecuted by Saddam Hussein, and now by the Americans."

Military officials in Baghdad and at the United State Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., said they had no additional information on the attack. A spokesman said "sometimes the numbers do vary" in reports of military action from the field, and he added that counting up Iraqi casualties in such an operation is "just not significant information."

In London today, a British-American research group said that estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq since the war began were from 5,534 to 7,207.

Ten miles north of here in Balad, 4,000 soldiers of the Fourth Infantry Division this week conducted an operation called "Peninsula Strike" in an area where a large number of Baath Party loyalists and supporters of Mr. Hussein live. Soldiers arrested more than 370 people and though they said they captured a number of senior Baathists, residents said a large number of innocent civilians were caught up in the dragnet.

One man, Jamal Daham, 22, a third-year computer science student at Baghdad University, said he was held for four days. He was blindfolded, handcuffed and his mouth taped, he said. His American interrogator, he said, threatened "to send me to Cuba," where the United States is holding, at Guantánamo Bay, people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda and Afghanistan`s ousted Taliban..

American military officials have given few details of the tactics they have employed in dealing with the civilians of Balad.

Mr. Daham said his interrogator wanted him to name all of the Baath Party officials and senior Iraqi Army officials on the Balad peninsula, a finger of land surrounded by the Tigris River and home to one branch of the Al-Jibouri clan, known for its loyalty to Mr. Hussein over the years.

"He told me that if I was sent to Cuba, I would be in a cell with another guy and my girlfriend would run away from me," Mr. Daham said of his interrogation.

In Balad today, when a reporter tried to ask a soldier for information about the operations in the area, an officer called out, ordering him not to speak.

The men of Al Hir this evening were putting up the frames for the funeral tents. Across the pasture, four dead sheep killed by the gunfire lay bloated in the animal pen near the cinderblock hut where Ali Jassim al-Khazraji, the patriarch of the village, died on the pallet where he was sleeping near the flock.

His grandson, Qassim Zubar, 19, was running to reach his grandfather when he was killed. A concrete aqueduct near where he fell was pocked by machine gun fire. Hamza Ali Jassim, Abd Ali Jassim and Amir Ali Jassim died where they fell in the field. Their head wounds were so severe that two of them had to be identified by an appendectomy scar and a missing finger.

At dawn, an American armored vehicle came and took the bodies, the residents said. The soldiers searched the houses for weapons, but found none, they added. By midmorning, the soldiers returned with the bodies, which were washed and sent to the holy city of Najaf, where most Shiites bury their dead. An officer delivered the apology, the residents said.

This evening, while the men worked, the women gathered in a circle in the dirt courtyard, weeping and lamenting their losses. All the residents of the village are from the al-Khazraji clan, a prominent Shiite Muslim tribe that was sympathetic to the American and British effort to topple Mr. Hussein.

Noufa Hamoud, 60, whose eyes reddened with tears, said that before the attack on the village, her attitude had been, "Long live Bush, Long live Bush." She was an aunt of the three brothers, and her weathered face bore the small tattoos of rural Iraq.

Now, she said of Mr. Bush: "I will not forgive him. They were so young, they had children, they had never committed any crime. He has leveled our family."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 14, 2003
A Growing Fury in Iran

Iran`s unpopular and economically failing Islamic dictatorship now faces serious challenges from several directions. University students question its legitimacy in the streets. Reformist politicians seek wider powers for the elected parliament. Washington, now a military force in the region with troops in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq, demands an end to Tehran`s nuclear weapons development and support for terrorism.

Predictably, the conservative clerics who exercise real power in Iran are trying to blame all their problems on a Satanic America. Even they must know better. What fuels unrest in Iran today isn`t the machinations of Washington but the explosive discontent of the Iranian people, especially the young and the educated. After nearly 25 years of an Islamic dictatorship that has drastically limited personal freedoms and stunted economic growth, the Iranian people are eager for change. They are also frustrated with the timidity and limited accomplishments of the reformist leaders they have repeatedly backed with overwhelming electoral majorities.

This week, thousands of Tehran University students staged large protest marches, drawing support from the capital`s middle-class neighborhoods. Standing up to this brutal regime takes courage. Past student demonstrations have been crushed and their leaders imprisoned. Early Saturday morning, Islamic vigilantes tried to halt the current protests by attacking students with wooden batons and rubber truncheons. Middle-class Iranians, for their part, engage in quieter and less risky forms of protest. Repression and anti-Americanism have helped sustain clerical rule for nearly a quarter century. Both now seem to be losing some of their potency.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 14, 2003
The Boys Who Cried Wolfowitz
By BILL KELLER


We`re now up to Day 87 of the largely fruitless hunt for Iraq`s unconventional weapons. Allegations keep piling up that the Bush administration tried to scam the world into war by exaggerating evidence of the Iraqi threat. One critic has pronounced it "arguably the worst scandal in American political history." So you might reasonably ask a supporter of the war, How do you feel about that war now?

Thanks for asking.

One easy answer is that between the excavation of mass graves, which confirms that we have rid the world of a horror, and President Bush`s new willingness to engage the thankless tangle of Middle East diplomacy, which raises the hope that Iraq was more than a hit-and-run exercise, the war seems to have changed some important things for the better. This is true, but not quite enough.

Another easy answer is that it`s not over yet. Just as we have yet to prove that we can transform a military conquest into a real Mission Accomplished, we have yet to complete our search of a country that, as Californians must be very tired of hearing, is the size of California. This is also true, but likewise inadequate.

I supported the war, with misgivings about the haste, the America-knows-best attitude and our ability to win the peace. The deciding factor for me was not the monstrosity of the regime (routing tyrants is a noble cause, but where do you stop?), nor the opportunity to detoxify the Middle East (another noble cause, but dubious justification for a war when hardly anyone else in the world supports you). No, I supported it mainly because of the convergence of a real threat and a real opportunity.

The threat was a dictator with a proven, insatiable desire for dreadful weapons that would eventually have made him, or perhaps one of his sadistic sons, a god in the region. The fact that he gave aid and at least occasional sanctuary to practitioners of terror added to his menace. And at the end his brazen defiance made us seem weak and vulnerable, an impression we can ill afford. The opportunity was a moment of awareness and political will created by Sept. 11, combined with the legal sanction reaffirmed by U.N. Resolution 1441. The important thing to me was never that Saddam Hussein`s threat was "imminent" — although Sept. 11 taught us that is not such an easy thing to know — but that the opportunity to do something about him was finite. In a year or two, we would be distracted and Iraq would be back in the nuke-building business.

Even if you throw out all the tainted evidence, there was still what prosecutors call probable cause to believe that Saddam was harboring frightful weapons, and was bent on acquiring the most frightful weapons of all. The Clinton administration believed so. Two generations of U.N. inspectors believed so. It was not a Bush administration fabrication that Iraq had, and failed to account for, massive quantities of anthrax and VX nerve gas and other biological and chemical weapons. Saddam was under an international obligation to say where the poisons went, but did not.

What the Bush administration did was gild the lily — disseminating information that ranged from selective to preposterous. The president himself gave credence to the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa, a story that (as Seymour Hersh`s investigations leave little doubt) was based on transparently fraudulent information. Colin Powell in his February performance at the U.N. insisted that those famous aluminum tubes Iraq bought were intended for bomb-making, although the technical experts at the Department of Energy had made an awfully strong case that the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers. And as James Risen disclosed in The Times this week, two top Qaeda planners in custody told American interrogators — one of them well before the war was set in motion — that Osama bin Laden had rejected the idea of working with Saddam. That inconclusive but potent evidence was kept quiet in the administration`s zeal to establish a meaningful Iraqi connection to the fanatical war on America.

The motives for the dissembling varied. The hawks hyped the case (profusely) to prove we were justified in going to war, with or without allies. Mr. Powell hyped it (modestly) in the hope that the war, which he knew the president had already decided to wage, would not be a divisive, unilateral exercise. The president either believed what he wanted to believe or was given a stacked deck of information, and it`s a close call which of those possibilities is scarier.

Those who say flimflam intelligence drove us to war, though, have got things backward. It seems much more likely that the decision to make war drove the intelligence.

The origins of this may be well intentioned. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the most dogged proponent of war against Iraq, is also a longtime skeptic of American institutional intelligence-gathering. He has argued over the years, from within the government and from outside, that the C.I.A. and its sister agencies often fail to place adequate emphasis on what they don`t know, and that they "mirror-image" — make assumptions about what foreign regimes will do based on what we would do.

One tempting solution has been to deputize smart thinkers from outside the intelligence fraternity — a Team B — to second-guess the analysis of the A Team professionals. Mr. Wolfowitz was part of a famous 1976 Team B that attacked the C.I.A. for underestimating the Soviet threat. These days the top leadership of the Defense Department is Team B. Mr. Wolfowitz and his associates have assembled their own trusted analysts to help them challenge the established intelligence consensus.

Who would argue that the spooks` work should not stand up to rigorous cross-examination? But in practice, B-Teaming is often less a form of intellectual discipline than of ideological martial arts.

Here`s how it might have worked in the Bush administration:

The A Team (actually, given the number of spy agencies that pool intelligence on major problems, it`s more like the A-through-M team) prepares its analysis of, let`s say, the Iraqi nuclear program. The report is cautious, equivocal and — particularly since U.N. inspectors left Iraq in 1998 — based on close calls about defector reports, commercial transactions and other flimsy evidence.

The B Team comes in with fresh eyes, and fresh assumptions. One assumption, another Wolfowitz mantra, is that more weight should be given to the character of the regime — in Saddam`s case, his transcendent evil and megalomania. While the C.I.A. may say that we have insufficient evidence to conclude that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program, Team B starts from the premise that it is just the kind of thing Saddam would do, and it is dangerous to assume he didn`t.

Then Team B dips into the raw intelligence and fishes out information that supports its case, tidbits that the A Team may have rejected as unreliable. The Pentagon takes this ammo to an interagency review, where it is used to beat the A Team (the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency) into submission. Maybe the agencies put up a fight, but (1) much of their own evidence is too soft to defend with great conviction, and (2) by this time the president has announced his version of the facts, and the political tide is all running in one direction.


When Team B seems to have the blessing of the boss, it goes from being a source of useful dissent to being an implement of intimidation. As formidable a figure as Mr. Powell, who resisted pressure to include the most arrant nonsense in his U.N. briefing, still ended up arguing a case he told confidants he did not entirely believe, specifically on the questions of Iraq`s nuclear program and connections with Al Qaeda.

By the time a Team B version of events has been debunked, it has already served its purpose. That 1976 Team B, by assuming the most dire of Soviet intentions and overlooking the slow collapse of the Soviet economy, came up with estimates of Soviet military strength that we later learned to be ridiculously inflated. But the cold warriors who ran it succeeded in setting back détente and helped to elect Ronald Reagan. The 2003 Team B seems to have convinced most Americans that Saddam had nuclear arms and was in bed with Osama bin Laden.

But the consequences of crying wolf — and the belief is widespread among the dispirited spies of the A Team that the administration did exactly that — are grave. Honest, careful intelligence is our single most important weapon in the global effort against terrorism. It is also critical to winning the support of allies against nuclear proliferation, most urgently in North Korea and Iran. Already rather compelling evidence of Iran`s development of nuclear weaponry is being dismissed as just more smoke from the Bush propaganda machine.

So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda. The pro-war Democrats are dying to change the subject to the economy. The Republicans are in no mood to second-guess a victory. Just when we really need some of that Team B spirit, the hawks have chickened out.

The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
In Memoir as Manifesto, Clinton Takes On the GOP


By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 2003; Page A01


Democrats battling over the message and direction for their struggling party can all find something to their liking in "Living History," the best-selling book by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

For the centrist "New Democrats," the former first lady extols her husband`s administration as moderate and mainstream, devoted to fiscal moderation, a strong foreign policy and pragmatic reforms to make incremental progress. And she mounts a strong defense of President Bill Clinton`s decision to sign a welfare bill that drove some liberal Democrats to denounce the party`s only two-term president since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

At the same time, Hillary Clinton delivers an attack on the Republican Party sufficiently ferocious to please even the least compromising members of the Democratic left. In her book, Republicans have become one of the most threatening cabals in American annals, led by some of the most senior officials of the legislative and judicial branches. "I feared for my country," she writes. GOP leaders, she charges, have corrupted the federal judiciary to substitute partisanship for the rule of law and brazenly pursued "an attempted Congressional coup d`etat" to undo a democratic election.

Clinton`s book was published Monday and sold a reported 200,000 copies the first day, fueled by a barrage of interviews and news reports focused on her reaction to her husband`s adultery and on her possible presidential ambitions. Little attention has been given, however, to the political vision laid out by a woman who, by her own account, has pursued politics and advocacy with a passion since girlhood.

That vision, as seen through her book, is a landscape slatted with rays of goodness and a dark cloud of evil and not much real estate in between. The few Republicans Hillary Clinton finds to praise have passed away, have been purged or must cower under the thumb of the party`s reactionary leadership. What remains is a GOP bent on "political war waged by people determined to sabotage the president`s agenda on the economy, education, Social Security, health care, the environment and the search for peace in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and the Middle East -- everything we, as Democrats, stood for."

In particular, Clinton sketches an indictment of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist every bit as heated as the right-wing denunciations of then-Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1960s. Though she does not call for Rehnquist`s impeachment, she accuses him of leading a conspiracy to replace a fair-minded special prosecutor with a partisan zealot in the Whitewater investigation.

"I feared that the Republicans and their allies in the judiciary, led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, would figure out some way to remove [special prosecutor Robert] Fiske because he was impartial and expeditious," Clinton writes. And when Fiske is replaced, she adds: "it was clear that [independent counsel Kenneth W.] Starr was replacing Fiske not to continue an independent investigation, but for partisan purposes."

In short, Rehnquist`s "lifetime tenure as a Supreme Court justice did not inhibit his ideological or partisan zeal," Clinton writes.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said last night that Rehnquist was unavailable to comment on Clinton`s book. The author also declined to be interviewed about the political content of her book.

Clinton also accuses Rehnquist of allowing a personal bias against the Clintons to color his legal opinions and of clinging to outdated, racist views. "Neither Bill nor I relished the idea of sharing such an important moment with William Rehnquist, who despised us and our politics," Clinton writes of her husband`s second inauguration. The two even considered having another justice administer the presidential oath of office in 1997.

Presidential scholar Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution says political memoirs have always been a way of burying the hatchet -- in an old foe`s chest. "This is a way of settling scores, and that may be one purpose of the book," he said.

Clinton never makes clear exactly why Rehnquist has such a prominent place on her list of Republicans coldly bent on subverting the Constitution to "topple a President." He enters the story of her White House years three times: once because his duties included naming the three-judge panel in charge of appointing independent counsels; once because he presided at the trial in which her husband was acquitted; and once because he seemed unfriendly while administering the oath of office.

" `Good luck,` Rehnquist said without smiling. Something about his tone made me think we would need it," Hillary Clinton writes.

Offstage, Rehnquist voted to allow an Arkansas woman, Paula Corbin Jones, to sue Bill Clinton for sexual harassment stemming from an encounter when he was governor of Arkansas. But Rehnquist was just one of nine justices -- including two appointed by Clinton -- who held unanimously that the lawsuit should proceed.

But by placing the chief justice neck deep in the cabal trying to oust her husband, Clinton is able, at the end of the book, to link the hotly disputed 2000 presidential election recount to the impeachment attempt of the previous year. In writing of the Supreme Court`s 5 to 4 decision to halt the examination of uncounted ballots in Florida -- thus awarding the presidency to George W. Bush -- Clinton adopts the view, widely held on the left, that conservatives on the court, including Rehnquist, simply rigged the result.

"Seldom if ever in our history has the people`s right to choose their elected officials been thwarted by such blatant abuse of judicial power," Clinton sums up.

In "Living History," she describes the making of a liberal Democrat in the fires of the 1960s. Raised outside Chicago by a bigoted Republican father and a stalwart, wise Democratic mother -- "the gender gap started in families like mine" -- Clinton started life as a conservative but overcame it. A youth minister took her to hear the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. speak, but she remained conflicted until she reached college and contemplated the Vietnam War. She resigned as president of the Wellesley College Young Republicans and hardly looked back.

As she tells it, most of her political priorities were set by the experiences of her early twenties. She was drawn into advocacy for poor children, for reform of foster care and adoption laws, for women`s rights and education reform. Having attended the 1968 Republican convention that nominated Richard M. Nixon and "cemented the ascendance of conservative over moderate ideology within the Republican Party," by 1972 she was a volunteer for the liberal Democrat George McGovern.

Clinton moves lightly past or ignores altogether some of the controversial moments in her husband`s presidency -- the losses suffered by U.S. troops in Somalia, the failure to stop genocide in Rwanda, the many pardons issued on the last day of the Clinton presidency. Other controversies, she explains, were all, or partly, the fault of the Republicans.

Her health care plan, she writes, fell victim to a Republican effort "to derail reform." She allows that she could have done a better job of selling the plan, and says that the failure of this enormous undertaking taught her to "focus on discrete undertakings that were more achievable" -- such as insurance for poor children and research into Gulf War syndrome. Nevertheless, she writes, "I`m still glad we tried."

Her husband`s signature on the welfare bill prompted Hillary Clinton`s mentor, Marian Wright Edelman, to publish a denunciation in The Washington Post. Clinton defends herself by explaining that she prevented a much harsher bill from becoming law: "I made clear to Bill and his policy advisers in the West Wing that if I thought they were caving in to the mean-spirited Republicans` bill that was harmful to women and children, I would publicly oppose it."

As for allegations that the Clinton administration was slow to comprehend the menace of international terrorism and al Qaeda, Hillary Clinton argues that the hubbub over impeachment drowned out her husband`s alarms. "Bill gave a forceful speech to the U.N. about the growing threat of international terrorism . . . [but] I`m sure few Americans heard Bill`s warning." Clinton also reports that she always took a hard line against Saddam Hussein in conversations with her husband.

In her retelling, the scandals of the Clinton years -- Whitewater, the collection of FBI files, the firing of the White House travel staff and so on -- were utterly without foundation. She doesn`t dwell on details; rather, she holds them up as symbols of the perilous times we live in: a period of reasoned, compassionate progress on one hand and, on the other, a virtually unprecedented assault on legitimate government.

"If men like Starr and his allies could ignore the Constitution and abuse power for ideological and malicious ends to topple a President, I feared for my country," she writes. "Bill`s Presidency, the institutional Presidency and the integrity of the Constitution hung in the balance."

The book ends with those contending forces still very much in the field, and with Hillary Clinton boiling down her political philosophy to this: "It`s always about the future, about what must be done to make America safer, smarter, richer, stronger and better, and how Americans can prepare to compete and cooperate in a global community."

She is happy in the Senate, pursuing "specific incremental reforms," she writes -- but if she decides to return to the center of the fray, she can ride to battle brandishing a copy of "Living History."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Nicht nur in Deutschland haben die Handlungen im Nahen Osten zu einer Veränderung geführt. Und es wird immer ein Schuldiger gesucht, weil es einfacher ist.

Majority of Americans Say Anti-Semitism a Problem in U.S.
But very few see it as a very serious problem

Do you think that anti-Semitism, or prejudice against Jewish people, is currently a -- very serious problem, somewhat of a problem, not much of a problem, or not a problem at all -- in the United States?


http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030611.asp

[Joerver]

[oswald11]

Bush ist die größte Irritation aller Zeiten!!

[Joerver]

Ich habe heute in meinen Mail Angebote für Hotels in San Francisco. Die Preise für Juni/Juli sind gegenüber dem letzen Jahr um 30-40% gefallen und im letzten Herbst waren die Preise schon stark reduziert. Also die ehemalige Boom Area hat sich immer noch nicht erholt.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-caljobs14jun14,1,65293…

Job Cutbacks Accelerating in California
The state is faring worse than the nation, reports show. Analysts say the budget crisis and the tech industry slump will hamper a recovery.
By Marla Dickerson
Times Staff Writer

June 14, 2003

California`s labor market deteriorated sharply in May as the state`s employers shed 21,500 jobs -- even as the rest of the nation combined gained jobs, according to government data released Friday.

The cutbacks were felt across a wide spectrum of the economy, which is being weighed down by a massive budget gap and ballooning business costs. The job losses are the largest since December and mark the fourth consecutive month of payroll declines in California.

Analysts said the state, after outperforming the nation through much of the economic downturn, has become one of the weakest labor markets, in large part because of the continued technology downturn in the Bay Area. Southern California, meanwhile, has fared better.

Since February, California has lost a net 54,300 jobs, or nearly 0.4% of its nonfarm jobs, double the national rate. More worrisome, the pink slips appear to be accelerating at a time when many economists had predicted they would level off in anticipation of employment growth in the second half of the year.

A state Employment Development Department survey showed that California`s jobless rate dipped to 6.6% in May from a revised 6.8% in April. But economists said that was largely because so many people have stopped looking for work, gone back to school or left the state and thus are no longer counted in the jobless statistics.

California`s long-suffering technology sector cut additional jobs in May, as did factories, which have shrunk their payrolls now in 28 of the last 29 months. The construction, retailing, government and business services sectors all axed positions as well, signaling widespread pessimism among employers.

Analysts said a slew of negative factors have converged in the state and that could make its recovery tougher than that of the rest of the nation. They include unprecedented state budget woes, skyrocketing workers` compensation costs, a sluggish tourism sector and continued weak demand for high-tech goods, the state`s biggest export.

"All these things are discouraging hiring," said economist Esmael Adibi, director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University in Orange. "California is going to lag the rest of the country."

The national economy lost a net 17,000 nonfarm payroll jobs last month, driving the U.S. jobless rate to a nearly nine-year high of 6.1%, the Labor Department said. Employment nationwide has fallen by 289,000 over the last four months, with nearly 1 in 5 of those losses in California.

California`s labor market is a tale of two economies, with Southern California holding its own while the Bay Area continues its long slide.

The Southland added jobs on a seasonally unadjusted basis in May and still boasts some of the lowest unemployment rates in the state. Orange County, for example, posted a seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate of 3.6% in May. The unadjusted jobless rate last month for Los Angeles County was 6.3%.

In contrast, unemployment in Santa Clara County, home of such Silicon Valley giants as Cisco Systems Inc. and Intel Corp., stood at 8%. The county`s labor force has shrunk by 10.6% since employment peaked in December 2001 as workers have fled for greener pastures.

Dale Bott, a former Bay Area computer technician, lost his $20-an-hour job with a dot-com in 2001. Unable to find anything paying close to that after the tech bubble burst, he moved last year to New Mexico, where he stocks grocery shelves for $6.25 an hour in Truth or Consequences.

"If I had stayed in California, I`d be living in the street," said Bott, 53. "I`m a reality guy.... This job doesn`t pay a lot, but at least the cost of living is a lot lower here."

It`s a choice that more of California`s 1.2 million jobless residents are confronting in the face of a stingy labor market. The state`s long-term unemployment has been climbing for 20 straight months, with 22.6% of all jobless Californians now out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Former software executive Brett Trusko is among them. Laid off two years ago, the 42-year-old Danville resident has been unable to find a full-time technology position, even though he holds a doctorate and is a certified public accountant. He said refinancing has helped his family hang on to its house, but he`s not sure how much longer they can hold out on his wife`s salary alone.

"We`ve thought about moving to Vegas," Trusko said. "We`d like to stay here, but we`d leave if the right opportunity came up."

There were some bright spots in the May employment data. Five of 11 large industry clusters tracked by state analysts added jobs last month, including the so-called financial-activities sector, which includes California`s red-hot real estate industry.

Anthony Hsieh, founder and chief executive of HomeLoanCenter.com, said business is so brisk at the Irvine mortgage lender, thanks to record-low rates, that the company is looking to beef up its staff of 400.

"People in the mortgage business are very busy these days," Hsieh said. "We`re lucky to be among them."

Economists say most other industries in the state are grappling with sluggish sales and soaring business costs, a combination that`s slamming the brakes on hiring. Particularly nettlesome is workers` compensation. The state`s system is in chaos, with premiums doubling and even tripling for many companies over the last few years, leading some to freeze hiring or lay off employees to keep costs down.

"A lot of businesses are in a precarious profit position," said Jack Kyser, chief economist with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. "They are trying their darndest not to add workers because it hits their bottom line."

Richard Pocrass, chief executive of Chocolates a la Carte Inc., a Valencia maker of specialty chocolates, said his firm laid off nine of his 150 workers after his workers` compensation premiums doubled to $500,000. To expand his family`s business, which will post $12 million in sales this year, Pocrass said he will automate more of the production process and outsource to Asia. What he won`t do, Pocrass said, is hire more people.

"This is a complete change of direction for us," Pocrass said. "We have to find a way to grow without adding employees. California makes it too expensive."


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-intel14j…
THE NATION


CIA Reassigns 2 Top Iraq Analysts but Denies the Move Is Punitive
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

June 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — The CIA has reassigned two senior officials who oversaw its analysis on Iraq and the deposed regime`s alleged banned weapons, a move that a CIA spokesman said was routine but that others portrayed as an "exile."

The officials served in senior positions in which they were deeply involved in assembling and assessing the intelligence on Iraq`s alleged stocks of chemical and biological arms.

U.S. search teams have yet to find conclusive evidence that Iraq had such weapons in the months before the war — an assertion that was the Bush administration`s principal justification for the March invasion.

One of the officials was reassigned last week to the CIA`s personnel department after spending the last several months heading the Iraq Task Force, a special unit set up to provide 24-hour support to military commanders during the war.

The other, a longtime analyst who had led the agency`s Iraq Issue Group, was dispatched on an extended mission to Iraq. The group is responsible for the core analysis of all the intelligence the United States collects on Iraq.

CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said Friday that the changes were routine, and that it is "absolutely wrong to think this is somehow punitive or negative or indicative of anything other than a normal rotation." Citing security concerns, he asked that neither employee be identified by name.

But other intelligence sources offered a different account.

"Two of the key players on this problem have essentially been sent into deep exile," said one agency official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The official added that the changes seemed designed to show the administration that "we`re being responsive to charges that we did not perform well."

The failure so far to find banned weapons in Iraq has raised questions about whether the prewar intelligence was flawed or shaded to support the White House`s desire to present a compelling case for war.

The agency`s personnel moves come as congressional committees are reviewing the prewar intelligence, with some Democrats pushing for public hearings and a full-scale investigation.

Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee signed a letter this week seeking a meeting with the panel chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), in an effort to pressure him to drop his opposition to a full investigation.

Meanwhile, staffers on the House and Senate Intelligence committees are already poring over thousands of pages of prewar intelligence documents turned over by the CIA in recent days.

One Capitol Hill aide who has reviewed the material said there are troubling contradictions in the documents and statements. In some cases, records show officials reaching one conclusion on Iraq`s weapons, only to offer a contradictory conclusion a few months later.

The aide declined to discuss specifics but said the tangled nature of the material is likely to add fuel to the controversy.

"It`s all fodder for the Democrats," the aide said. "What they`ll find is people having said things that aren`t consistent with what they`re saying now."

An intelligence official familiar with the Iraq assessments said congressional investigators are not likely to find documented proof that analysts were pressured to tailor their assessments.

"They`ll be hard-pressed to find any kind of smoking gun, a case of somebody coming in and saying, `I wrote it this way and it came back from the 7th floor telling me to write it another way,` " the official said, referring to the location at CIA headquarters where Director George J. Tenet and other top officials have offices.

Instead, the official compared the pressure analysts faced in the months preceding the war to that applied by lawyers "badgering the witness — asking the question over and over and over again to the point where people get worn down."

Much of this pressure, the official said, came from top officials at the Pentagon, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Pentagon officials have repeatedly denied seeking to influence the intelligence on Iraq.

Tenet is said to have called a special meeting with the CIA`s Iraq analysts on June 5, a session one source described as an attempt to clear the air at a time when top officials have been alarmed by anonymous complaints showing up in the press.

It is not clear whether the meeting came before or after the two senior officials were reassigned. Several intelligence sources said it was unusual for employees in such key assignments to move on to positions of equal or lesser prestige.

The woman who led the Iraq Issue Group had been there for less than a year, a relatively short stint. That sort of job has traditionally been a launching pad to higher rank. Winston P. Wiley, who went on to head the Directorate of Intelligence, had held a similar position during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Harlow, the CIA spokesman, said the woman "is moving on to an assignment in Iraq to support important issues out there." He noted that, as an expert on the country, she welcomed the opportunity to work there. Before Saddam Hussein`s regime was toppled, he said, "we didn`t have positions in Iraq."

The other employee was reassigned in part because the wartime task force is winding down, Harlow said. "This guy needed a new job and is going off to do recruiting [for the agency]. It`s something he wanted to do, and it`s something critically important to us."

Others questioned that explanation. A move to the personnel department, one former official said, "is usually not a step up."

The weapons controversy has exposed new fault lines between the White House and the intelligence community.

In a series of media appearances this week, senior White House officials including national security advisor Condoleezza Rice stressed that all of the administration`s prewar claims came straight out of briefings from the CIA.

"You had a director of central intelligence that produced an estimate that said this regime had weapons of mass destruction," Rice said in a television interview.

This week, the White House put Tenet in charge of the ongoing weapons hunt, a job that had belonged to the Pentagon.

"They handed the whole ball to George," said one intelligence source familiar with the details of the assignment. He said the message being sent to Tenet seemed clear: "You said [the banned weapons] were there. You go find them."

Another congressional aide said the move reflected not only an eagerness to put Tenet on the hook for the weapons search mission, but also dissatisfaction with the way the Pentagon had managed the assignment.

"It`s a little of both," the aide said, noting that the weapons search has been plagued by breakdowns, shortages of necessary equipment and infighting.

This week, Tenet tapped a former U.N. weapons inspector, David Kay, to serve as a "special advisor" to the search effort in Baghdad. The move was somewhat surprising from an administration that had openly derided the effectiveness of United Nations teams before the war.

Kay will report directly to Tenet and have authority over the 1,300-member Iraq Survey Group recently dispatched to step up the search.

Many in the intelligence community are now skeptical that stocks of anthrax, botulin, sarin gas or other agents Iraq was accused of producing will be found.

"It`s not that they were never there or that we worked for years on erroneous information," one intelligence official said. Rather, there is growing concern that the nation`s spy community missed the destruction of the materials because analysts were not prepared to consider Hussein capable of taking such a step.

"We didn`t have the hypothesis that maybe this guy would decide it`s too dangerous to have this stuff," the official said, noting that some think Hussein focused on preserving technology that would enable him to restart his programs later.

"If you save design work you can gin it back up pretty quickly," the official said. "The only one you can`t gin up is nuclear."

The question of Iraq`s nuclear activities has also become a source of friction between the agency and policymakers in the administration.

The Washington Post reported this week that the CIA failed to tell the White House that it was skeptical of claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. A diplomat sent by the agency to Niger to investigate the claims concluded that they were false.

Nevertheless, the claim was included in President Bush`s State of the Union address in January. The documents that were the basis for the claims were subsequently shown to be forgeries.

The CIA says it did express skepticism about the uranium claims in numerous intelligence reports that were widely circulated within the administration before the president`s speech.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mili14ju…
THE WORLD

U.S. Puts Its Afghanistan War Tactic to Use in Iraq
By Paul Richter and Michael Slackman
Times Staff Writers

June 14, 2003

WASHINGTON — With this week`s operations in central Iraq, U.S. forces are sending a signal that America will use superior force to crush resistance wherever it arises.

Finding themselves under daily fire more than a month after President Bush announced the end of major combat in Iraq, U.S. commanders have taken a page from the Afghanistan campaign: They are emulating Operation Anaconda, in which American forces killed hundreds of regrouping Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

The target this time is the remnants of Saddam Hussein`s forces who have been mounting a harassment campaign that has contributed to a U.S. death toll of 45 since May 1 — including 10 this month.

American forces have fought back with a broad sweep that U.S. authorities say has killed nearly 100 Iraqis this week, including an attack on a training camp northwest of Baghdad, and a battle late Thursday about 45 miles north of Baghdad in which seven Iraqis were killed.

In Thursday`s action, U.S. forces chased Iraqi fighters who had attacked an American tank patrol. Lt. Col. Andy Fowler, commander of the troops involved, said the soldiers returned fire after someone shot at them.

He acknowledged that only two of the seven wore the uniform of the Fedayeen Saddam militia and that the five others were locals. Residents said the other five were farmers.

"I will tell you that there are still those that are loyal to a regime that is no longer in power," Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of ground forces in Iraq, told reporters Friday in a videoconference from Baghdad. "We will continue to have to seek out and either apprehend them or destroy them, and that will take some time."

If U.S. forces can prevent the guerrillas from gathering in groups, they can keep them not only from attacking with strength, but also from training and reorganizing.

As in Anaconda, the U.S. strikes "don`t destroy all resistance," said Michael Vickers, a former Army Special Forces and intelligence officer who is at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "But they can reduce it to a much lower intensity."

Yet while the use of massive force — 4,000 soldiers participated in one operation this week alone — might achieve military goals, it risks alienating many Iraqis upon whose support the U.S. reconstruction of the country depends.

U.S. commanders contend that the surge in recent attacks against Americans in Iraq does not represent a full-scale guerrilla war fed by discontent over the occupation. Yet the military`s aggressive actions signal a new determination to snuff out, as quickly as possible, attacks that are jeopardizing the U.S. reconstruction and could, in time, erode American political support for the war as well.

The "hot spots" of resistance are largely confined to the so-called Sunni Triangle within 100 miles of Baghdad that is populated by the Sunni Muslims who were most loyal to Hussein. In fact, a pro-U.S. politician, Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi, has alleged that Hussein could be hiding in the area.

Even so, the attacks suggest that U.S. leaders misjudged how many troops the job would require, and the enthusiasm with which Iraqis would greet American forces.

Bush administration officials wanted to keep the U.S. troop numbers as small as possible in the postwar period, believing that with a small "footprint," the American presence would seem less like an oppressive military occupation.

Yet "if we had troops all over this area, maybe we wouldn`t have needed the operations this week," said Daniel Goure, a former defense official and vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia research organization.

He said the continuing increase in the number of U.S. troops in the country — now approaching 200,000 — is an acknowledgment of this.

The Hussein loyalists and foreign Islamic militants who are assaulting U.S. forces appear to be hoping that through a war of attrition they can persuade Americans to pull out.

At a rate of about one a day since May 1, the loss of U.S. troops probably isn`t enough to turn the American public against the reconstruction effort, many experts agree. But if the losses continue, that could change, especially if the Iraqis were able to kill a large number in one sensational attack, the experts say.

The areas where American troops are concentrated in large numbers, such as military camps, are the most heavily protected.

The Iraqi fighters probably will be able to continue ambushes with the rocket-propelled grenades, land mines and AK-47 assault rifles they have in abundance. And U.S. commanders acknowledge that enemy combatants have been using more sophisticated techniques in recent days. Even so, the Iraqi capabilities are limited: Rocket-propelled grenades have little use against tanks, and only limited use against armored personnel carriers, experts say.

The incident in which seven Iraqis were killed came on the heels of Operation Peninsula Strike, a comprehensive land, sea and air attack by U.S. forces who first isolated the region north of Baghdad that juts into a bend in the Tigris River, then stormed through looking for weapons and fighters. In that operation, at least 15 Iraqis were killed, U.S. authorities said.

The peninsula operation was over by Tuesday, and U.S. Army officers at the scene two days later said the Army was trying to shift into a hearts-and-minds campaign to win over local support. But it was fighting rumors that it had killed two civilians. The Army denied any responsibility for the deaths, attributing both to heart attacks, but there was a lot of skepticism among residents.

On Friday, the U.S. Central Command reported that its forces had collected 70 to 80 surface-to-air missiles, at least 75 rocket-propelled grenades and about 20 AK-47 assault rifles in the operation, which it said was carried out "to eradicate Baath Party loyalists, paramilitary groups and other subversive elements."

The U.S. military action this week also included a separate air and land attack involving members of the 101st Airborne Division against what military officials described as a terrorist camp more than 100 miles northwest of Baghdad. At least 70 people at the site were killed, some of them non-Iraqis, officials told reporters.

L. Paul Bremer III, director of the Coalition Provisional Authority, said Thursday that "we do not see signs of central command and control" in the resistance by Hussein loyalists. But, Bremer noted, the groups are "organized They may be five or six men conducting isolated attacks against our soldiers."

Although there have been repeated suggestions by U.S. military officials that non-Iraqi Arab fighters are involved in some of the episodes, it was not clear how the military knew that the fighters killed at the operation northwest of Baghdad were not Iraqis.

With drone aircraft, satellites and other surveillance tools, U.S. forces have a good capability to track down enemy fighters in the areas north and west of Baghdad where they have been hiding, analysts say.

U.S. commanders say they have also been getting tips from Iraqi civilians, as happened in the case of the guerrilla training camp that was hit Thursday.

"Much of our intelligence is being given to us by Iraqis," said McKiernan, the commander.

At the same time, analysts say, it`s important for U.S. commanders to lose no time quelling the resistance because of the way mass arrests, and intrusions into homes and businesses, are alienating the people they hope to win over.

Even in the Sunni areas, Vickers said, "if you can root out the bad guys, you can get on with trying to win over the people who are so worried by all that`s been happening."

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richter reported from Washington and Slackman from Dijeel, Iraq. Times staff writer John Daniszewski in Jordan contributed to this report.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

US clouds Iraqi civilian deaths

By Derrick Z. Jackson, 6/13/2003

WHENEVER REPORTERS asked about civilian deaths in the invasion of Iraq, US military officials reflexively plunged into a numbing prattle about the precision of our weaponry, precaution to avoid needless carnage, and promises to investigate possible mistakes.

In late March, after an American missile hit a marketplace in Baghdad and killed plenty of people - Iraqi officials said 58 - Major General Victor Renuart of Central Command said: ``With every one of those circumstances, we ask the component ... who may have had forces involved, whether it`s land, sea, or air, to do an investigation, and that takes a number of days to do that. The air component in this case is completing his review. We think that will be complete within the next day or so. And as soon as ... the review is completed, we`ll make that available.

``As to what do we determine to be the cause, I think certainly there are a number of possibilities. We want to make sure that if in fact there was an error on our part, that we found that out and made that available.``

A couple of days later, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, the deputy director of operations for Central Command, said: ``There is an ongoing investigation; still I think we are starting to come to a high degree of closure on it. We are still accounting for every weapon system that we released into the Baghdad area. And once we`ve gotten to closure on that, I think we will be able to say one way or another what role we may have played, or not.``

On April 1, Brooks was asked by a reporter if he could give a date to give the results of the investigation. Brooks responded by saying: ``Well, I can`t give you a date. I mean, it takes as long as it takes. And it ought to be thorough. We`re not going to waste time with them, but we are going to be thorough about the work that`s being done.... Our designs are to minimize the casualties to civilians as much as we can. We`d like to see that be zero. That is not something that`s ever been achieved in warfare. We believe our efforts have driven it as low as it has ever been driven in warfare.``

Two and a half months after the prattle, we now have the terrible truth. There never was an investigation. That fact was embedded (pun intended) in an Associated Press report this week that it has so far counted 3,240 Iraqi civilians killed in the invasion, including nearly 1,900 in Baghdad. The AP quoted Central Command spokesman John Morgan confirming the nonexistence of an investigation.

Americans should be shocked that journalists are piecing together a history of the war that our military is trying to bury with the bodies.

The AP report said it took pains to exclude from its count all records of hospital deaths that did not distinguish between civilians and soldiers. It also noted that many other victims didn`t die in hospitals but were lost in the rubble or buried immediately, according to Islamic custom. As a result, it said, ``hundreds, possibly thousands of victims in the largest cities and most intense battles aren`t reflected in the total.``

The numbers are ominous, since in the 1991 Gulf War, 3,500 civilians died in the fighting, and in the months after, 111,000 Iraqis died from the destruction of the nation`s health care and transportation infrastructure, according to Beth Osborne Daponte, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University.

On Monday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether he personally felt any remorse over the mounting number of civilian deaths given that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found. Fleischer did not speak about the people killed by American missiles. All he said was: ``I think when you take a look at all the mass graves that have been discovered all around Iraq, I think the world breathes a sigh of relief that a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, who had no regard for human rights, has been removed from power so that the Iraqi people can at long last have a life and build a future that`s based on freedom and opportunity, not on tyranny.``

Fleischer said that even before the AP figures were widely known. This is a White House in clear denial. The world and even many Iraqis may breathe sighs of relief right now, but things will change dramatically if the White House and the Pentagon keep choking on lies and deceptions.

Americans were outraged when 3,000 people were killed in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Now, between Afghanistan and Iraq, our vengeance has killed way more than that. We rightly demanded that the world care about our innocent dead. Now we wrongly ignore the people we killed. We not only bombed innocent people, we bombed our own innocence.

Derrick Z. Jackson`s e-mail address is [e-mail].


This story ran on page A27 of the Boston Globe on 6/13/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/164/oped/US_clouds_Iraqi_c…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Saturday | June 14, 2003

McKiernan`s dilemma
by Steve Gilliard

First of two parts

Lt. Gen David McKiernan faces a problem as old as Iraq: how to keep the tribes and various factions under control.

His methods have involved sweeps and nightly patrols in a war which may go on as long as Americans are in Iraq.

The White House and Defense Department are using loaded words like terrorists and Baathists, which may sound nice on Fox News, but does little to explain how complex the politics of Iraq are.

One must keep in mind Saddam used a complex series of bribes and a secret police establishment to work his magic. He rarely acted overtly, except when needed. But even he couldn`t prevent a full-scale Shia uprising and many of the secret dead come from that period.

The US faces a grim series of realities and some military choices .

* We have no allies in Iraq.

Bremer forced Chalabi to disband his gang, the Free Iraqi Forces, and that was the people we trained. There is no one natural constituancy which the US can draw police, soldiers, administrators. The Kurds mistrust us a great deal, the Shia have never forgiven us for calling on them to rise and then abandoning them in 1991. There is no ruling class we can appoint. The Shia clerics would like us to appoint them as the ruling class, but their plans have a lot to do with creating the Islamic Republic of Iraq than any kind of pro-Israeli democracy in the PNAC fantasies.


* It`s not just the Baathists

I would hope Centcom is selling that for US media and actually not believing that the baathists are waging this war. Saddam was hated. Sure, there are some guys who might come around and say "Saddam is alive, you better help us", but they couldn`t survive long if they didn`t have wide popular support across Iraq. Which is to say that if these guys weren`t some kind of vanguard, the Shia and Sunni tribal chiefs would hunt them down on their own. The Shia are not going to let Saddam return and now that everyone has the same weapons, it`s the Shia, with the 15,000 man Badr Brigade, who have the edge.

Let`s be clear, the Shia are not a single group. There are many different factions, but the the three leading one are the son of the murdered Ayatollah Sadr, who seems to be taking the hardest line, the followers of Ayatollah Sistani, who seem to want to avoid a conflict with the US while quietly assuming power, and the SCIRI, led by Ayatollah Al-Hakim, who have played ball with the west, but seems to have the most men on the ground and the most organization. They are taking a clever middle ground, by refusing to accept US rule, but keeping the lines of communication open.

But at the same time, you don`t hear reports of internecine warfare between Shia militia and these "Baathists". They are being allowed to operate across the country and conduct attacks. If the Shia were truly concerned about Saddam, they would not tolerate this. They would either work with the Americans in a temporary alliance, or handle it on their own. Instead, they wait and watch and let Arab "volunteers" and Sunnis catch the bullets and the heat from the US. The Kurds have also been reluctant to deal with these people as well. There`s a reason for that.

They can only exist in a permissive environment.

The Shia are digging up their murdered dead and they are armed and organized. If they accepted the US occupation, do you think former Baathists could set ambushes, kill Americans in daylight and fade away into anonymity without US troops being tipped accurately as to where they`re hiding? Or facing attacks?

The war is taking place in largely Sunni areas, but if the resistance is nationwide, 80 percent of Iraq is Kurd and Shia. Nationwide means, at least, a lot of closed mouths and shut eyes.

* We are isolated

We`ve created a situation where there is a near total mistrust of the US and it`s allies. We don`t speak the language or understand the people and every act we take is one which will be misunderstood. Bursting through homes to look for weapons is a braindead idea. The weapons are hidden. The US has no ability to surprise anyone. Their vehicles make noise. They aren`t quietly popping up in such an urbanized country. The minute they start their engines, they`re tagged.

Americans may think Iraq is some desert with a few towns. Nope. The average Iraq city has hundreds of thousands of people. Baghdad has anywhere from 7 to 14 million people. These "towns` you`re reading about.....think Norfolk or Buffalo when you hear them. A place like Najaf has as many people as Atlanta, Kut, think Las Vegas. We are talking about cities with 200-400,000+ people in them. Baghdad is as big as LA, Chicago and Houston combined in terms of population. And remember, they may be larger because Saddam didn`t have a recent accurate census.

In this, 160,000 US troops are supposed to bring order with almost no local cooperation.

Do you think five infantry divisions could control LA, much less California?

The Consequences of Rumsfeld`s Mouth

As it stands, the US force is shy half of what is truly needed to provide security for Iraq. If you take Gen. Shinseki`s assessments as valid, that a force of hundreds of thousands would be needed to stabilize Iraq, we have nothing like the men we need and they are at their peak. The US force will get smaller over time because enlistments will end, units will have to be pulled out.

None of our allies are going to send their troops into an active war not approved by the UN. You can use 1441 all you want, but there is no European parliament which is going to send units to fight in Iraq. We`re not talking peacekeeping here, but the early stages of a full-bore insurgency. And given the Congo and the EU/UN`s offer of peacekeepers in Gaza and the West Bank, there is scant ability to send even 10,000 troops from France, Germany, Pakistan or Australia to Iraq. The US has never been less popular in South Korea, so they`re out. No Arab country will send troops to police Iraq under US command.

What will we get? Ukrainians, poorly trained conscripts with a healthy dose of racism towards muslims? Poles, who`s spirit is good, but training is questionable. Can they operate in such an alien enviroment effectively? The Dutch may come to serve with the British. And they all expect peacelkeeping duties, not search and destroy missions.

All of the usual sources of troops either have other committments or come from countries where joining us in Iraq is simply political suicide. Even the British cannot maintain the 1st Armored Division in Iraq for long.

So what does McKiernan face this summer?

1) The policy of dispersing US units is setting them up for ambush. Which is why the needs of security and needs for military action are smacking into each other. We need to secure Iraq, but if we do, we diminish the local combat power and provide ample targets. No wave of paramilitary police or foreign support is coming any time soon.

2)The resitance has the tacit support of Iraqi society. They may not be killing Americans themselves, but they are, at best, tolerant of these groups, at worse, banking on their success before tossing in with them. Because the US lacks Arabic language skills and a sense they are guests in Iraq, they alienate potential helpers. Every Iraqi is suspect and the Iraqis are fast coming to see us in the same way.

3) Unhappy reservists and a shaky 3ID. They have been out there for long time and expected to go home. Instead, they get a summer in the sun, with the hatred of every Iraqi they see following them. No relaxation, no cute Iraqi girlfriends, nothing but heat and hatred. How long can they go before they take their plight out on some Iraqi village or get so tired and sloppy, the guerrillas take out an entire patrol which just tried to cut themselves a break.

4) No large scale relief from coalition forces. Most of the countries asked have refused point blank, starting with the Canadians.

The only question is if the US can prevent the resistance from growing with their current operations and create some breathing room for Bremer to work with.

Posted June 14, 2003 01:11 AM |
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003038.html#003038

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Eine Hilfe für Tony und Dubya. Der WMD Finder von Fiore. Eine Flash-Animation:


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive…


.

[Joerver]

Es wird augenblicklich wieder viel geredet über Kokain, nicht nur deutsche Politiker haben ihre Probleme, auch Skull and Bones Knochen Dubya hat sich des öfteren das Näschen gepudert oder wie es so treffend geschrieben wurde
"he was born with a silver spoon in his nose."
Also das erste Mal in voller Länge: BUSH`S COKE CRISIS


Winners in the ongoing "media feeding frenzy." The winning headline of the Bush Coke Crisis goes to The Australian because it was there first : "Sniff of Gossip in Bush Line on Coke." The winning one-liner goes to Washington wit Mark Russell : "Bush says he isn`t going to play the rumor game -- specifically, the rumor that he was born with a silver spoon in his nose." And then there`s the insightful invective by the Washington Post`s Richard Cohen : "Bush is a Fifth Amendment cokehead." Finally, we cast our support behind Tom Tomorrow as the winner in the coketoon category. 8/27/99


POLITEX: BUSH HAS FIRST-TIMER MOTHER, 27, IN JAIL FOR TRACE AMOUNTS OF COCAINE. Many Texans who believe Bush used coke before his 28th birthday must consider him an opportunistic hypocrite because he purposely proposed tightening up the drug laws for first-timers in order to win votes when he ran against Governor Ann Richards in 1994. That same year, with the state prisons overflowing, " Richards signed a new penal code whose provisions included automatic probation for first-time offenders caught with a recreational quantity of drugs," writes Michael Daly in Sunday`s New York Daily News. Bush was at the time campaigning to get Richards` job, but both he and Richards declined to discuss if they ever used drugs. Bush "produced a survey of Harris County prosecutors that derided the law as "Penal Code Lite."...`Those on the front lines of criminal justice agree with me in describing the new penal code as a joke,` Bush said. `This survey should give the governor a much needed reality check.` A news report noted that Bush `told supporters that he thinks individuals must be held accountable for personal behavior.` He did his best to make everyone forget that Richards had doubled the time violent offenders served in prison and was leading the nation in executions. He continued to hammer her for being lite on crime right up to election day. As the new governor, Bush signed a new new penal code that ended automatic probation for first-time offenders," adds Daly.

Last Tuesday a "27-year-old mother of two... appeared as a first-time offender in the 230th District Court of Harris County. The woman had been in a car with two other people in Houston when the police rolled up and announced they were illegally parked. The police would later maintain that the woman made a `furtive movement.` `You touch your nose, it`s a furtive movement,` says her attorney, Bob Scott. The police would contend that they only searched the car and its contents for their `own protection.` A handbag in the backseat proved to contain a glass pipe. The pipe had no visible traces of drugs, and a New York cop would have just thrown it away. These Texas cops were determined to make it their business if she had taken cocaine. They submitted the suspect item to the lab....Yee hah! The lab reported that the pipe contained cocaine `residue.`...The woman knew without asking that pleading none of your business was not an option. She took the eight months to be served in the prison system whose ultimate boss was busy seeking the Republican nomination for president"

"As the woman began her Texas-size sentence for residue, Bush was making some decidedly furtive motions about his own possible cocaine use." Daly reminds us that Bush`s "refusal to address the issue directly made him seem too much like our current President. He also sounded like somebody of a social class where you can make your indiscretions without worrying about being rousted and searched on some pretext like illegal parking." As you know, Bush eventually implied and his spinners said that he hasn`t used hard drugs between age 28 and the present. He said the purpose of telling that to reporters was to indicate that he could get a clearance for a top-level job in the Clinton White House. We`ve since learned that Bush`s statement was not correct, since the present White House form requests the applicant to fess up to any drug use since his 18th birthday. Getting back to the woman, Bush at 28 "was one year older than the woman currently in jail for residue. She will finish learning from her mistake by next spring, and by then Bush might have discovered that all his campaign millions cannot make up for his failure to give one straight answer." 8/22/99


Weiter geht es hier:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm

.

[Joerver]

Essay

Die ordnende Gewalt

Von Karl Otto Hondrich

Die Zeichen am Himmel sind unübersehbar. Die apokalyptischen Reiter sind unterwegs. Unterm Sternenbanner, auf wilder Jagd um den Globus. Durch die Wolken stoßen sie, wo sie wollen. Heute gehört ihnen der Irak und morgen die ganze Welt. Wahnsinn. Die so denken, sind allerdings nicht Amerikaner, sondern Meister aus Deutschland. Der Größenwahn der Macht entsteht im Auge des Betrachters. Hitler spukt noch in unseren Köpfen. Es sind seine Träume von Weltherrschaft, die wir auf Amerika übertragen. Glaubt man den Auguren des alten Europa, dann kennt die Welt keine größere Gefahr als Amerikas Übermacht.

Der Soziologe Hondrich, 65, lehrt in Frankfurt am Main. Zuletzt erschienen von ihm bei Suhrkamp die Bände "Wieder Krieg" sowie "Enthüllung und Entrüstung. Eine Phänomenologie des politischen Skandals".


Wer könnte sich ihren Argumenten entziehen? Ja, Konflikte sollen gewaltlos, im Rahmen des Rechts beigelegt werden. Ja, den Vereinten Nationen und nicht den Vereinigten Staaten soll die Rolle des Weltenordners zuwachsen. Ja, bis dahin soll die Macht in der Welt "multipolar" verteilt sein. So eingängig die Forderungen sind, sie beruhen auf Illusion. Nicht Rechts-, sondern Gewaltordnung ist die Grundlage von Gesellschaft. In der Weltgesellschaft baut nicht die Uno, sondern bauen die USA an diesem Fundament. Verteilung der Gewalt auf mehrere Pole, wenn sie denn möglich wäre, würde nicht mehr Frieden bringen, sondern weniger. Die gewaltige Macht Amerikas ist nicht das Problem. Sie ist die Lösung. Was aber ist das Problem?

Das Problem ist die Vielfalt und Streuung der Gewalt, weltweit. Es spitzt sich zu: Immer mehr Staaten, Banden, Terroristen, Fanatiker können sich vernichtende Waffen verschaffen und die Welt in Schrecken versetzen. Mit Recht und Verträgen ist dem nicht beizukommen. Und doch hat die Geschichte eine Lösung, im kleineren Rahmen, vorgemacht. Hier in Europa gab es Multipolarität, eine Art Gleichverteilung der Gewalt auf viele Herren. Sie führte zu fortwährenden Machtproben. Aus ihnen ging der moderne Staat als Monopolist der Gewalt hervor. Seine Hegemonie sichert den Frieden - allerdings nur nach innen.

Im Außenverhältnis der Staaten entsteht erneut Konkurrenz, nunmehr der nationalen Hegemonen, und damit erhöhte Gewaltgefahr. Das "Gleichgewicht der Kräfte", auf das die europäische Neuzeit von Metternich bis Bismarck so stolz war, hat Gewalt nur zeitweilig gebannt, um dann in umso größerer Gewalt zusammenzubrechen. Nur glücklichen Umständen ist es zuzuschreiben, dass das "Gleichgewicht des Schreckens" zwischen Nato und Warschauer Pakt nicht in einem Inferno mündete. Es verwandelte sich in die Vormacht der USA.

Nach Plan, Recht und Gesetz verläuft dies alles nicht. Eine Rechtsordnung, die Gewalt an Regeln bindet, setzt hegemoniale Gewaltordnung voraus. Das alte Europa scheint die grundlegende Rolle von Gewalt vergessen zu haben. Es fühlt sich nicht angegriffen, weder von Bin Laden noch von Saddam, von den Hamas-Kommandos nicht und nicht vom Kongo. Es suggeriert sich, dass Gewalt nicht durch Gewalt, sondern durch Nichtgewalt zu bändigen sei; ist es ein Zufall, dass nur Briten und Spanier, die Terror im eigenen Land kennen, für eine Gewaltlösung im Irak eintraten?

Sowenig wir die ferne Gewalt fühlen, verstehen und uns als Problem zu Eigen machen, so schnell haben wir die Patentlösung zur Hand: Die Uno soll es richten. Sie kann es nicht. Sie hat keine Gewalt. Wo Recht nicht durchgesetzt werden kann, gibt es kein Recht. Was der Uno aber am meisten fehlt, ist die Wucht geteilter Interessen und Gefühle, die zu gemeinsamem Handeln nach außen erst befähigen. Die Uno hat kein Außen und bleibt deshalb uneins im Innern. Sie versteht sich als das Ganze - und kann deshalb, tragischerweise, für das Ganze nicht handeln.

Was der Uno fehlt, haben die USA: wenn auch kein Weltgewaltmonopol, so doch die Führerschaft in einem Kartell der Waffenmächtigen. Was sie fähig macht zu handeln - die Unterscheidung zwischen Gut und Böse, innen und außen, Freund und Feind -, scheint sie unfähig zu machen, für das Ganze zu handeln. Auch wenn sie von der Uno gerufen werden - immer bleiben sie Nation, also nur Teil des Ganzen und ihren eigenen Interessen verhaftet. Allerdings, als Interessen einer Großmacht reichen sie weiter als die von anderen Staaten. Sie kommen, zumindest was Schutz vor Gewalt angeht, den Interessen des Ganzen nahe. Auch ohne einen Ordnungswillen für das Ganze (der eher gefährlich werden kann) erfüllen sie, sei es unbeabsichtigt, eine zentrale Aufgabe aller Staatlichkeit: Gewalt dem freien Spiel der Kräfte zu entziehen und ruhig zu stellen - im Quasi-Weltstaat eine ungeheure Aufgabe. Weil niemand sonst sich ihr unterzieht, ist Weltgewaltordnung heute, notgedrungen, US-hegemonial.

Überfordert die Aufgabe nicht die Kraft einer Nation? Amerika übernehme sich, sagen seine Kritiker; wirtschaftlich lebe es bereits auf Kosten der andern, es führt chronisch mehr ein als aus. Das kann man anders deuten: Die Welt gibt Amerika in Waren zurück, was sie an militärischen Diensten von ihm bekommt.



Längst gibt es global eine Aufgabenteilung. Sie funktioniert ohne Vertrag und Recht, ja ohne Gerechtigkeit - aber sie funktioniert: Für die Welt gearbeitet wird in Asien, in Arabien gebetet, in Afrika gelitten, in Amerika gerüstet und in Europa über alles geredet. Das eine wie das andere ist gemeinschaftsdienlich. Aber durch noch so viel Reden und Reflektieren auf das europäische Erbe lässt sich Gemeinschaft nicht herbeireden. Im Kampf dagegen (auch gegen den Hunger) entsteht sie von selbst.

Wie aller Macht sind auch der des Hegemonen Grenzen gesetzt. Von außen durch die Großmächte Russland, China, Indien; sie machen den USA nicht mehr, wie noch bis 1989, die Kontrolle über die weite Welt streitig, wohl aber über je eigene Einflusssphären. Allerdings sind diese, insbesondere für Russland, dramatisch geschrumpft; ganz Osteuropa ist zum Schutzpatron Nato übergelaufen, ja Russland selbst neigt, bedrängt von islamischem Terrorismus und der entfesselten Industriedynamik Chinas, de facto dem Nato-Gewaltkartell zu.

Und wenn dies eines Tages, als weltweites Sicherheitssystem, alle Mächte in sich aufgenommen hätte? Es würde dann auch seine äußeren Grenzen zu inneren machen. Schon jetzt zeigen sie sich im Widerstand der Nato-Partner gegen den Irak-Krieg. Je umfassender das Gewaltkartell, desto brisanter seine innere Einheit und desto größer die Zugeständnisse, die die Führungsmacht machen muss, um Einheit und Staffelung der Macht zu erhalten.

Die stärkste Begrenzung hegemonialer Macht kommt aus dem Innersten des Hegemonen selbst. Er verkörpert die älteste und populärste moderne Demokratie - ein Volk, das sich als sein eigener Herr fühlt, mehr als jedes europäische Volk sich dies träumen lässt. Es will seine Soldaten nicht auf fremden Schlachtfeldern verbluten sehen. Es will auf die Dauer die Aufmerksamkeit seiner Regierung nicht mit Burundi, Berlin oder Bagdad teilen. Wenn es auswärts zu tun hat - "some business to do", wie Kriegführen auf Amerikanisch heißt -, dann will es das im eigenen Interesse tun und nicht für Weltbeglückungspläne, wie sie seit je in Europa ausgeheckt werden. Wenn von seinen Kriegen für andere Völker etwas abfällt, Freiheit und Demokratie etwa: they are welcome, Amerikaner sind stolz darauf. Dass sie anderen aber den American Way of Life aufzwingen - lachhaft: Was die Leute aus freien Stücken haben wollen, braucht man ihnen nicht mit Gewalt zu bringen.

Und auch nicht mit Geld. Investieren möchte das amerikanische Volk lieber zu Hause: in Bildung, Gesundheit, Sicherheit. Verfehlt er diese Interessen, wird der Präsident, wie damals sein Vater, gehen müssen. Je weiter hegemoniale Macht ausholt, desto mehr stößt sie an finanzielle Grenzen. Schon deshalb braucht sie innere und äußere Zustimmung, also Legitimität. Denn jeder Widerstand erhöht die Risiken, die Dauer und die Kosten eines Krieges.



Auch der scheinbar weltweit agierende Hegemon kontrolliert nicht die Welt. In der Ferne macht er vor dem Einflussgebiet anderer Großmächte Halt. In der Nähe ist er mit der groben Keule seiner Vernichtungswaffen machtlos gegen Gewaltsticheleien und Terror am eigenen Körper, in Belfast, San Sebastián, New York. Seine hegemoniale Kontrollzone auf der Welt ist nicht mehr als eine Schneise mittlerer Reichweite.

Das ist den Meisterdenkern eines imaginären Globalinteresses, auf Kreuzfahrt in ihrem europäischen Traumschiff, zu wenig. Sie wollen Ordnung für alle. Sie wollen die Vereinigten Staaten klein und groß zugleich haben. Als Flugzeugträger können die USA ihnen nicht klein genug sein, als Träger einer Idee vom allgemeinen Weltwohl nicht weit reichend genug.

Aber dass der Hegemon Nation ist und nichts sonst - nicht Rat der Weltweisen, nicht non-governmental organization, nicht Weltstaat -, ist alles andere als beklagenswert. Es bietet die Chance, dass er in begrenztem Eigeninteresse handelt und nicht aus ungezügelt-universalem Idealismus - mögen in seinem Innern noch so viele Irrlichter und Fundamentalismen flackern. Er kann sich irren, wie in Vietnam. Aber nichts weist darauf hin, dass er die Vernunft sich selbst begrenzender nationaler Interessen jemals über Bord geworfen hätte. Sie ruht in der Erfahrung einer alten, gewachsenen, ungebrochenen, urdemokratischen und multikulturellen Nation. Entgegengesetzter könnten die deutschen Erfahrungen eines verspäteten, imperial pervertierten, gebrochenen Nationalismus nicht sein. Die Kluft zwischen den Erfahrungen lässt sich nicht füllen, außer mit Misstrauen.

Ist dies nicht rational? Eine Gewähr für immer währende Vernunft bietet die Verankerung der Hegemonie in der amerikanischen Demokratie ja nicht. So wie diese im Inneren durch checks and balances funktioniert, braucht sie Gegengewichte auch von außen. Dafür steht das schillernde Konzept der "Multipolarität". Sie kann vieles bedeuten: eine Realität, einen schönen Schein oder eine Eselei.

Real sind die kleinen und großen Pole, die sich aus Machtbeziehungen herauskristallisieren. In Beziehung zu ihren ehemaligen Kolonien bilden Frankreich und Belgien einen Machtpol; so ist es nur konsequent, dass unter ihrer Führung eine EU-Truppe in den Kongo zieht. Die Länder des Balkans lehnen sich an Deutschland an - und machen es unwillkürlich zu einem Machtpol eigener Art. Multipolarität ist so gesehen vorhanden.

Sie wird allerdings zum schönen Schein, wenn sie vergessen macht, dass sie als innere Machtstaffelung in ein größeres Hegemonialsystem eingebaut ist. Der Hegemon ist auf sie angewiesen und sie auf ihn. Frankreich, Großbritannien und Deutschland sind Unterworfene und Unterwerfer in einem. Sie sind Teil einer kollektiven Hegemonie. Denen draußen, im Süden und Osten, erklären sie, welche Grausamkeiten drohen, sollte man sich dem Hegemonen widersetzen. Umgekehrt erklären sie dem Hegemonen die Ängste und Widerstände der restlichen Welt. Aus deren Sicht bleiben die Europäer zugleich Unterteufel, sofern sie mit-strafen, und Halbgötter in Weiß, weil sie es mit Verständnis tun und Lazarettschiffe schicken. So finden sie ihre Funktion: als Vermittler zwischen Vormacht und Ohnmacht.

So stark ist das hegemoniale System bereits, dass es nach außen wie im Innern große Freiheiten lässt. Einen Feldzug des Hegemonen kann man mitmachen oder auch nicht. Auch ohne Parlament schafft sich das System eine Art außerparlamentarische Opposition: Gerhard Schröders Deutschland und das Frankreich Jacques Chiracs - mit Habermas, Derrida und Rorty in der Hinterhand - sind die Apo für George W. Bushs Amerika. Die 68er können das Arsenal alter Argumente verwenden: Gefährlichkeit und Gemeinheit Amerikas, Gefährdung der Demokratie und des Rechtsstaats. Alles nur Antiamerikanismen, heute wie gestern? Es ist vielmehr Opposition im eigenen, atlantischen Haus. Die Deutschen sind angekommen im Westen. Zu dumm, dass er sich nicht nur als offene Gesellschaft entpuppt, sondern auch als ehernes Gehäuse der Hegemonie.

Heraus können sie nicht mehr. Sollten sie trotzdem von einem europäischen Eigenheim träumen, blind dafür, dass es, abgetrennt, am Abgrund balancieren würde? Es ist zu befürchten, dass ihnen genau dies vorschwebt: Europa als ein Machtpol außerhalb der US-Hegemonie, der, im Verbund mit anderen Polen - Russland, China, Indien, Afrika? - Hegemonie aufheben soll. "Multipolarität" wäre nicht das erste Fortschrittsprojekt, das sich - siehe Sozialismus - als Rückschritt erweist. Wohl aber wäre es das törichteste und gefährlichste. Es würde zurückführen in neue Dimensionen von alten Gewaltkonkurrenzkämpfen, die wir hinter uns haben. Dank der US-Hegemonie. Möge uns diese Kröte ruhig im Hals stecken bleiben.


© DER SPIEGEL 25/2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Lesenswert kein Klatsch und Tratsch

SPIEGEL-Gespräch

"Europa ist Europa ist Europa"

US-Senatorin Hillary Rodham Clinton über ihre Auseinandersetzung mit George W. Bush, ihre Zweifel an der Existenz irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen, ihren Einsatz für ein kooperativeres Amerika und die Wiederherstellung der transatlantischen Freundschaft

SPIEGEL: Frau Senatorin, die Vorstellung von Amerika, die Sie in Ihrem Buch entwerfen, ist das genaue Gegenteil von dem Land, für das George W. Bush steht. Heißt das, wir brauchen die Hoffnung auf ein freundlicheres, rücksichtsvolleres und kooperativeres Amerika nicht aufzugeben?

Clinton: Es ist nun einmal so: Amerika muss die herausragende Stellung akzeptieren, die es derzeit einnimmt. Das heißt eben auch, dass wir bereit sein müssen, unsere Stärke einzusetzen, sogar militärisch, wenn das notwendig ist. Ich habe deshalb auch die Politik des Präsidenten gegenüber Afghanistan und sogar gegenüber dem Irak unterstützt. Dennoch wird immer deutlicher, dass diese Regierung viele Gelegenheiten ungenutzt verstreichen lässt, wenn es darum geht, solche internationalen Partnerschaften aufzubauen, die die USA auf Dauer stärker machen und unser Verhältnis zu Europa vertiefen würden. Von der Stärkung dieser Zusammenarbeit hängt nicht weniger ab als unsere gesamte Zukunft. Die müssen wir auf ein sichereres und solideres Fundament setzen, statt allein auf den Einsatz unserer militärischen Stärke zu vertrauen.

SPIEGEL: Viele Europäer haben das Gefühl, dass es in Washington keine Opposition mehr gibt. Wo sind denn die Demokraten geblieben?

Clinton: Nach acht Jahren Erfahrung im Weißen Haus weiß ich, dass in unserem Regierungssystem der Präsident nun einmal über die stärkste Stimme verfügt. Mit diesem Nachteil müssen wir Demokraten fertig werden. Auch die Tatsache, dass dieses Land ein schweres Trauma erlitten hat, erschwert unsere Aufgabe. Gerade als Senatorin von New York weiß ich aus erster Hand, wie dramatisch und schmerzlich die Ereignisse vom 11. September für die Amerikaner waren.

SPIEGEL: Das kann doch aber nicht der Grund sein, dem Präsidenten das Feld allein zu überlassen.

Clinton: Gerade deswegen müssen wir uns überlegen, wie wir unsere Stimme wieder wirkungsvoller einsetzen können. Ich habe mein Buch nicht zuletzt geschrieben, um die Amerikaner und unsere Freunde in der Welt daran zu erinnern, dass wir schon einmal acht Jahre lang auf dem richtigen Kurs in eine globalisierte und integrierte Welt waren, die so oder so kommt. Richtig ist, uns Demokraten ist es nicht gelungen, diese Perspektive wieder deutlich zu machen ...

SPIEGEL: ... was nichts Gutes für die Wahlen im nächsten Jahr verheißt.

Clinton: Das stimmt so nicht. Die jetzigen Bewerber um die Präsidentschaftskandidatur der Demokraten machen durchaus klar, was alles gegen Präsident Bush spricht. Ich bin sicher, dass das im Lauf des Jahres auch deutlicher wird und das Wahlergebnis knapper ausfallen wird, als viele Leute denken.

SPIEGEL: Als Ihr Mann und Sie das Weiße Haus verließen, hatte sich die Wirtschaftspolitik als sehr erfolgreich erwiesen. Jetzt hebt der Senat mit aktiver Hilfe einiger Ihrer demokratischen Parteifreunde diese Politik wieder auf zu Gunsten von Steuersenkungen, die vornehmlich Besserverdienenden zugute kommen und die neue Schuldenberge auftürmen.

Clinton: Das ist ein tragischer Fehler. Ich glaube, dass die Wirtschaftspolitik der letzten Regierung eine gute Balance gewahrt hat. Eine sparsame Haushaltspolitik hat dazu beigetragen, private Investitionen zu fördern. Dadurch wurden mehr als 22 Millionen Arbeitsplätze geschaffen, die viele Menschen aus der Armut befreit haben. Selbstverständlich sind auch viele dabei zu Millionären geworden. Unglücklicherweise hat diese Regierung nun die längst überholte Politik wieder aufgenommen, die sich an der Nachfrage orientiert und die schon der Vater dieses Präsidenten als Voodoo-Wirtschaftspolitik bezeichnet hat. Es ist doch längst erwiesen, dass Senkungen des Steuersatzes für alle vornehmlich den Wohlhabenden zu größeren Einkommen verhelfen. Das ist schon aus mathematischen Gründen so.

SPIEGEL: Gegen Steuersenkungen wird es aber kaum Proteststürme geben.

Clinton: Es geht in Wahrheit auch gar nicht um Steuersenkungen. Diese Regierung versucht doch, das zu erreichen, woran die vorherigen republikanischen Regierungen in den achtziger Jahren gescheitert sind: Sie will erreichen, dass die Regierung in Washington wegen ihrer Überschuldung keine anderen Aufgaben mehr erfüllen kann als die Landesverteidigung. Wer in einem Meer von Haushaltsdefiziten versinkt, kann sich eben nicht um solche sozialen Probleme kümmern, die unser Land weniger fair, weniger gleich und weniger wohlhabend machen, soweit es die Allgemeinheit betrifft. Für die Reichen unter uns sieht das natürlich ganz anders aus.

SPIEGEL: Wie lange kann diese Politik denn noch weitergeführt werden?

Clinton: Trotz aller rhetorischen Bemäntelungsversuche durch das Weiße Haus werden die negativen Auswirkungen dieser Politik allmählich sichtbar. In den vergangenen beiden Jahren sind im Privatsektor mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze verloren gegangen. Auf die Dauer wird sich die Realität gegen alle rhetorischen Verschleierungsversuche durchsetzen.

SPIEGEL: In Ihren Memoiren beschreiben Sie den britischen Premierminister Tony Blair als politischen Verbündeten und engen persönlichen Freund. Inzwischen ist er der beste Freund von George W. Bush. Hat Sie das enttäuscht?

Clinton: Blair versucht immer das zu tun, wovon er überzeugt ist. Wir haben eine Menge Zeit mit ihm und seiner Frau Cherie verbracht, und in der Innenpolitik gibt es weiterhin viele Übereinstimmungen. Seine Unterstützung für den Krieg gegen den Irak wird sicherlich daran gemessen werden, welche Fakten jetzt darüber ans Tageslicht kommen - genauso wie es derzeit bei uns geschieht. Dennoch bleibt er ein enger Freund und ein politischer Verbündeter.

SPIEGEL: In Ihrem Buch beschuldigen Sie die Republikaner, sie hätten Bill Clinton beim Kampf gegen den Terrorismus nicht unterstützt. Wollen Sie andeuten, die Anschläge vom 11. September hätten verhindert werden können?

Clinton: Auf diese Frage weiß niemand eine Antwort. Dennoch ist es nur fair, daran zu erinnern, was mein Mann und seine Regierung alles unternommen haben, um wirksamere Gesetze zu verabschieden und mehr Geld für den Anti-Terror-Kampf bereitzustellen. Das haben die Republikaner damals verhindert, und noch heute streite ich ständig mit der Regierung darüber, wie wir uns hier auf mögliche Anschläge vorbereiten. Wir geben einfach nicht genügend Geld für Abwehrmaßnahmen im eigenen Land aus, weder für Polizei noch für Feuerwehren, noch für Notfallhelfer - eben nicht für all jene, die im Falle eines Falles an vorderster Front kämpfen. Sie in Europa haben sehr viel größere Erfahrungen mit dem Terror und reagieren deshalb auch besser darauf.


SPIEGEL: Für die meisten Amerikaner war der Feldzug gegen den Irak Teil des Kriegs gegen den Terrorismus. Viele Europäer konnten dagegen keine Verbindungen zwischen Saddam Hussein und Osama Bin Laden erkennen. Wer hat denn nun Recht?

Clinton: Bis heute gibt es keine Beweise für eine solche Verbindung, und ich habe meine Position auch nie von solchen Verbindungen abhängig gemacht. Es hat vor dem Krieg keinen glaubwürdigen Beweis für eine solche Verbindung gegeben. Erst nach dem Zusammenbruch der Taliban und der Vertreibung von al-Qaida aus Afghanistan ist es vorgekommen, dass al-Qaida-Aktivisten in den Irak gegangen sind.

SPIEGEL: Massenvernichtungswaffen, angeblich der entscheidende Grund für den Krieg, sind noch nicht gefunden worden.

Clinton: Darüber müssen wir uns endlich Klarheit verschaffen. Ich habe deswegen einen Untersuchungsausschuss im Kongress gefordert, und ich hoffe, dass beide Parteien nun gemeinsam dieser Frage nachgehen, nicht nur um Vergangenes aufzuklären, sondern auch für unsere eigene Zukunft - gerade unter dieser Regierung. Wenn sie den Einsatz militärischer Gewalt gegen Terroristen plant, müssen wir absolut sicher sein können, dass ihre Entscheidungen auch auf korrekten Informationen beruhen.

"Mit der Doktrin der Präventivschläge bin ich nicht einverstanden."

SPIEGEL: Hat diese Regierung ein Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem?

Clinton: Nicht notwendigerweise der Präsident. Es geht vielmehr um die Glaubwürdigkeit unserer Geheimdienste. Was auch immer vorgefallen ist, die Fakten müssen jetzt auf den Tisch. Diese Regierung hat einige sehr plötzliche Veränderungen politischer Doktrinen vorgenommen. Sie hat sich zu einer Politik von Präventivschlägen bekannt, mit der ich nicht einverstanden bin. In den meisten Fällen sind die schlicht überflüssig. Sie könnten vielleicht unter einigen eng definierten Umständen anwendbar sein, aber dann muss man sich eben auf die Qualität und die Genauigkeit unserer Geheimdiensterkenntnisse verlassen können.

SPIEGEL: Soll das heißen, dass der Krieg gegen den Irak unter falschen Voraussetzungen geführt worden ist?

Clinton: Noch bin ich nicht bereit, auf diese Frage mit Ja zu antworten. Ich weiß, dass meinem Mann dieselben Geheimdiensterkenntnisse vorgelegen haben. Die wirkliche Frage lautet: Haben wir zutreffende Informationen erhalten, oder wurden die Erkenntnisse aus militärischen oder politischen Gründen frisiert. Auf diese Frage habe ich noch keine Antwort.

SPIEGEL: In Ihrem Buch streichen Sie besonders heraus, dass Sie mit Frankreich und auch mit Präsident Jacques Chirac recht gut klarkamen. Das können Ihre Nachfolger nicht behaupten. Wie gefährlich ist die Entfremdung zwischen den USA und Frankreich, zwischen den USA und Europa?

Clinton: Was Frankreich, aber auch was Deutschland angeht, hoffe ich auf eine Anstrengung unserer Regierung, diese Entfremdung zu überbrücken. Wir werden sicher nicht immer einer Meinung sein, aber die Unterschiede beruhen vornehmlich auf unterschiedlichen Perspektiven. Wir haben noch immer gemeinsame Werte: Wir haben unser Zusammenleben demokratisch geregelt, wir genießen die Freiheit, und wir unterstützen Mitmenschen, die weniger glücklich dran sind. All das ist der wesentliche Kern dieser außerordentlich erfolgreichen transatlantischen Gemeinschaft. Ich hoffe, dass wir zu dieser Art von Partnerschaft zurückfinden.

SPIEGEL: Die Bereitschaft zu vergeben gehört ganz sicher nicht zu den Stärken von George W. Bush. Wie wichtig sind persönliche Beziehungen zwischen führenden Politikern?

Clinton: Ehe ich ins Weiße Haus einzog, habe ich nicht einmal geahnt, wie wichtig die sind. Menschen reagieren nun mal aufeinander, indem sie einander in die Augen sehen und nicht nur auf die Worte achten, sondern auf alle Signale, die von einer Person ausgehen. Wenn man sagen muss, Jacques oder Gerhard oder Tony, dies ist etwas, woran ich glaube und wofür ich deine Unterstützung brauche, kommt man ohne persönliche Beziehungen gar nicht aus. Wenn man nur das Telefon hätte und nicht auch den ständigen Kontakt, auf den sich persönliche Beziehungen gründen, wäre manches sehr viel schwieriger zu erreichen.

SPIEGEL: Sie beschreiben auch, wie gut Ihr Mann mit Helmut Kohl zusammenarbeiten konnte, offenbar sogar besser als mit Gerhard Schröder. Gibt es dafür Gründe?

Clinton: Mit beiden Kanzlern sind wir gut ausgekommen. Der Grund, warum ich mir mehr Zeit dafür genommen habe, über Kanzler Kohl zu schreiben, liegt darin, dass ich ihn für eine der wichtigsten politischen Figuren der Nachkriegszeit halte. Hier gab es jemanden, der die Rolle Amerikas aus dem Erlebnis seiner eigenen Kindheit verstand. Er hat sich gegen heftige politische Widerstände durchgesetzt, um die Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands zu erreichen. Er verstand die wichtige Rolle, die Deutschland in der Europäischen Union spielen musste. Mehrere Male habe ich mit ihm über die Bedeutung des Euro gesprochen. Er sah in der gemeinsamen Währung eine Möglichkeit, den europäischen Kontinent wirklich zusammenzuschweißen.

"Viele Amerikaner wissen gar nicht, was Deutschland alles tut."

SPIEGEL: Viele Amerikaner sehen in der deutschen Haltung zum Irak-Krieg vor allem Undankbarkeit. Sie auch?

Clinton: Was den internationalen Einsatz der Bundeswehr angeht, hat sich Deutschland in relativ kurzer Zeit unglaublich gewandelt. Viele Amerikaner wissen doch gar nicht, was Deutschland alles tut. Gerade erst erlitten Bundeswehrsoldaten in Afghanistan einen schrecklichen Verlust. Deutsche bilden in Kabul Polizei und Militär aus. Deutschland hat uns bei unseren Bemühungen in Bosnien und im Kosovo geholfen. Ich würde es sehr begrüßen, wenn unsere Medien diese Tatsachen vollständiger berichten würden. Allerdings ist es auch verständlich, dass die Amerikaner sich größere deutsche Unterstützung für ihren Irak-Kurs gewünscht haben.

SPIEGEL: Unterscheiden Sie auch zwischen einem alten und einem neuen Europa?

Clinton: Europa ist Europa ist Europa. Die wirkliche Herausforderung liegt doch darin, wie wir in Zukunft mit einem mächtigen und wirtschaftlich erfolgreichen Europa leben können.

SPIEGEL: In Ihren Memoiren beschreiben Sie Ihre Karriere und die Ihres Mannes als die Verwirklichung des amerikanischen Traums. Können Sie erklären, warum Sie beide trotzdem so viel Widerspruch hervorgerufen haben, warum so viele Amerikaner Sie regelrecht hassen?

Clinton: Das vergangene Jahrzehnt war bei uns durch eine heftige politische Auseinandersetzung über die Zukunft Amerikas gekennzeichnet. Es ging darum, ob es richtig war, die Chancen von Minderheiten zu verbessern, im Gesundheitswesen ein Sicherheitsnetz einzuziehen und mehr Chancengleichheit zu schaffen, unabhängig davon, ob jemand einflussreiche oder vermögende Eltern hat. Als mein Mann Präsident wurde, hatte die Republikanische Partei gar nicht mehr damit gerechnet, dass es noch einen weiteren demokratischen Präsidenten geben würde. Mit Ausnahme der einen Amtszeit von Jimmy Carter hatten sie in 24 Jahren das Gefühl gewonnen, das Weiße Haus für immer erobert zu haben. Als dann Bill Präsident wurde, hat das eine gewaltige Reaktion hervorgerufen.

SPIEGEL: Die Konservativen betrachteten Sie als widerliche Emporkömmlinge?

Clinton: Ja, und das wurde noch unterstützt durch die Art, in der die Medien ihre Berichterstattung über Politiker veränderten - auch über ihr Privatleben. Dennoch nutzten die Republikaner ihre Politik der Persönlichkeitszerstörung in erster Linie aus politischen Gründen: Weder 1992 noch 1996 konnten sie Bill Clinton in Wahlen besiegen. Und auch meine Wahl zur Senatorin im Jahr 2000 konnten sie nicht verhindern. Deshalb versuchten sie, uns in unseren Persönlichkeiten zu dämonisieren, und wollten so von unserer Politik und unseren Standpunkten ablenken. Dieser Prozess hält auch heute noch an und wird sich unweigerlich erneut an meinen Memoiren entzünden. In Wirklichkeit liegen diesen Auseinandersetzungen zwei sehr unterschiedliche Vorstellungen davon zu Grunde, wie Amerika hier und innerhalb der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft handeln sollte.

SPIEGEL: Der erste Satz in Ihrem Buch lautet: "Ich wurde nicht als First Lady oder Senatorin geboren." Sind Sie vielleicht geboren worden, um Präsidentin zu werden?

Clinton: Nein, nein, ich bewerbe mich nicht um die Präsidentschaft. Ich bin sehr glücklich als Senatorin. Von dieser Position aus kann ich mich weiterhin dafür einsetzen, was ich als Mehrheitsmeinung der Amerikaner empfinde.

SPIEGEL: Frau Senatorin, wir danken Ihnen für dieses Gespräch.


Das Gespräch führten die Redakteure Hans Hoyng und Gerhard Spörl.


© DER SPIEGEL 25/2003

[Joerver]

Bill Clinton ready to be New York`s mayor
Worldly-wise cab drivers and shoppers in the Big Apple hardly dare to believe the rumours ... Slick Willie is blowing into town and he`ll win with ease

Ed Vulliamy in Washington
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

Disgraced in presidential office but redeemed in retirement as one of America`s most popular politicians, Bill Clinton appears set to run for the only appointment that New Yorkers really care about - the mayor of their own city.

Amid furious rumours, encouraged by the multi-billionaire Republican incumbent, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the stage seems set for one of the most gripping mayoral races in the city`s memory.

Bloomberg himself fanned the flames this weekend, gracing Clinton`s potential candidacy with a statement saying that Bloomberg `fully expected` to win re-election in 2005, whether or not Clinton were to run.

`I welcome lots of competition,` said Bloomberg, whose popularity ratings hit an all-time record low this week.

Expectation that Clinton would run was also heightened by the comments of former Democratic mayor Ed Koch. Speaking on CNN yesterday, he said he `very much` hoped Clinton would stand for office, leading off solid backing from New York`s famous and muscular Democratic party machine.

Speculation was heightened further still by the comments of the man otherwise likely to run for the Democrats, a powerful local politician called Gifford Miller, who says he would stand down if Clinton were to run.

`I don`t think you could be a lot more qualified than having served as President of the United States,` said Gifford, `He has done a phenomenal job for our country - so, if Bill Clinton wants to run for mayor, I`ll support him.`

Most New Yorkers believe the vote is a foregone conclusion - that Clinton could only win by a landslide if he chose to stand.

New Yorkers seem ready to embrace the idea as an adventure and much-needed morale booster during times of relative financial hardship and pessimism about their city, undergoing a deficit crisis and the wettest, nastiest summer so far on record.

`The guy we need and damn deserve,` said Molly Marks setting up her flower stall in Union Square yesterday morning. `He`d add a bit of spice to things. He`s a kind of glamorous figure.`

`It`d be cool ... some fun at City Hall for a change,` forecast Charles Conseco, erecting police barriers across 11th Street. `I voted for him to be President, and I`d sure vote for him to be mayor - that`d be even closer to the people. I think that`s where he likes to be`.

`You know, said Pierre Martin, a cab driver, `he likes to be liked, and he knows that people from this city like him. I do.`

Clinton has been both proudly and sceptically received in the metropolis to which he moved in the hours after leaving office in 2001, setting up residence in the luxury suburban country of Westchester, with a titular business address in the city.

`They call him Slick Willie and that`s just about all he is,` says Rick Herszenhorn, a jeweller, `Let`s be serious, he couldn`t run this city no more than he can keep his pants zipped up.`

`He may be good at flying all around other countries talking to people about big issues, but can he fix a city budget?` challenged Ruth Wils, a store manager. `I wonder if he`s really interested in that.`

The bushfire of rumour caps a week in which the former First Couple were back once again in the limelight.

First there was Hillary Rodham Clinton`s autobiography, which was such a hot ticket that the publisher ordered an emergency print run of 300,000 copies in addition to the million already printed.

Then, on Friday, came the annual round of American financial disclosures, where the Clintons are always the most publicly devoured figures. They show that even the revenue from Hillary`s bloated book contract is dwarfed by her husband`s earnings simply from being Bill Clinton, speaking on the global after-dinner circuit, for which he netted $9.5 million ($5.7m) last year.

The rumour that Clinton would run for mayor was first put about by media columnists and activists in the city`s liberal and Democratic community, not least as wishful thinking.

Politically, a Clinton candidacy would offer hope of deliverance in Democrat circles from the legacy of Republican Rudy Guiliani. The Clinton candidacy has become enthusiastically backed by powerful media figures such as Michael Wolf, the New York magazine commentator: `I don`t think it is going to happen, but I think it should be encouraged. He needs a way to come back`.

Bloomberg`s office points out that Clinton is not even eligible to stand, since he is a resident of Westchester country, in the suburbs. However, Clinton does have an office in Harlem, where he is wildly popular, and as the New York Times noted, with Hillary in mind, `it is something of a family tradition to move for political opportunities`.

The speculation is not doused at all by the feebleness of official denials coming from inside Clinton`s inner circle. Spokesman Jim Kennedy says only this, in the blandest of terms: `He is very happy living in Westchester County and he is very happy with his office in Harlem. Running for mayor is not something he is considering.`

Jacek Jozwik, on the early bird shift at an internet cafe yesterday, was optimistic: `Guess the first thing he`ll want to do is open back up all those sex shops and strip bars Rudy closed down, and he`ll sure get votes for that.`


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

A breach too far
Prevent this human rights abuse

Leader
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

The decision by the US to build a `death chamber` for executions at Guantanamo Bay is cause for the greatest concern. The administration of prisoners at this camp is already an international disgrace, held as they are under a US-applied designation of `unlawful combatant` that robs them of their rights under the Geneva Conventions. What information there is about the interrogation of detainees suggests serious breaches of international law.

The US admission that it may try and execute prisoners held at the camp outside the jurisdiction of the US takes its apparent disregard for human rights to a new low. No capital trials could be regarded as safe. Britain, as America`s closest ally, and as a country with citizens held at Guantanamo Bay, has a moral duty to demand that all trials of prisoners be held under the proper jurisdiction of the American courts.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Why the US needs this court
America`s rejection of the International Criminal Court is a threat to its own security

Steve Crawshaw
Sunday June 15, 2003
The Observer

First, the good news, which deserves to be savoured for a moment. The inauguration in the Hague tomorrow of the first chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court marks a remarkable moment in history. Dictators and tyrants around the world can be brought to book, by a single court. It is an astonishing achievement - and one that seemed, until just a few years ago, quite unimaginable.

Even after the signing in 1998 of the Rome Treaty, which laid the foundations for the new court, many believed that the ICC would never become real. They were wrong. Last year, the number of countries ratifying the treaty reached 60, thus allowing the court itself to be created.

The prosecutor and judges have been selected. Now, to crown that process, the inauguration tomorrow of Luis Moreno Ocampo - a former prosecutor of the Argentine junta - means that the ICC show is well and truly on the road. Last July, when the court was constituted as a formal entity, it remained without practical power. From tomorrow, its power will be tangible. The court will be authorised to prosecute some of the horrific crimes now being committed around the world - for example, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which may provide the first cases.

Ninety countries, including almost all the world`s major democracies, have now ratified the treaty. But not the United States - which is where the problems begin. Those problems are increasing by the month and by the day. The US administration, not content with refusing to ratify, and then `unsigning` the treaty (a murky legal concept, at best), seeks to prevent this crucial instrument of international justice from building up the strength it needs to do its work successfully. It is, in short, doing its level best to kill the court. (The `Hague invasion clause`, signed into law by President Bush last year, allows him to use `all means necessary and appropriate` to free US servicemen detained by the ICC.)

In recent days, there have been small glimmers of light. A vote in the Security Council last Thursday was 12-0 in favour of a renewal of a special one-year deal that was agreed last July, allowing US peacekeepers immunity from prosecution. That sounds like another victory for the US hawks. But equally significant were the diplomatic dogs that refused to bark: France and Germany both withheld their vote, because they were so unhappy at the US pressures. Nor was this just the same old post-Iraq rift. Kofi Annan himself warned that the court - and the Security Council - would be undermined, if such renewals became an annual routine. Many countries - from Switzerland to South Africa - spoke out against the idea that the Security Council should start rewriting international treaties.

The US pressures at the United Nations have been only part of the story. The bully tactics against countries which defy America by refusing to weaken their commitment to the court have become blatant in recent months, as private (and much-denied) arm-twisting has given way to public threats. Countries vulnerable to American pressure - these days, the list of such countries is long - are told that unless they offer the Americans the desired immunity from prosecution, punishment will be swift and severe. Thus, the US ambassador to Zagreb recently published an open letter warning that Croatia would lose $19 million in military assistance if it failed to sign. Other countries have received similar threats; some - like the Bosnians, who, one might think, had already suffered more than their fair share of threats and ultimatums in recent years - have reluctantly surrendered.

The irony is obvious: that Washington simultaneously demands complete co-operation with international justice at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal (or else), and complete non-co-operation with international justice at the ICC (or else). Elsewhere, Caribbean countries have been told that they will no longer be eligible for hurricane assistance unless they give the Americans what they want, right now. Like every practised bully, Washington has given an early date for the implementation of its threats. For many countries, the proclaimed deadline for kowtowing to the US pressures runs out on 1 July, the first anniversary of the court itself.

The American view of the court, described by the deputy US ambassador to the UN as `a fatally flawed institution`, is that the court will act as a giant conspiracy against America. Accordingly, Americans will be unfairly targeted. But this misunderstands the essence of the court. The ICC is a court of last resort, which prosecutes only the most serious war crimes and crimes against humanity, and comes into play only where domestic courts have shown themselves unwilling or unable to prosecute. Despite the depressing and dangerous insouciance about international law shown by America at Guantanamo and elsewhere, one would assume that US politicians and commanders are not eager to commit atrocities on a grand scale, à la Saddam or Milosevic, which could bring them before the ICC.

As Kofi Annan pointed out, no UN peacekeeper of any nationality has been accused of a crime `anywhere near the crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC`. The Americans may be right to fear that there will be attempts to bring politically motivated cases. But the court has a solid panoply of safeguards, which make it difficult to imagine that malicious and frivolous cases could get past judicial first base.

Britain, which played a key role during the negotiations of the Rome treaty five years ago, has in recent months played a less dignified role - constantly eager to tweak the European diplomatic language in order (unsuccessfully) to appease the US loathing of the court. The UK has been depressingly reluctant to confront Washington`s bully tactics, confining itself instead to occasional hand wringing expressions of regret. And yet, almost no issue can be of greater importance. The strength of the ICC - which does not have retrospective jurisdiction beyond July 2002 - can become an international guarantor of stability in the years to come.

American contempt for the court - and its determination to bring the court`s supporters to heel - sends a disastrous message worldwide. It suggests that there is one standard of justice for Americans and another for everybody else. Such haughty foolishness makes the world a less safe place - for Americans too.

Steve Crawshaw is London director of Human Rights Watch


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

The Sunday Times - World

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-713655,00.html

June 15, 2003

Saddam`s daughter: `my father is still alive`
Christina Lamb, Baghdad



A DAUGHTER of Saddam Hussein said last night that she is convinced her father is still alive. In her first interview, Raghad, 36, said: "I know he survived the war."

Raghad described how she, one of her sisters and their children escaped being killed by American missiles at a family farm on the first night of the war. The former Iraqi dictator`s eldest daughter said she was no longer in touch with her father or brothers Uday and Qusay but believed they had all survived.

"The last time I spoke to my father was five days before the war," she said. "He was in good spirits. I know he survived the war. But once Baghdad fell it was all so quick, all the family went our own ways. I am not in touch with any of them. But I believe they are still alive."

Of Saddam, she said: "I hope he`s alive. He was a very good father." Speaking to The Sunday Times in an hour-long phone conversation made to the home of her brother-in-law, Jamal Kamel, Raghad denied persistent reports that she had considered seeking asylum in Britain.

"I like England," she said.

"I have been there before and it`s nice, quiet and very cold. But politically it is impossible." She described her family`s fear when the "shock and awe" bombing campaign began. "It was terrifying," she said. "The first night I was on our farm in Baghdad with my sister and our children and 10 missiles fell all around us. We just got to the shelter so we were not hurt but we were very scared. Every night, the noise."

Raghad revealed that she was still in Iraq this weekend, living with her four children aged between 10 and 19, and with her sister Rana, 34, and her three children. The family did not leave Baghdad until April 9, the day the city fell.

"We heard on the radio that the Americans had entered the city and occupied it so at noon that day we all left.

"After a few days everyone went their own way. We tried
to hide in Baghdad. We had not expected it to happen so quickly." She and her sister were now living in "a simple house", she added.

Speaking fluent English, which she learnt at Baghdad University where she specialised in translation, she said: "I spend my days cooking typical Iraqi food, washing dishes, doing housework, laundry.

"I do things I never did in the past because since I was a child we always had maids, housekeepers and lived in big houses with swimming pools."

Raghad and Rana were reported to have been estranged from their father since the murder of their husbands, Hussein Kamel al-Majid and his brother Saddam Kamel, both cousins of Saddam.

Once head of Saddam`s weapons procurement programme and one of the most powerful men in Iraq, Hussein Kamel became the country`s highest-level defector when he and his brother fled to Jordan in August 1995, taking their families with them. Partly because of pressure from their wives they returned six months later, apparently believing that as the fathers of Saddam`s grandsons, they would be forgiven. Instead they were murdered while their wives were visiting their father.

Refusing to speak about her husband`s killing, Raghad dismissed the notion that she had broken off relations with her father: "He is my father and I am his daughter. He was a good father and a good grandfather."

In the background it was possible to hear the sound of children playing. But she insisted: "The children are very upset. They miss school and their friends, and they feel lonely in the middle of their country. I don`t know what to tell them."

Raghad does not go out: "I don`t like the situation, the American troops everywhere, seeing the statues of my father broken, his pictures torn down. You can imagine how I feel."

She said she had accepted that there was no immediate future for her in Iraq. "I cannot stay in my country," she said. "Rana and I discuss all the time where we can live."

She is believed to be negotiating for asylum in the United Arab Emirates: "All I want is to be able to live peacefully with no fear and nobody asking us any awkward questions.
We have been through a lot and now we just want peace."

[Joerver]

The Sunday Times - Comment

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-713625,00.html

June 15, 2003

Profile: Homer Simpson
D’oh! I’m the failure you all want to be



Eat my shorts! Homer Simpson, the idiot-savant father of America’s most dysfunctional cartoon family, has emerged at the top of an international poll to find the greatest- ever Americans.
Some people will proclaim it a sad day when a slob like Homer, whose brain has the cutting edge of the doughnuts he endlessly devours, can knock Abraham Lincoln into second place and leave Martin Luther King trailing in third.

Folk of rectitude will lament that the poll, part of a BBC2 debate on America on Tuesday, marks another rung in the inexorable rise of a disreputable figure who has become an international institution. In the 70 countries where The Simpsons is shown, children and adults repeat such inane Homerisms as “D’oh!” and giggle helplessly.

Homer’s insidious presence even casts a shadow over Father’s Day today. Thanks to another poll, fathers now know that 22% of children would happily swap their dad for Homer, who outshines David Beckham, Gary Lineker and Lenny Henry as the best father in the world.

That this maladjusted, lazy and greedy character should be held up as a paternal role model by psychologists mystifies those who read of a recent attempt by one of Homer’s children to get his parents divorced on the grounds that Homer was an unfit father.

Yet in a Channel 4 poll Homer Simpson was voted the greatest television character of all time, one place ahead of Basil Fawlty. Celebrities keen to appear alongside him have included Michael Jackson, Meryl Streep, Dolly Parton, Ringo Starr, Paul and Linda McCartney, George Harrison and Elton John. Tony Blair took time out during the Iraq crisis to record a guest appearance that will be shown next year.

Like Alf Garnett, Homer’s parody of bad behaviour has taken on a life of its own so that he is celebrated for his blinkered simplicity.

For those who have somehow missed, or resolutely avoided, the parallel cartoon world of The Simpsons over the past 15 years, Homer is a fat, bald man with a triple heart bypass incurred largely by his prodigious intake of beer, burgers, pizza and doughnuts.

Married to the beleaguered Marge, he often tries to strangle his delinquent son Bart, is humiliated by his idealistic, cerebral daughter Lisa, and remains largely oblivious to his dummy-chomping baby Maggie.

This unprepossessing format has been embraced by fans as the most brilliant show on television — a view reinforced by 17 Emmy awards, a $2 billion merchandising industry and 13 full series, making it America’s longest running prime-time television sitcom.

Viewers of all ages find their own niche in the saga, be it biting satire, a deconstruction of the media, or just a funny cartoon. Addicts include the former actress MP Glenda Jackson, Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and AS Byatt, the novelist. “My favourite bits are Homer’s Y-fronts — I love it every time they come on,” Byatt has averred.

The show features about 90 characters, including a mayor who sounds uncannily like JFK and is forever being caught with his trousers down.

They all revolve around the indolent figure of Homer, about whom Simpson anoraks have recorded all manner of detail. So we know his social security number (568-47-008), his blood type (B positive) and his earmuff size (XL).

Born on May 12, 1956, Homer was raised by his father Abraham, who failed to fill the void left by the boy’s mother after she ran away to become a hippie. Graduating at the bottom of his high-school class, Homer was unsuited to work, but finally ended up as a safety officer at a nuclear power plant in the fictitious town of Springfield.

He had failed in other employment as a door-to-door salesman, snow-remover, managing a country music star and selling grease. Nor did he find success as an astronaut, boxer, bowling-alley clerk, team mascot or blackjack dealer.

The only thing he has done right was winning the hand of his high school sweetheart, Marge Bouvier, who was pregnant when they married at Shotgun Pete’s wedding chapel.

In the early days Homer was a crude, unsympathetic character, offering helpful advice to Bart such as this gem: “If you don’t like your job, you don’t strike. You just go in every day and do it really half-assed. That’s the American way.” Or this: “Remember, son, the trick to avoiding jury service is to say you’re prejudiced against all races.”

The prototype Homer was just a prop for Bart. This was because Matt Groening, creator of The Simpsons, initially identified with the juvenile rebel.

Groening, now a rotund man of 49 with a silver beard, had grown up in the suburbia of Portland, Oregon, the son of Homer, a graphic artist and film-maker, and Margaret Groening. His younger sisters were named Lisa and Maggie.

He spent his childhood immersed in comics and watching animations that he found increasingly bland. After a succession of unsatisfactory jobs in Los Angeles, he began to draw Life in Hell, a strip about an angst-ridden one-eared rabbit.

On the strength of this he was asked to come up with short, animated “buffers” on The Tracey Ullman Show in 1987. Reluctant to relinquish the copyright of his Life in Hell characters to the network, he quickly resurrected a family he had invented in school, dubbing them with his own relatives’ names. The first full-time Simpsons show was broadcast in 1989.

The names became something of a burden to his family. “My dad only objected once when Homer made Marge carry a flat tyre through the desert to a gas station,” Groening recalled. “He never minded when Homer strangled Bart, but he thought that was ungentlemanly.”

The fictional Homer evolved as his “voice”, Dan Castellaneta, dropped his tone from a Walter Matthau growl to a more warm and vulnerable timbre. As Homer’s stature grew, Bart assumed a more subsidiary role.

Homer’s distinctive exclamation “D’oh!” — the eternal cry of disappointment at life’s injustices, according to cognoscenti — was borrowed by Castellaneta from the Laurel and Hardy films. Now it is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary.

The counterculture of Homer’s world was seen as threatening by George Bush Sr. While running for re-election in 1992 he said: “We’re going to keep strengthening the American family — to make them more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons.”

The following week’s episode saw Bart watching the president saying his piece on television before retorting: “But we are like the Waltons — we’re both praying for the recession to end.”

Homer proved a subject worthy of study in American universities, with courses on the D’oh! of Homer. In essence, he loves his family but cannot help being a bad father, yet always redeems himself.

In one episode he blows his Christmas bonus and is afraid to tell Marge the truth. So he works as a Santa at a department store, but after deductions he has little to show for it.

Deciding to gamble this on a greyhound called Santa’s Little Helper, he loses the lot.

He notices the racing dog being kicked by its owner and he takes it home to a hero’s welcome: it is the best Christmas present his children could wish for. Such simple morality tales are peppered with clever references to politics and old films, keeping the audience on their toes.

Homer’s pithy sayings have become catchphrases. “There are no good wars — apart from the American war of independence, the second world war and Star Wars,” he proclaimed.

He argued that three little sentences could get you through life: 1. “Cover for me.” 2. “Good idea, boss.” 3. “It was like that when I got here.”

According to Dr Kris Jozajtis, of Stirling University, the Simpsons represent the ideal family unit and Homer is a role model. “Homer is an antidote to the superficial,” he said. “He simply cares about his family and trying to do the right thing. The fact the family is not perfect is what makes them so influential.”

Homer made his 300th appearance earlier this year and Groening is haunted by the thought that the show may be past its prime. “Ever since we started the show I’ve been thinking, ‘Oh, well, we have two years to go’. Of course, some episodes are better than others but we keep trying to surprise ourselves and I think we still do.”

As Homer is well aware, success can’t be forced. He once advised his children: “Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.”

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

`Dot Bomb` Still Causing Bay Area Pain
San Francisco Awaits Economic Upturn Years After Tech Bubble Burst

By Rene Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page A03


SAN FRANCISCO -- Even small signs of economic recovery would thrill Adam Marks these days. Bigger tips at the restaurant where he works. Crowded tables. Customers waiting for seats. Anything, he says, that would suggest this city`s long and punishing slump may be over.

"People still aren`t spending much," said Marks, 29, who has been a waiter here for nearly 10 years. "I sure hope it starts picking up soon. A lot of people can`t take much more of this."

Tim Cannon, who owns a property management company, has the same worries. He can hardly remember a time when so many local businesses have been disappearing and so many offices and apartments were vacant.

"You have whole floors on some new buildings filled with desk cubicles, but no people," said Cannon, president of the San Francisco Association of Realtors. "And I still don`t think what we`re going through has leveled off yet."

The bust is beginning to feel as long as the boom once was in the San Francisco Bay Area. More than any other region in the country, it stoked and defined the nation`s robust economic growth in the late 1990s, when all the talk was of the seemingly limitless possibilities of tech stocks. No other place benefited more from it, either. But today, with the economy here still in a tailspin, that era is loudly derided as the "dot bomb," as much of a curse now as it was a blessing then.

There is no clear end in sight to the extreme reversal of fortune the region has felt for more than two years. And residents across the economic spectrum who are struggling to endure the downturn are sounding ever more weary and despondent.

More than 80 restaurants have closed in San Francisco this year. Moving companies here and along the tech corridor that straddles Highway 101 to nearby Silicon Valley are reporting brisk new business from families tired of waiting for good times to return and packing up for other states.

Employment counselors in the region are deluged with pleas for jobs from out-of-work or underemployed professionals desperate for medical benefits or getting close to defaulting on their mortgages. Last year, counselors say, many unemployed workers were still holding out for good positions. Now, many are saying they will take anything.

The vacancy rate for industrial buildings in Silicon Valley recently reached its highest level in nearly a decade; more than 40 million square feet of space is not being used. The unemployment rate in the valley tops 8 percent, and layoffs are continuing. One local computer hardware company announced 400 job cuts a few days ago.

In an April survey conducted by the Field Poll, nearly 90 percent of Bay Area residents complained of economic duress, one of the highest levels of dismay ever recorded in California on that subject.

But those results did not shock pollster Mark DiCamillo. He notes the region`s plight in other stark ways. He said that his wife, who works for a software company, recently posted a job opening for accounting work. Within a few days, she had received nearly 2,000 résumés, many from people overqualified for the position.

"The response was just unbelievable," DiCamillo said. "It really showed how bad things still are."

In a feature this spring, the San Francisco Chronicle asked its readers what they missed most about the long-gone gold rush.

"You thought you could retire at a much younger age," wrote one resident, Lucy Wang, who also lamented the loss of lavish launch parties for countless dot-com companies. "There was so much hope and, yes, irrational exuberance in those days."

Now in dot-com graveyards around the city, there are only sad signs still blowing in the wind: "LEASE SPACE AVAILABLE."

One recent night outside San Francisco`s Pacific Bell Park, a baseball stadium built at the end of the boom, Steve Williams pointed to gleaming but empty new office buildings and condominium towers across the street that were supposed to be bustling with affluent young professionals by now.

"You see these edifices all the way from here to Silicon Valley," said Williams, 50, who works part time as a career counselor and lives in the suburb of Mountain View. "They`re all practically vacant. Everybody is either out of money or still afraid to spend it."

He said that he sensed a foul new mood rippling across the region this spring. At first, he said, the tech bust and the nation`s economic malaise startled people. Then they hunkered down, cut back spending and vowed to ride it out. "But now many people who do not have jobs are giving up hope that they`ll find a good one," Williams said. "Everyone is looking for the next big thing, but no one can see it on the horizon."

The lingering bust is not all bad. Plunging rents have given some tenants and small-business owners who were practically forced out of town during the boom new bargaining power with increasingly desperate property owners. The cost of commercial real estate in downtown San Francisco declined for the ninth consecutive quarter this spring. But those capitalizing on the discounts available now in the battered market may not be able to laugh for long.

The dormant economy here is largely responsible for saddling California with a budget deficit that exceeds $38 billion, a shortfall so immense that higher taxes and fees affecting nearly every California resident are likely on the way soon. And San Francisco`s budget situation looks so bleak that officials are planning to fire several hundred city workers, raise numerous fees and cut funding for public health programs. Last month, there was even talk in the city`s parking enforcement bureau of trying to write 40,000 tickets in 45 days to raise more money -- a move Mayor Willie L. Brown quickly quashed.

Economists caution that some of the anxiety in the Bay Area is overstated. Some businesses and some workers who reaped immense rewards during the boom, they say, are now simply victims of the outrageous economic expectations that life inside that bubble created. There are also faint signs of a rebound in the region. Sales of some of the tech products produced here are increasing.

But more hardships may be on the way. "I don`t see any turnaround in jobs or salaries for at least a year," said Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, "and even then it will be slow. The losses here have been astronomical. It will take a long time to recover from that, especially with the shape the national economy is in."

For many here, the wait for a return to any semblance of prosperity already has gone on too long.

Kathy Parsons, a manager at Allcare Moving Co. in San Jose, said she is doing more business this year than last -- and that most of her work is coming from people leaving the area in search of better lives in Colorado, Oregon and Arizona.

"Everyone`s really getting out," she said. "It`s just too expensive, and a lot of people are out of work. Jobs are pretty hard to come by."

Marks, the waiter, said that in recent months several friends moved back home to their families in the Midwest because the strong confidence they once had in an economic rebound had finally faded.

"They went back to try to find jobs they can count on," he said. "What`s going on with the economy is filtering down to everybody here, not just people who were in charge of tech companies."

In a report last month, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association said that San Francisco suffered a net loss of 168 restaurants in the past two years. The rate of failure also appears to be increasing. In the first two months of this year, 83 restaurants in the city closed.

Patricia Breslin, executive director of the association, which has 600 members, said the badly weakened local economy has forced many restaurants to fire workers, cut back their serving hours, revamp their menus with items that can be bought and prepared cheaply, and slash prices.

And many restaurants, she said, are still fighting to survive.

"We`ve been tightening our belts as much as we can for the past two years. There are no more steps to take," she said, "but to close."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Hunt for Baath Members Humiliates, Angers Villagers
Deaths of Teenager and Two Others Spark Talk of Revenge

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page A14


THULUYA, Iraq -- Along orange groves and orchards of figs and pears watered by the timeless churn of the Tigris River, Hashim Mohammed Aani often sat before a bird cage he built of scrap wood and a loose lattice of chicken coop wire.

A chubby 15-year-old with a mop of curly black hair and a face still rounded by adolescence, he was quiet, painfully shy. Awkward might be the better word, his family said. For hours every day, outside a house perched near the riverbank, the youngest of six children languidly watched his four canaries and nightingale. Even in silence, they said, the birds were his closest companions.

On Monday morning, after a harrowing raid into this town by U.S. troops that deployed gunships, armored vehicles and soldiers edgy with anticipation, the family found Aani`s body, two gunshots to his stomach, next to a bale of hay and a rusted can of vegetable oil. With soldiers occupying a house nearby, his corpse lay undisturbed for hours under a searing sun.

Lt. Arthur Jimenez, who commanded a platoon of the 4th Infantry Division near the house, said he did not know the details of Hashim`s death. But he feared the boy was unlucky. "That person," he said, "was probably in the wrong place at the wrong time."

By this weekend, the largest military operation since the war`s end -- one involving 4,000 troops -- had wound down in this prosperous village 40 miles northwest of Baghdad, with no U.S. soldiers killed and little resistance. But in the aftermath, Thuluya has become a town transformed.

With grief over the death of Hashim and two others, the Sunni Muslim population here speaks of revenge. Those sentiments are mixed with confusion. A vast majority belonged to the Baath Party and now worry about how far the United States will cast a net to root out its former members. Bound together by clan and tribe, many have been uneasy since the U.S. forces tapped informers from Thuluya. One of them wore a burlap bag over his head as he fingered residents for the troops to question, igniting vows of bloody vendettas.

"I think the future`s going to be very dark," said Rahim Hamid Hammoud, 56, a soft-spoken judge, as he joined a long line in paying his respects to Hashim this week. "We`re seeing each day become worse than the last."

The echoes of Apache helicopters and F-16, A-10 and AC-130 warplanes soon after midnight Monday woke the four families of Hashim`s relatives and signaled the start of the military thrust, dubbed Operation Peninsula Strike. The goal was to find elements of resistance fighters who have been ambushing U.S. troops, the military said. Within minutes, armored vehicles plowed down the dirt road to the families` compound. Humvees and troop transports followed.

From the other direction, on the banks of the Tigris near a reed-shrouded island, soldiers hurried from camouflage boats. They ran up a hill, near a small garden of okra and green beans and past a patch of purple flowers known as "prophet`s carpet."

"We came here ready to fight," Jimenez recalled.

At the sound of their arrival, Hashim`s cousin, Asad Abdel-Karim Ibrahim, said he went outside the gate with his parents, brother and two sisters. In his arms was his 7-month-old niece, Amal. They raised a white head scarf, but soldiers apparently did not see it. Ibrahim was shot in the upper right arm. He dropped the baby, who started screaming. Days later, Ibrahim was still wearing a piece of soiled tape placed on his back by the soldiers that read: "15-year-old male, GSW [gunshot wound] @ arm."

"The Americans were shouting in English, and we didn`t know what they were saying," he said.

Around the corner, residents said soldiers searched the house of Fadhil Midhas, 19. Mentally retarded, he started shouting when soldiers put tape over his mouth, fearful that he would suffocate. Women there tried to explain -- more with hand gestures than words -- and residents said soldiers finally splashed water over Midhas`s face in an attempt to quiet him.

In the commotion, Hashim ran away, headed toward the thick groves behind his house. Relatives said he was unarmed.

"He was trying to hide," said his brother, Riyadh, who was detained for four days. "He didn`t know what to do."

U.S. troops and residents say about 400 residents were arrested in the sweep. By week`s end, residents said, all but 50 were released from a makeshift detention center at an abandoned air base known as Abu Hleij, seven miles to the north. At the entrance, guarded by two soldiers who said no one was available to comment, graffiti painted in English read, "Welcome to Camp Black Knight."

U.S. officials described Operation Peninsula Strike as the centerpiece of a newly aggressive military campaign in a region of northwestern Iraq dominated by Sunni Muslims, who have long played a leadership role in Iraq and were the backbone of ousted president Saddam Hussein`s three-decade rule. Since the beginning of May, 11 U.S. soldiers in Iraq have been killed in action, many of them in sniper shootings, hit-and-run attacks and ambushes along the Sunni crescent, which stretches west along the Euphrates and north along the Tigris.

"We understand animosity can be a result, but as we get bad actors and the quality of life improves, people will understand what we`re trying to do," a U.S. military spokesman said today.

In Thuluya, many residents complained that the entire town felt punished by the operation. In their conversations about the wadhaa, or situation, there was a hint of anxiety over their future. While Iraq`s Shiite majority often looks to its clergy, and the Kurds in the north are represented by two parties with warm relations with the United States, Sunnis are, to a degree, disenfranchised, many falling back on tribes whose authority has risen over the past decade.

"They carried out the raid here because we`re Sunni and because Saddam was Sunni," said Ibrahim Ali Hussein, 60, a farmer with a white scarf tied loosely over his head. "After this operation, we think 100 Saddams is better than the Americans."

"We`re not criminals," added Hussein Hamoud Mohammed, 54, a veterinarian and Baath Party member. "If they don`t come in peace, then we`ll attack them with our fists and feet. We`ll even bite them."

Residents of Thuluya make no secret of their ties to both the Baath Party and Hussein`s government, though many insist membership does not make them complicit in attacks on Americans. Throughout his rule, Hussein was known for courting Sunnis who, like him, were poor and came from small towns along the Tigris like Thuluya at the expense of the wealthier and traditionally powerful Sunnis in Baghdad. The town prospered, and elegant villas bordered by manicured lawns are not uncommon. Some residents estimated that as many as 90 percent of the residents were party members; as many as 25 percent were employed by the army, government or intelligence services.

Some complain that the largest tribe in the city -- the Jabbour -- fell out of favor with Hussein after some of its members plotted a coup before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But sympathy for Hussein still runs deep.

"I`ll tell you the truth, I liked him," said Hussein, the farmer.

Lounging on cushions over a cement floor, he said the Iraqi president guaranteed stability. In a phrase heard time and again in the Sunni region, he said only a strong leader could hold this fractious country together. He quoted a proverb: "He who is scared stays peaceful."

At the condolences for Hashim, residents -- some still holding tags attached to their clothing that designated them as prisoners of war -- debated American intentions in the wake of the raid. Some said retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, the first civilian administrator, had promised that only the 55 most-wanted Baath Party loyalists would be targeted. Now, they feared, his successor, L. Paul Bremer III, had declared war on all party members, even the millions that had joined the party more for its patronage than its politics.

"Now all the people are hunted. All the people are being chased," said Hammoud, who worked as a judge for 30 years. "The condition to work in the government meant you should be in the Baath Party. The majority of Iraqis are in the Baath Party."

Over glasses of sweet, dark tea, he shook his head. He spoke in a lecturing tone, his years on the bench showing. "The rule is that someone is innocent until proven guilty," Hammoud said. "They`re stomping all over our dignity."

As the men gathered in the room, smoking cigarettes, a helicopter rumbled overhead.

"It`s better now," Hammoud said. "For a few days, I wouldn`t have been able to hear you speak."

For four of those days, Hashim`s uncle, Hashim Ibrahim Mohammed, was in custody. He described himself as a taxi driver and acknowledged that he was a Baath Party member, but insisted it was necessary to get his three children admitted to college. When soldiers entered his house after midnight, they put him on the ground, a boot on his back, and tied his hands with plastic handcuffs, he recalled. Tape was placed over his mouth and he was blindfolded. When he could see again, 12 hours later, he was at Abu Hleij, the airport.

Mohammed ticked off how many of his relatives were arrested -- 15 in all. Most were released by Friday.

Echoing other released prisoners, he said the questions in the interrogation were cast wide: Where is Saddam Hussein? Are senior party officials here? Who belongs to the Republican Guard, the military, the Fedayeen militia? Who has a lot of money in town?

Many residents said they felt humiliated. Mohammed slept outside on a graded spot near a bombed aircraft hangar, smashing two scorpions near his head. U.S. soldiers tossed military meals and bottles of water to the crowd. "They treated us like monkeys -- who`s the first one who can jump up and catch the food," said Mohammed, who was captured by Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and kept as a prisoner for 11 years.

Resentment is still coursing through the village over the use of the informer. The fabric of Thuluya is stitched by tribal lineages. The Jabbour is the largest tribe but others are represented: the Khazraji, Ubaidi, Bujweri and Bufarraj. The informer, dressed in desert camouflage with a bag over his head, fingered prisoners on the first day of the operation, recalled Mohammed and others who said they saw the informer. Residents blamed the informer and five others, all from the Jabbour tribe, for providing the intelligence that led to the sweep.

Nearly all seemed to know the man`s identity. They called him the "masked man," and children outside Hashim`s house sang a limerick about him: "Masked man, your face is the face of the devil." The men of Hashim`s family hesitated to say the man`s name or declare his fate. They feared vendettas would ensue, that chaos would follow as tribes sought their own justice.

But one member of the Jabbour tribe whispered what would happen. "Of course, he`ll be killed," he said, "but not yet."

Added another: "They`ll rip him to pieces."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Kabul Loses Sense of Safety After Killing of Peacekeepers


By April Witt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page A23


KABUL, Afghanistan, June 14 -- One hundred and fifty of this city`s poor gathered Friday to watch a cow ritually slaughtered at a gas station less than 100 yards from where a suicide bomber killed four German peacekeepers. They came to atone for the spilled blood of innocents and to thank God that they had been spared.

"Kabul has been getting better day by day -- and now this," said Ghaffour, 30, who owns the gas station, bought the cow, hired the butcher and summoned neighbors from throughout the Hootkhail section of eastern Kabul to receive his offering of freshly slaughtered beef. "Of course, we are all worried about what will happen next."

On June 7, a taxi loaded with hundreds of pounds of explosives was detonated next to a bus carrying German peacekeepers to the Kabul airport. The Germans were planning to fly home after their tour of duty in Afghanistan. The suicide attack -- the first aimed at international peacekeeping forces here -- has left Afghanistan`s capital on edge and those responsible for its security debating the degree to which terrorism is making the city unsafe.

In Germany last week, Defense Minister Peter Struck said the bombing was the work of al Qaeda, the terrorist network that the United States and its allies came to Afghanistan to crush 18 months ago. Afghan Interior Minister Ali Jalali warned that the bombing was not isolated and that suicide attackers were being trained to carry out more strikes against foreign soldiers.

"Our reports indicate that there are efforts underway to train some suicide bombers in order to be used in Afghanistan against foreign troops," Jalali said at a news conference on Thursday.

Authorities here say they recently thwarted two other planned terrorist attacks aimed at foreigners. One would have detonated a cart packed with explosives and another would have fired rocket-propelled grenades.

"Terrorist activities probably will continue for a long time," said Jalali, who insisted the attacks had no support among the Afghan people. "It`s not a guerrilla war. Guerrilla war means the people support it. And I don`t think it`s a guerrilla war now."

However, in Canada, which is scheduled to send 1,800 soldiers here this summer to join the international peacekeeping effort, Defense Minister John McCallum last week declared Kabul`s security situation so dire that there is a risk that "al Qaeda or Taliban will regain control over Afghanistan." Canadian officials said they were delaying plans to open an embassy here until they could secure the safest possible location.

The concerns about Kabul add a new element of insecurity to a country already plagued by factional fighting in the north and repeated clashes in the south and east that have been blamed on Taliban holdouts. Critics of U.S. reconstruction efforts have long lamented that only Kabul, patrolled by 5,000 soldiers of the International Security Assistance Force, was secure. Now they say not even Kabul is safe.

At the peace force`s heavily fortified Kabul headquarters today, Dutch Brig. Gen. Robert Bertholee said it was too soon to know the full significance of the suicide attack or to declare a trend.

"Security is usually a mixture of facts and perception," said Bertholee, deputy commander of the force. "We all see the same facts or indicators, and we all understand or translate them a little differently."

For now, peacekeepers will continue foot patrols in Kabul`s neighborhoods and travel the streets in open vehicles, the general said.

Bertholee suggested that the violence aimed at peacekeepers is not the only barometer of Kabul`s security. The city has been transformed and substantially stabilized by private investment, he said.

"What is significant to me is the scale of the economics," Bertholee said. "We have seen more and more shops being established. We have seen more and more people on the street. The only downside to that is that if you have more people on the street, and more taxis on the street, you give terrorists a better opportunity to hide in the population.

"The Afghan society right now is very fragile. It can still go either way."

At the gas station down the road from where the German peacekeepers were killed, Ghaffour, the owner, is hedging his bets. The former truck driver and his brother have invested $100,000 buying land and building their business.

Before international peacekeepers arrived in Kabul, operating the business would have been impossible, he said. "Before, we couldn`t stay here because there were so many thieves," he said. "We couldn`t keep our money."

Until the suicide bombing, he felt very safe having peacekeepers as neighbors, which is partly why he slaughtered the cow on Friday -- "so God would protect us all from any other incidents."

Having the peacekeepers here "is the difference between having peace and security or not," he said. "We want peace."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
The Costs of Iraq




Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page B06


ON JUNE 3, just over a month after President Bush declared the war in Iraq over, Sgt. Atanacio Haro Marin Jr., 27, of Baldwin Park, Calif., was killed at a checkpoint near Balad in central Iraq when his unit came under fire from automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. Two days later, on June 5, Pfc. Branden F. Oberleitner, 20, of Worthington, Ohio, was fatally struck by a grenade in Al Fallujah. Two days after that, on June 7, 19-year-old Pvt. Jesse M. Halling of Indianapolis died in an ambush at a police station in Tikrit. The following day, Sgt. Michael E. Dooley, 23, of Pulaski, Va., was shot to death at a checkpoint in Al Asad. On June 10, Pfc. Gavin L. Neighbor, 20, of Somerset, Ohio, died when a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a bus in which he was resting from guard duty.

In eight days in Iraq, five young Americans died from hostile fire. All together, 66 have perished either in fighting or in accidents since Baghdad fell on April 9 -- nearly half as many as died up until then. As their comrades and families can painfully attest, the war in Iraq didn`t end that day -- nor was it over when the president appeared on an aircraft carrier May 1 to celebrate under the slogan "Mission Accomplished." The war was still raging last week, as thousands of U.S. troops conducted sweeps in central Iraq aimed at rooting out a scattered and loosely organized but nonetheless lethal enemy. American soldiers continue to fight and to sacrifice their lives, even if the embedded journalists have gone home and the president himself has turned his attention elsewhere. It looks as though they may have to keep at it for a long time to come.

Their cause of extirpating a dangerous and criminal regime remains as clear and important as it was on March 20, when the war began. By most accounts the ongoing Iraqi resistance comes from diehard loyalists to Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party. Since neither the dictator nor his sons have been accounted for, the enemy may dream of wearing out U.S. forces and eventually restoring the old regime. The chance of that happening is slim: In most of the country, coalition forces have ended armed resistance and made a start at reconstruction. In Mosul in the north and Karbala in the south, U.S. commanders are working smoothly with local Iraqi authorities, and life for most people is already considerably better than it was under Saddam Hussein. Even in Baghdad the situation is much improved over a month ago. Security is far greater, the power is mostly on, and gasoline supplies are back to prewar levels. One recent survey in Baghdad and Mosul showed majority support for continuing the occupation for now and for establishing a secular Iraqi state in the future.

It nevertheless becomes clearer every day that the job of pacifying Iraq is going to be harder and take considerably longer than many in the administration hoped -- or than they have led the country to expect. U.S. troops will have to fight enemies and provide security for many months, if not years, to come. Thanks to the Bush administration`s insistence on monopolizing the postwar administration, not much help may be offered: Barely 12,000 allied troops are now in Iraq, compared with nearly 150,000 Americans, and fewer than 8,000 additional coalition troops have been lined up. Administration officials keep saying they are willing to make whatever commitment is necessary for as long as it takes. But they have done little to prepare the country for the real costs -- in resources and in lives -- that likely lie ahead. The last time he spoke about Iraq, in Qatar on June 5, President Bush again described the war in the past tense; the only indication he gave of being aware that any fighting was still going on was his passing reference to "pockets of criminality." That was the day Pfc. Oberleitner died.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
An Incipient Loss of Freedom


By Michael Kinsley

Sunday, June 15, 2003; Page B07


We Americans are a freedom-loving people. Or so we like to think. Other peoples are freedom-loving too, we recognize. But, looking around the world, we suspect Europeans such as the Germans and the French of being a bit too eager to salute. Asians are conformists, we feel. Africans go from one military coup to the next, and Latin Americans aren`t long past a similar habit. In America, though, we have a special knack for freedom. After all, we invented it.

From the Declaration of Independence to rap music, America really is the model and inspiration for freedom around the world. But precisely because our freedoms are so deeply rooted and apparently secure, our commitment to them is untested. After 230 years, we don`t need to love freedom in order to have it.

Do the Department of Homeland Security and other outgrowths of 9/11 add up to a threat to my freedom? It`s clear that our government has disgracefully betrayed American values in its treatment of many noncitizens in this country, almost all of them innocent of anything but routine immigration violations. These violations, by the way, suggest a greater love of freedom than most U.S. citizens have ever had to demonstrate. But, frankly, that`s other people. That`s not me. How much I care about the freedom of other people is a slightly different question than how much I love and what I`ll do to guard my own.

Perhaps you have thoroughly studied the homeland security situation and have reached an informed opinion one way or another: that our freedom is imperiled, or that the impositions are minimal and the complaints are hooey. If so, in either case, you are a better citizen than I have been until the past few days (when a looming deadline, more than a love of freedom, impelled me to become better informed). I suspect that most Americans have not done their homework on this issue. What does that say about our alleged love of freedom? On the one hand, you might say that anyone who hasn`t even bothered to find out if his freedom is missing, like a pet cat, cannot love it very much. On the other hand, you might say that if you cannot even detect your loss of freedom without making a homework assignment out of it, the deprivation cannot be too severe.

The American Civil Liberties Union is alarmed, but the ACLU`s function, which I admire and support, is to be alarmed before I am, like the canary down the mineshaft. My own conclusion after a bit of homework is that the threat to the civil liberties of most Americans is still mainly a matter of incipience. Will the wall between abusing foreigners and abusing U.S. citizens hold? (There has already been a tiny bit of seepage.) Did the absurdly named Patriot Act authorize terrible invasions of privacy that the government hasn`t gotten around to yet? Does the ease of passing the Patriot Act just whet the appetite of Attorney General John Ashcroft for more and worse? The administration has been given, or sometimes simply asserted, new authority to act in secret and without normal congressional approval or court supervision. Will this be abused?

Most of these red flags concern government "data mining": gathering financial information, intercepting e-mail and so on. Also, centralizing and cross-referencing data that the government already had access to. The Camp of Complacency argues that pushing previous information-gathering powers to their limit and analyzing that information more intelligently should not be considered a new infringement of anyone`s freedom. But as someone who Googles for a living, I know how much you can learn by bringing together information that is already public but scattered. The diffusion of information about you probably protects your privacy as much as your right to keep some of it secret.

Nevertheless, the hard core of American civil liberties -- your right to speak your mind, especially to dissent from government policy, without looking over your shoulder -- still seems pretty robust. Counterexamples exist, but they are pretty rare and mild.

This does not mean there`s nothing to worry about. Incipience is legitimately scary. To return to the original question, Americans are not so innately loving of freedom that we would never let it dribble away without noticing. I can prove this because it actually happened, within the adult lifetimes of anyone over about 50. On August 15, 1971, more or less out of the blue, President Nixon declared a freeze on wages and prices. Legislation authorizing this had passed Congress the year before with little controversy. The freeze evolved into a system of formulas about who could get paid what, requirements about filing forms with the government and keeping records and posting notices, all enforced by a growing bureaucracy of wage and price cops. The controls lasted a couple of years at full strength and then faded away over the next couple.

The notion that the government could tell everyone from General Motors to a babysitting teenager what they could charge -- and did so -- seems shocking in retrospect, at least to me. There was no real national emergency. It was part of a cynical reelection strategy to gun the economy while holding inflation temporarily in check. But at the time, controls were not just accepted but popular. When they disappeared, even those (like me) who had opposed them found it strange and, at first, unnatural. You mean, anyone can just charge whatever they want? How does that work? The analogy isn`t perfect. The right to set your own price isn`t as profound as the right to express your own political opinion. But it is, if anything, even more a part of every citizen`s daily life. And yet when they took it away, we freedom-loving Americans didn`t even miss it.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

June 15, 2003
Iraqi Leader Asks U.S. to Stop Military Sweeps
By PATRICK E. TYLER


BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 14 — Adnan Pachachi, a respected elder Iraqi statesman encouraged by Bush administration officials to enter postwar politics here, criticized the United States military today for its increasingly aggressive operations in Iraq and said they should be suspended while an interim Iraqi government is formed over the next month.

Mr. Pachachi said that military sweeps through civilian areas with mass arrests, interrogations and gun battles, intended to suppress the remnants of Saddam Hussein`s Baath Party and military command, were inflaming sentiments against the American and British occupation.

He predicted that if such sweeps continued, they would be "exploited by the Baathists," and he added, "It would be much better if we didn`t have these operations."

Mr. Pachachi, a former foreign minister who returned to Iraq last month after more than 30 years of exile, emphasized that he supported allied efforts to re-establish security in the country. But he expressed concern about the marked escalation of allied assaults through civilian areas, where guerrilla raids have attacked troop convoys or checkpoints and left 10 American soldiers dead in the last three weeks.

"These incidents will not help to pacify the country," he said, referring to the military operations. "For now, the quieter it is, the better" for the postwar political process, he added.

Speaking in an interview, Mr. Pachachi, who served as Iraq`s ambassador to the United Nations during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, called on the top American administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, to allow Iraqis to form an interim government with only "consultations" with Mr. Bremer and the United Nations representative here.

He said such a step would help meet the rising demands from Iraqis that they control their own political destiny during reconstruction.

The pointed remarks from the man the State Department had nudged back into Iraqi politics at the age of 80 are likely to add to the pressure on Mr. Bremer to respond to Iraqi opposition groups and religious figures who want a speedy transition to substantive Iraqi control over the political process. They see such a transition as an essential step in preventing a backlash against the occupation authority.

Mr. Pachachi spoke at the end of a week of major military operations in Iraq in which allied forces have laid siege to a peninsula along the Tigris River 40 miles north of Baghdad, where more than 380 arrests were made during house-to-house searches in civilian neighborhoods and at military roadblocks.

Northwest of Baghdad, allied strike aircraft and helicopters assaulted what the military command called a terrorist training camp, killing 70 people.

In a separate operation on Thursday near the northern city of Kirkuk, the 173rd Airborne Brigade detained 74 "suspected sympathizers" of Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden. There were no further details about the operation, or explanation for the basis of the suspicions about those arrested.

Today, Iraqi detainees at the Abu Gharib prison complex west of Baghdad attacked their American guards by throwing rocks and charging them with pieces of sharpened metal during an apparent escape attempt. One American guard was wounded and other guards opened fire during the melee, in which one detainee was killed and seven were wounded, two critically.

It was the third incident in a week involving Iraqi prisoners, and the second attempted escape as allied forces were rounding up more suspected Baathists believed to be planning or inciting guerrilla attacks on allied checkpoints and convoys in central Iraq. On Thursday, two prisoners were shot trying to escape from an allied camp, and one died.

Mr. Pachachi has been regarded by American officials as a unifying figure on Iraq`s rapidly developing political landscape. He has deftly kept his distance from a group of former Iraqi opposition leaders who have formed a "leadership council" to negotiate a postwar political structure with Mr. Bremer. But Mr. Pachachi also has stated common cause with them.

The council includes the two main Kurdish factions of Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi National Accord of Iyad Alawi, the democratic movement of Nasir Chadirchy, the Shiite Dawa Party represented by Ibrahim Jafari, and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq under the Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim.

Mr. Bremer has ultimate authority in Iraq under a United Nations resolution that recognizes the United States and Britain as occupation powers. He has said that he intends to appoint a 25-to-30 member "political council" of Iraqis. Some Iraqi political figures have criticized this model for forming a transitional administration, and a prominent Shiite Muslim political organization said it would not be able to take part in any administration appointed directly by Mr. Bremer.

Mr. Bremer has said that any Iraqi political group is free to to boycott the selection process for his political council if it chooses to do so. But he has been working assiduously and diplomatically behind the scenes to ensure the broadest participation possible in the postwar political process.

Mr. Pachachi said he was working to bridge the differences between the American administrator and Iraq`s emerging political forces.

"Why would Bremer want to dictate to the Iraqis who he wants?" Mr. Pachachi said. "I don`t think he knows Iraq better than the Iraqis."

Mr. Pachachi said he was going to press this view in a meeting with Ryan Crocker, the State Department official assigned to Mr. Bremer`s administration and a likely choice to serve as the first United States ambassador to Iraq when a government is formed.

"The people of Iraq want a government," Mr. Pachachi said, "and we could easily say this political council is a true government of Iraq" if Mr. Bremer essentially turned over the authority to choose such a body to a large group of Iraqi political figures.

Instead of a decree from Mr. Bremer, a decision to invite the selected Iraqis to serve on the political council of the interim government could be announced, Mr. Pachachi said, "as the result of extensive consultations" without Mr. Bremer`s asserting his prerogative.

The former diplomat suggested that Mr. Bremer could maintain the fig leaf of control over the final decision-making by participating in the "consultations" with the Iraqis assembled from all parts of the political, religious and economic spectrum.

Their task, once seated as an interim government, would be to make policy on economic recovery, a new currency, a new judiciary, a census and electoral law to guide the first democratic elections in about a year`s time.

The interim administration would have the authority to appoint ministers and carry out Iraq`s foreign relations during the occupation period "by appointing and receiving ambassadors," he said.

"I think for us, speed is of the essence," he said. "We want to have a government as soon as possible."

The negotiations with Mr. Bremer are set to continue this week.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

AMERICAN VOYAGE | LEWIS AND CLARK PLUS 200 YEARS
June 15, 2003
2 Centuries Later, a Moment for Indians to Retell the Past
By TIMOTHY EGAN


EW TOWN, N.D. — Indian Country is a place where people gather in late June to celebrate the day Custer was whipped at Little Big Horn, where cars sometimes run only in reverse and casinos run all night, and where a Nez Percé guide who led Lewis and Clark over the Bitterroot Mountains is remembered by his native name, which means "Furnishes White Men With Brains."

But on the map — be it the road atlas handed out by the state or the statistical one issued by the Census Bureau — the homelands of the first Americans seem to possess little life or magic. Across vast stretches of the northern plains, Indian lands are blank patches, nations within a nation, landlocked islands foreign to most other Americans.

Certainly, the scars of memory are layered as thick as the dam water that buries so many old Indian villages and sacred sites here. Generations after the scourges of smallpox, war and forced resettlement, much of what a traveler finds in Indian Country is emptiness.

Still, those looking to find some link across 200 years, to the people whose nations Lewis and Clark passed through, need only peek into daily life on the reservations along the trail from St. Louis to the Pacific.

Here in New Town, home of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara, Amy Mossett has just planted her garden, using seed corn that is the antithesis of genetically engineered agriculture; it is the same sweet corn given members of the American expedition to help them through the winter of 1804-05, at their fort just down river. At that time, the Indian urban complex 1,600 miles from the mouth of the Missouri River had more people (about 4,000) than St. Louis or Washington.

"Indians have the strongest sense of place of anyone in the world," said Ms. Mossett, a Mandan-Hidatsa who is a scholar on Sacagawea, the young Lemhi Shoshone woman who saved Lewis and Clark from disaster at two points when the expedition was at low ebb. "Look at me: why would I choose to live in little New Town, North Dakota, when I could live anywhere? It`s because we`ve been a part of the Missouri River for a thousand years."

New Town, by its name, raises the question of what happened to Old Town. And this is where the Mandans, who did perhaps more than any other tribe to help Lewis and Clark, turn bitter.

It was one thing for the tribe to lose 90 percent of its members to smallpox, a disease that did more than the United States Cavalry to wipe out American Indians. But in the mid-20th century, just as the population was rebounding, the federal government built the Garrison Dam. It choked off the Missouri River here and buried 155,000 acres of prime Indian farmland under a reservoir, dividing a tight-knit reservation into five districts. Many tribal members wound up in this community, on higher ground.

"Some gratitude, huh?" said Frederick Baker, the Mandan-Hidatsa archivist at the tribal museum here. "One guy I know had his house moved as he was eating dinner. But, hey, we want people to understand our people are alive. Everywhere else in North Dakota, schools are closing and towns are dying. We`re growing. We`re alive!"

The Corps of Volunteers for North Western Discovery, as Lewis called the expedition, passed through roughly 50 Indian nations in their journey of nearly 8,000 miles. Some of those tribes were forcibly removed to Oklahoma. Others — including the Chinook, who lived at the mouth of the Columbia River on the Pacific Coast — are today without a homeland, even a tiny reservation.

The indignities are piled like bleached buffalo bones. Some of the friendliest tribes were later treated the worst. The Nez Percé, who saved the corps from starvation in Idaho, were chased from their treaty-promised homeland and rounded up near the Canadian border in 1877. The Lemhi Shoshone were erased from the land they had lived on for hundreds of years, and lumped with other tribes in the desert of southern Idaho.

But now as then, big pieces of the trail, particularly in the Dakotas, run through solid Indian Country. These lands hold the bones of Sitting Bull, the great Sioux chief, and of Sacagawea. They contain towns full of heartbreak, where suicide is the No. 1 killer. They also hold prairie grass untouched by the plow, and bison herds roaming free, giving the tribes something to connect pop-culture-jaded teens on the reservation of 2003 to the warriors whose spirit so impressed travelers in 1803.

This year, even the Blackfeet of Montana, the only nation to lose people in mortal conflict with Lewis and Clark, and the aggressive Teton Sioux of the Plains, have the bicentennial.

It is time, the Indians say, to tell their own story of Lewis and Clark, an epic about Indians bailing out whites, showing them where to go, what to eat, whom to avoid along the way, and how to get back home in one piece.

"One reason we`re opening our doors to people is because there are so many dumb images of what Indians are like," said Denelle High Elk of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. "I was in Monticello in January, for the kickoff of the bicentennial, and the cab driver said to me, `Oh, you`re Indian. You people still live in tepees, don`t you?"


Forgotten by History

President Thomas Jefferson knew he was sending an expedition through lands populated by people who did not care a whit for lines drawn on maps in Paris or Virginia. But Jefferson, an Enlightenment-age man, had conflicted views of the native people. He thought some Indians could be "civilized" back East, while others had to be removed to the far Western plains, the continental equivalent of Mars.

"Jefferson appears both as the scholarly admirer of Indian character, archaeology and language, and the planner of cultural genocide, the architect of the removal policy, the surveyor of the Trail of Tears," wrote the historian Anthony F. C. Wallace, in his book, "Jefferson and the Indians: the Tragic Fate of the First Americans.

Lewis and Clark had trouble finding Indians at first. The swift plague of smallpox had come before them, and in some places it left a deathly resonance.

On Aug. 12, 1804, the corps passed the empty village of Tonwantonga, where the once powerful Omahas had lived. Today Nebraska`s largest city is named for this tribe, which has a tiny toehold in the state.

Further north lived the Otoe, who joined the Missouri Tribe about 200 years ago. They were the first Indians to have a council with Lewis and Clark.

Today the Otoe and the Missouri have vanished from the trail. They can found in distant Oklahoma, where about 1,300 members live near Red Rock. They feel forgotten by history, some members said, left out of the bicentennial.

But in rummaging through the belongings of a well-traveled tribe, the Otoe found something recently that has electrified historians — two documents written by Meriwether Lewis, which are not in his journal, describing Indians on the middle Missouri.

"My grandmother kept these in her trunk," said Rhoda Dent, treasurer of the tribe. "After she died, my cousin found them. It was just phenomenal for us to read them, even though Lewis refers to native people as children."

The documents are now in the Oklahoma Museum of History, and curators there say they believe they are authentic.

The Otoe would like to reconnect to their old homeland. "We were the first to greet Lewis and Clark, and look what happened to us," Ms. Dent said.

Upriver, the expedition met different reactions among the large nations that roamed the Dakota prairie. Among the Yankton Sioux, the men dined at a tidy village on a meal of stewed dog meat — "good & well-flavored," as one expedition member described it.

William Clark described the Yankton Sioux this way: "Stout bold looking people (the young men hand Sum) and well made. The Warriors are Very much deckerated with porcupin quils & feathers, large legins & mockersons, all with Buffalow roabes of Different colours."

The late historian Stephen Ambrose called such descriptions "pathbreaking ethnology." But the next encounter, with the Teton Sioux, appears to have been a textbook case of diplomatic blundering.

The corps showed off its air gun and a magnifying glass, while offering medals and tobacco. The Teton Sioux, unimpressed, wanted something in return for letting these people pass through their lands. At one point guns were drawn, arrows aimed, and the small cannon mounted to the corps` keelboat ready to fire. The standoff ended peacefully after three days, but with both sides steamed.

Clark never forgot nor forgave. "They are the vilest miscreants of the savage race and must ever remain the pirates of the Missouri," he wrote of the Teton Sioux.

Living Between 2 Worlds

The Sioux fought for their lands to the end, helping to defeat Custer, only to be slaughtered at Wounded Knee in 1890. Today the bands of the Great Sioux Nation, as they call themselves, are spread throughout South Dakota, while Jefferson`s granite visage is carved near an Indian sacred site in the Badlands.

They have shown the same fierce spirit in taking hold of the Lewis and Clark bicentennial in their state, despite opposition from some Sioux elders, and some initial snubs from other tribes. The Sioux have organized an intertribal tourism council, and set up a Native American Scenic Byway — "a journey through the lands of the least known and most misunderstood nations in America," as the Indians say in a brochure for the road and its highlights.

"We were entrepreneurs back then," said Daphne Richards Cook, who lives on the Lower Brule Sioux Reservation in South Dakota. "And we`re entrepreneurs now."

The reservations are breathtaking, the prairie grass high and green, the towns bursting with one quirky story after another. They are the biggest population centers for hundreds of miles, with 12,000 Indians living on the Cheyenne River Reservation, 11,000 on the Standing Rock, and 4,300 total on the smaller Crow Creek and Lower Brule reservations. One out of every 12 people in South Dakota, population 756,600, is Indian.

"I call Indian Country the last of the real frontier," said Wanda Wells Crowe of the Crow Creek Sioux. "Take a look — it`s not your typical America."

The Sioux say they walk a fine line between two worlds. "A lot of Indians don`t want people here," Ms. Crowe said. "And in truth, I sometimes wonder myself why I`m doing this, trying to promote Lewis and Clark as a way to tell our story." Perhaps the greatest cross-cultural mingling on the expedition happened in what is now North Dakota, where the corps wintered just across the river from Mandan and Hidatsa villages. Lewis and Clark spent more time in the area than anywhere else.

What the natives who descended from those tribes want people to know is that they already had an advanced society when Lewis and Clark arrived. It was a sophisticated agricultural society, with clans and large earth lodges run by women. The Indians shared food, building tips and wives with the newcomers.

"Jefferson wanted to make Indians into farmer and traders," Ms. Mossett said between bites of a fajita salad at a restaurant here in New Town. "But we were already doing all of that. The difference is, we were doing it without slave labor."

Of course, the Mandan and Hidatsa captured other Indians in raids, and later adopted them into their culture. That is how Sacagawea came to live with the Mandan and Hidatsa. She joined the corps in the winter, just after giving birth to a boy she would carry across the West and back.

"In some ways, the Hidatsa thought these guys were a joke," said Mr. Baker, the museum archivist. "We saw them as a trading opportunity, but also felt sorry for them. And we joked about their crummy trade items."

Farther along the trail, the Nez Percé also pitied the corps. At one point, the explorers might have been killed just after crossing the Continental Divide, but a Nez Percé woman intervened.

"The expedition owed more to Indian women than either captain ever acknowledged," Mr. Ambrose wrote in "Undaunted Courage," his best-selling account of the voyage. Mr. Ambrose also noted the bitter irony that when the Nez Percé were driven out of their homeland in 1877, among the stragglers were a handful of old men who had been children when Lewis and Clark visited.

The Nez Percé, alone among American Indian tribes, selectively bred horses, and say they produced the appaloosa. On this bicentennial, the tribe is reviving its horse-breeding registry and language as part of a Lewis and Clark Rediscovery Project.

A sign on the Weippe Prairie, in Idaho, reads: "Lewis and Clark Route, First Contact Between Two Cultures."

Like the Sioux, the Nez Percé, with 3,296 tribal members today, suffered the indignity of not even being called by their real name. Sioux is a Chippewa word, shortened by the French, which means little snake, or enemy. Nez Percé is also a French misnomer. Tribal members say they did not pierce their noses.

At the very least, the Nez Percé, like other Indians along the route from the flatlands to the ocean, hope the Lewis and Clark bicentennial will dispel certain myths.

With the kind of humor found often in Indian Country, the tribe is taking to the revisionist task. After discussing efforts to restore salmon in rivers stapled with government dams, the Nez Percé report on their Web site that "we also frequent restaurants and eat modern foods."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 15, 2003
The Poor as a Handy Distraction

The gravest questions of fiscal responsibility for the nation are being ignored in the freakish sideshow now under way in Congress over yet another tax cut in these fiscally difficult times. President Bush and the Republican leaders should be candidly debating the $2 trillion-plus mountain of deficits and debt they are rolling onto the backs of future generations through the administration`s serial tax cuts. Instead, they are obsessed with the 2004 election cycle, wrangling over how best to throw a last-minute bone to low-income Americans shortchanged in last month`s tax giveaway to the most affluent Americans.

Republicans voice concern that they seem compassionate, yet not extend "welfare" to the working poor. Lost in that debate is the fact that various indefensible tax shelters were protected as corporate welfare in the lobbying frenzy for the new tax cuts. Unmentioned, too, is the fact that the nation`s richest 1 percent will garner better than 25 percent of the revenue cut. Those earning more than $500,000 will average $17,000, while those down in the $40,000 bracket average $320.

Without doubt, the 6.5 million minimum-wage families shamelessly neglected the first time around deserve the extra $400 in child care credits most other Americans are awaiting. The Senate`s $3.5 billion short-term solution is preferable to the House Republicans` $82 billion move to up the tax-cut ante, but only relatively so. Washington`s tax debates are but a piece of the bigger picture of an uninhibited binge of revenue cuts and deficit budgeting. Senate Republicans style themselves as more responsible than the House in demanding last month`s total cut be no more than $350 billion. But the actual cost in deficit will be more than twice that once the "sunset" accounting gimmicks are removed, as promised.

The Bush cuts offer too little short-term stimulus while choking the long-term revenue flow for the looming time when Social Security and Medicare costs will balloon. Mr. Bush`s growing need to float the federal government on borrowed money will crimp economic growth. This is the stuff of real debate. Instead we have the G.O.P. worrying a modest share for the poor. The outcome promises to position the president as a compassionate "moderate" in a cynical bit of right-wing theater produced by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, the president`s indispensable ally in budget politicking.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Auch hier das alte Europa im `dead end`

June 15, 2003
The Beginning of Modern Humans

ne of the essential attributes of modern humans is to wonder about the origins of modern humans. The wondering may now have become a little more precise.

Scientists from the University of California at Berkeley have announced the discovery of three skulls in Ethiopia that have nearly modern features and that can be precisely dated to 160,000 to 154,000 years old. The date is as critical as the cranial features, which were painstakingly reconstructed over six years. The skulls roughly coincide with what genetic evidence suggests is "the origin of modern human variation," as one scientist puts it, and they date from a period when the fossil evidence for hominids is extremely thin. The discoverers of the skulls place them in a subspecies of Homo sapiens called Homo sapiens idaltu. Idaltu means elder in Afar, the local language in the region where the skulls were found. We belong to Homo sapiens sapiens.

"Skull," of course, suggests an almost Hamlet-like contemplation of poor Yorick. But these skulls, belonging to two adults and a child, were found in pieces, with no other human skeletal remains, and they lacked jaws. The most complete skull, when painstakingly fitted together, yielded what looks like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us. But computer simulations and artist`s renderings of how this person may have looked result in a distinctly modern face, though slightly larger and more robust than that of most modern humans. The heavy brow of earlier ancestors has been replaced by a flat face with prominent cheekbones. The features that set this Ethiopian predecessor into a separate subspecies from us would be barely discernible to a passer-by.

For humans, these skulls add a critical piece of evidence supporting the theory that modern humans, like prehuman hominids, first emerged in Africa. For Neanderthals, however, these skulls are yet another blow. It becomes clearer and clearer, as research adds up, that no matter how deeply rooted they were in Europe, Neanderthals played no part in the genetic makeup of modern humans. Because of that, the temptation is to say that Neanderthals were a dead end, especially because they became extinct some 30,000 years ago. But to have lived and prospered, as the Neanderthals may have done, for more than 200,000 years is success in its own right. By the light of these new finds, modern humans can claim no more.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 15, 2003
The Reality Principle
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Have you noticed how often Israel kills a Hamas activist and the victim is described by Israelis as "a senior Hamas official" or a "key operative"? This has led me to wonder: How many senior Hamas officials could there be? We`re not talking about I.B.M. here. We`re talking about a ragtag terrorist group. By now Israel should have killed off the entire Hamas leadership twice. Unless what is happening is something else, something I call Palestinian math: Israel kills one Hamas operative and three others volunteer to take his place, in which case what Israel is doing is actually self-destructive.

Self-destructive is, in fact, a useful term to describe Israelis and Palestinians today. "Both sides," notes the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi, "have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self-destruction. When self-defense becomes self-destruction, only an external force can bring people back to their senses. And that force is President Bush. I think he is the only reality principle left that either side might listen to, and I hope he understands that."

You know that both sides are in self-destruction mode when you can look at their military actions and say that even if they succeeded they would be worse off. The question is not whether Israel has a right to kill senior Hamas officials. They are bad guys. The question is whether it`s smart for Israelis to do it now.

The fact is, the only time Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade has been when Palestinian security services disciplined their own people, in the heyday of Oslo. Unfortunately, Yasir Arafat proved unwilling to do that consistently. The whole idea of the Bush peace process is to move Mr. Arafat aside and replace him with a Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, who is ready to rebuild the Palestinian security services, and, in the context of an interim peace settlement, corral Hamas.

Hamas knows this. So its tactic is to goad Israel into attacks that will unravel the whole process. The smart thing for Israel to do — and it`s not easy when your civilians are being murdered — is not to play into Hamas`s hands. The smart thing is to say to Mr. Abbas: "How can we help you crack down on Hamas? We don`t want Israel to own Hamas`s demise. Palestinians have to root out this cancer within their own society. If Israelis try to do it, it will only metastasize."

Israel`s supporters argue that if America can go after Osama bin Laden, Israel can go after Hamas. Of course Israel is entitled to pursue its mortal enemies, just as America does, but it cannot do it with reckless abandon, notes Mr. Ezrahi, for one reason: America will never have to live with Mr. bin Laden`s children. They are far away and always will be. Israel will have to live with the Palestinians, after the war. They are right next door and always will be.

The fact is, Ariel Sharon`s two years of using the Israeli Army alone to fight terrorism have not made Israelis more secure. He needs a Palestinian partner, and he has to operate and negotiate in a way that will nurture one. And the people who get that the best are Israelis. In a Yediot Ahronot poll released Friday, two-thirds of Israelis were critical of Mr. Sharon`s tactic of targeted assassinations of Hamas officials and said they wanted Mr. Abbas to be given a chance to establish his authority.

It may be that Mr. Abbas can`t step up to this. It may be that the Palestinians are capable only of self-destructive revenge, rather than constructive restraint and reconciliation. But surely Israel has more to gain in the long term by giving Mr. Abbas every chance to prove otherwise, and to empower him to do so, rather than killing one more Hamas "senior official," who will only be replaced by three others.

Because if the two sides cannot emerge from this dead end, then you can forget about a two-state solution, which is what both Hamas`s followers and the extremist Jewish settlers want. They each want a one-state solution, in which their side will control all of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. The one-state solution would mean the end of the Zionist enterprise, because Israel can rule such an entity, in which there would soon be more Arabs than Jews, only by apartheid or ethnic cleansing. It would also mean the end of Palestinian nationalism, because the Israelis will crush the Palestinians rather than be evicted. That is the outcome we are heading toward, though, unless the only reality principle left, the United States of America, really intervenes — with its influence, its wisdom and, if necessary, its troops.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Compan

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Posted 8:49 AM by Jim Hightower
http://hightower.fmp.com/weblogitem.php?id=241

FROM "THE SPECIOUS REPORT"
http://www.thespeciousreport.com/2003_headlines.html

New York Times Retracts Years Of Erroneous Headlines

NEW YORK CITY ˜ Amid the turmoil sparked by fraud scandals involving Jayson Blair and other staff writers, the Times is reviewing all editorial content from the past several years.

Instituting a policy of full disclosure, Interim Executive Editor Joseph Lelyveld today ordered the retraction of false and misleading headlines as soon as they are discovered. The inventory of falsehoods, expected to reach mammoth proportions, so far includes:

Compassionate Conservative Candidate Bush "A Uniter, Not A Divider"

Candidate Bush Supports Environmental Legislation

Bush Won`t Touch Social Security Surplus "Under Any Condition"

George W. Bush Elected

Bush To Be "President Of All The People"

Bipartisan Bush Presidency To Change Tone In Washington

President Strongly Opposes "Nation-Building" ˜ "One of the problems we have in the military is we`re in a lot of places around the world"

Rumsfeld Assures: No Plans To Invade Iraq

Finding Osama bin Laden "Dead Or Alive" Is Highest Bush Priority

Ashcroft USA Patriot Act To Protect American Freedoms

Homeland Security Alerts To Reflect Credible Terror Threat Levels

Pentagon Announces Taliban Eradicated

Bush Leads President`s Forum On Economic Reform ˜ "Criminal corporations won`t receive Federal contracts"

Time "Persons Of The Year" Cover Reflects New Respect, Protections For Corporate Whistleblowers

Bush Seeks International Support For Iraq Military Action

IAEA Report: Iraq Six Months From Developing Nuclear Weapons

Powell: Iraq Possesses Thousands Of Tons Of WMD`s

Hamid Karzai Confident White House Won`t Forget Afghanistan

Rumsfeld: U.S. Has "Bulletproof Evidence" Of Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection

Bush To Call For Second UN Resolution Before Iraq Military Action

Patriotic Fans Condemn Dixie Chick Remark

After Iraq Victory, Rumsfeld Agrees "This Is No Time To Gloat"

Ari Fleischer: USS Lincoln Too Far Away For Helicopter Landing ˜ "Fighter landing wasn`t thinly-veiled publicity stunt"

Bush Economic Stimulus To Benefit Everyone, Not Just The Wealthy

Proposed Changes Will Restore Homeland Security Secretary Ridge`s Credibility

Ashcroft Domestic Security Enhancement Act To Further Protect American Freedoms

[Joerver]

June 12, 2003


Unfit for Office
Time for Rumsfeld to Resign
By WAYNE MADSEN

It is no secret that Donald Rumsfeld treats his flag rank officers with contempt and disdain. Rumsfeld`s latest dissing of his senior officers came when he chose retired General Peter Shoomaker, the former head of the US Special Operations Command, to succeed outgoing Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki.

Rumsfeld was faced with the problem that neither of the two active duty generals he first asked to take the Army Chief of Staff job, wanted it. CENTCOM commander General Tommy Franks, fresh from his victory over Iraq, decided to retire rather than preside over Rumsfeld`s plan to restructure the U.S. Army into small mobile SWAT teams. Shinseki`s Vice Chief of Staff, General John Keane, turned down Rumsfeld`s offer because of his wife`s illness.

Rumsfeld vainly looked for others to take their turn in the lion`s den. The job that every flag rank officer covets was systematically turned down by Army commanders around the world: General B.B. Bell of the US Army European Command, General James Campbell of the US Army Pacific Command, General Larry Ellis of the US Army Forces Command, and General Philip Kensinger, commander of the US Army`s Special Operations Command.

The deputy head of CENTCOM, Lt. Gen. John Abazaid, an Arab-American, also turned down Rumsfeld. Shinseki, Franks, Keane, and Abazaid could not stand the thought of putting up with Rumsfeld and his chickenhawk advisers on a daily basis. It was Rumsfeld`s gruff manner that similarly forced Army Secretary, retired General Thomas White, to resign.

In its typical "Inside the Beltway" sycophantic manner, The Washington Post described Shoomaker, who Rumsfeld selected over the heads of every one of his 3- and 4- star active duty generals as an "innovative" move. The Post also hailed Shoomaker`s experience as the head of the Special Operations Command as fitting in with Rumsfeld`s plans to transform the Army. The Post conveniently omitted the fact that Rumsfeld has had problems with the current head of Special Operations, General Charles Holland, who Rumsfeld obnoxiously said had a "case of the slows" in developing war plans against Iraq. In Rumsfeld`s world, it`s "my way or the highway." Anyone who has ever taken a management course knows that is considered a totally ineffective leadership method by most experts.

The Post also downplayed the obvious unprecedented nature of Rumsfeld`s choice of a military retiree to be Chief of Staff. The paper referred to President John Kennedy naming retired Army Chief of Staff General Maxwell Taylor as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fine, but not even then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who had his fair share of arguments with his flag ranks, treated them with as much disdain as Rumsfeld. The Post also states that retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer was called from active duty to head NATO in the 1960s. NATO commander is largely a political and ceremonial job without much military clout. That is the reason why Rumsfeld exiled former Marine Corps Commandant General James Jones to head NATO after the top Marine clashed with the mercurial Defense Secretary.

Rumsfeld has also stuck it in the eye of the Navy. He had gone out of turn in having a Navy Joint Chiefs Chairman when he named General Richard Myers, an Air Force general, to the post. Rumsfeld has now chosen to bypass the Navy again by extending Myers` to a second term. No wonder one senior Navy Admiral rolled his eyes in utter disgust as he was describing the current state of affairs within the "five-sided puzzle palace."

And in a final blow to his officers, Rumsfeld decided to stay away from General Shinseki`s June 11 retirement ceremony. Was Rumsfeld off on some important military mission? No, alas, this poor excuse for a Secretary of Defense was in Tirana, Albania thanking that nation`s kleptomaniac government for signing up to the "coalition of the willing" in the war on Iraq. Never mind that Albania sent no troops to the war.

When I was in the Navy, we had our share of friendly (and even some serious) rivalries with the other services. And while I have never been a supporter of incessant Pentagon wasteful spending and the revolving doors inherent in the military-industrial complex, I cannot tolerate such shabby treatment of professional military officers by the likes of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith.

Shinseki was obviously referring to how thin the Army has been spread in his farewell address. To his troops he said, "today, nearly 370,000 of you are on point for the Nation in more than 120 countries around the globe." These nations include those where Big Oil, not the "Nation," is the raison d`etre for the Bush admnistration`s foreign and military policies: Iraq, western Afghanistan, the Gulf, Colombia, the Horn of Africa, the Caucasus, Southeast Asia, and former Soviet Central Asia. But Shinseki, all the professional, opted to keep his remarks on the positive side. Rumsfeld would have not been so magnanimous.

To paraphrase another Army official during the McCarthy hearings, "Mr. Rumsfeld, have you no shame, sir? Have you no shame?" It`s high time you and your band of neo-cons pack your bags and return some semblance of sanity to the Pentagon. Every day you remain on the job, our nation, its people, and its armed forces are put in more and more jeopardy. We just can`t afford that. Do the right thing and go.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of the forthcoming book, "America`s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II."

Madsen can be reached at: [e-mail]

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen06122003.html

[Joerver]

Hating Hillary and AWOL Bush`s
Oedipus Complex
http://fp.enter.net/~haney/mh061203.htm

By: Mike Hersh - 06/12/03



I didn`t remember it, but a friend did. We were watching the recent 60 Minutes special together, and she told me to watch for this. There it was. Bill Clinton bravely spontaneously risked his life to protect Hillary.

Unlike the lies right wingers and others tell of the loveless marriage of political convenience, the Clintons clearly did and do love each other. People should not go there, but if they do, I would like to ask them about another Presidential marriage which actually does matter to Americans.

I wonder if they think GHW Bush`s abandonment of his family to search for oil in West Texas (and love in another woman`s bed) when AWOL Bush was a child hurt AWOL Bush`s development?

Without a manly role model, W turned into a sissy who tried to deny and cover up his softness with brutal cruelty. We know he shot pellet guns at his little brothers and tortured animals, but eschewed contact sports and became a cheerleader. This back when that mostly meant pompoms and pleated skirts.

AWOL`s Oedipus Complex reared its ugly head when he tried to punch out his own father. Such "family values!" Also, the longtime affair GHW Bush had with Jennifer Fitzgerald may explain the hate AWOL Bush projects onto Democrats who understood Clinton`s affair.

AWOL Bush might well prefer to attack others rather than his own father who so humiliated and betrayed his own mother. All this would show and explain but not excuse Bush`s shattered development into a hateful, vicious, immoral little punk he is today.

We see Bush`s efforts to prove he`s a man`s man, not the AWOL coward, wimp and wussy he really is almost daily. Are his Oedipus Complex and his shame and self loathing about his own sissiness the real source of Bush`s strangely misdirected aggression?

Is Bush`s need to prove he`s not a wimp -- not WMDs -- the real reason he misled us into war? When will he realize he can`t make mommy love him more than she loves daddy no matter how many jets he (claims he) lands on an aircraft carrier? Why stop there? I can discuss this pop psychobabble all day.

When will little W understand he can`t make dry mommy`s tears or punish daddy for having sex with other women with macho posturing? When will Bush realize he can`t silence the voices in his head by threatening and killing others? Do we really want to declare open season on White House marriage like the tales of Nancy Reagan with Frank Sinatra? I`m game. That is, if the Republicans really want to get into it!



Mike Hersh is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant
www.mikehersh.com

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-…



Thousands of Troops Pour Into Iraqi City
By Alissa J. Rubin and Michael Slackman
Times Staff Writers

June 15, 2003

FALLOUJA, Iraq -- U.S. troops thrust into this hotbed of anti-American sentiment early today in a large-scale military operation aimed at finding militia leaders and weapons.

Thousands of troops, tanks, aircraft and fighting vehicles moved out in the early morning darkness to seal off Fallouja and other neighboring towns.

Capt. Marc Alacqua, a civil affairs officer attached to the Army`s 3rd Infantry Division, confirmed the scope of the operation, the largest since the major phase of hostilities ended last month.

"It`s part of the continuing work that needs to be done," Alacqua said.

The operation here began about 3 a.m. and ended hours later. Alacqua said suspects had been taken into custody across the nation. No more than 20 were captured here.

"It is hard to believe we got every bad actor," he said. "As time goes on, we will see what else comes up. I`m sure there will be further operations."

He said arms also have been seized, but he had no details.

"I don`t think we could be surprised about what is out there," he said. "The whole country was an armed camp."

The operation followed a week of military strikes north and west of Baghdad, in a region that once served as a pillar of Saddam Hussein`s rule. In comprehensive land, sea and air raids, military troops swept in, searching for weapons, detaining residents and at one point bombing what was described as a "terrorist training camp" near Iraq`s border with Syria.

Soldiers from the 3rd Infantry`s 2nd Brigade descended on this city in what the military has called operation "Spartan Strike" just three hours after a deadline passed for Iraqis to turn in illegal weapons as part of an amnesty program.

While the focus of the campaign was scattered and diverse, Fallouja has emerged as a practical and symbolic center of armed resistance.

From the moment U.S. troops first arrived in the town in late April, its residents have pressed for them to leave. There have been confrontations almost daily, most recently with ambush attacks on U.S. soldiers. In the last two months, at least 18 civilians and one soldier were killed, and at least four soldiers wounded.

Last week, the Americans sent 4,000 troops, tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles into the city hoping to crush the resistance. As the U.S. stepped up its forces, residents became increasingly hostile. They spoke openly about organizing an armed resistance. Fliers were posted in town telling people not to cooperate with the Americans and warning that those who did would face trouble.

This situation -- where military tactics undermine the resistance yet fuel hostility to the U.S. presence here -- is a problem the Americans take seriously. In every case, they have tried to follow a military operation with humanitarian-type programs to win over residents. That is what they plan for Fallouja.

But it is a difficult sell to a population that is feeling increasingly oppressed.

In Tikrit, Hussein`s hometown, for example, the last of 21 university professors and administrators caught in a sweep by U.S. forces here last month were released Saturday, and the tales they brought home of their captors were not flattering.

These will be added to the stories about people who were inadvertently killed by U.S. troops, homes that were damaged while they were being searched, and unexplained detentions by the foreign forces, as Iraqis paint an increasingly oppressive picture of the American occupiers.

Abdul Majid Shabab Ahmed, a courtly 60-year-old professor of economics who was released after 21 days in a U.S. detention camp, was quick to say he was not mistreated. But he said he was humiliated by the constant barking of the prison guards, who demanded that prisoners stand, haul water and clean latrines.

Most upsetting was that he was unable to wash properly -- a requirement for devout Muslims before their daily prayers.

When he was released, a soldier apologized to him for the inconvenience.

Ahmed replied, "I hope you go home safely to your family." The typically polite Arab words carried a less positive message: If the Americans keep behaving the way they have been, there will be more attacks and fewer soldiers will go home.

"The Americans have to learn how to deal with us," he said. "At my age I can bear it, but younger people cannot." For every person arrested and released, the Americans potentially make a new enemy despite an increasingly concerted effort to pair tough enforcement operations with efforts to help Iraqis and win them over.

The Americans continued to hold about 60 Iraqis detained in what was dubbed "Operation Peninsula Strike." In a separate arrest, the U.S. Central Command announced Saturday that the commander of the Iraqi air force had been taken into custody. It gave no other details about the detention of Hamid Raja Shalah al Tikrit, No. 17 on the Pentagon`s most-wanted list.

A two-week gun amnesty ended Saturday, and the military plans to arrest people who are carrying weapons other than personal arms and those who keep banned weapons in their homes or cars.

It appeared doubtful that the weapons brought in represented even a sliver of those in the country.

In the province that includes Tikrit, one of the most heavily armed because it was the home of many of the paramilitary fighters known as the Fedayeen Saddam, just 40 weapons were brought in, said the chief of police, Gen. Mizher Ghanam.

Overall numbers for the country were still being gathered, but by Friday the military said it had received 45 machine guns, 152 rocket-propelled grenade-launchers and 11 antiaircraft weapons as well as 406 automatic rifles.

Now that the amnesty is over, the police and the military are free to take a more aggressive stand on weapons possession, said Ghanam, who is working with U.S. forces. "The best thing would be if we can convince people to turn in their weapons," he said.

"But if that has failed," he said, "we will have to inspect, and we will use force, we will use random checkpoints, and as we gather information about where weapons are located, we will conduct special operations to find them." But that will also remind residents that they are in an occupied country.

The Army is aware that it needs to fight this battle on two fronts, and so when it is not searching homes, confiscating weapons and detaining suspects, it is sending its soldiers into the community seeking to generate goodwill.

Maj. Jon Tao had that assignment Saturday. Tao is normally assigned to a chemical weapons unit, but these days he is helping to remove the debris of war from farmers` fields.

On Saturday, that included destroyed Iraqi armored personnel carriers.

This region was to have been defended by Hussein`s much-vaunted Republican Guard. But the soldiers fled when Baghdad fell, and there are now 55 fully armed tanks sitting in one farmer`s field.

Tao`s soldiers plan to clear those away too.

If there is any frustration on Tao`s part, it is with the Iraqis` expectations. "It took them 35 years to destroy this place, and they want us to fix it in two weeks."

Rubin reported from Fallouja and Slackman from Baghdad. Times staff writer Azadeh Moaveni in Baghdad contributed to this report.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-scour15j…
THE WORLD




Banned Weapons Remain Unseen Foe
Frustrations grow as one false lead after another sends teams of U.S. and allied arms hunters across Iraq.
By Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writer

June 15, 2003

CAMP SLAYER, Iraq — The latest U.S. intelligence, presented at a morning briefing here Friday and backed by satellite photos and reconnaissance reports, was specific and unnerving.

Saddam Hussein, a team of U.S. and Australian weapons hunters was told, may have built drone aircraft rigged with nozzles to spray poison gases, plus two short-range missiles with warheads designed to carry deadly chemicals or germs, at the former Ibn Firnas aeronautics research center.

The team`s mission: Find the drones and use portable X-ray gear to peer into the warheads.

Donning flak vests and helmets, and loading their weapons, the 26-member team climbed into six Humvees and SUVs and sped to the sprawling complex just north of the reeking trash mountains of the Baghdad city dump.

They quickly found the "drones": five burned and blackened 9-foot wings dumped near the front gate. "It could have been a student project, or maybe a model," the team`s expert, U.S. Air Force Capt. Libbie Boehm, said with a shrug.

The "missiles" were found too, after a bit of searching through a junk heap: two discarded casings of artillery rockets.

Not everyone was disappointed. Ignoring the soldiers, a dozen or so bedraggled looters pillaged the site`s 17 bombed buildings. They soon rode off with two donkey carts and a flatbed truck filled with broken radio parts, twisted window frames and other scrap.

"The looters had a better day than we did," said Lt. Col. Michael Kingsford as he ordered his team to head home. "One thing I can say for sure is there`s no smoking gun here."

Frustration is routine for the men and women on the front lines of the search for Hussein`s suspected stockpiles of illicit weapons. Five days of living with them offered a vivid view of a high-profile hunt that remains in serious disarray nearly three months after the war began.

After visiting more than 300 suspect Iraqi facilities, from pesticide plants to hospital laboratories, the weapons teams have hit all the priority sites identified before the war by U.S. intelligence. Most were so heavily bombed or looted that any potential evidence was long gone.

Moreover, the teams have largely visited the same sites that U.N. inspectors searched last winter without result. They were never given any of the U.N. reports, so knew little about what was there before. Commanders have made such comparison more difficult by changing the names of some long-known U.N. sites.

Facing mounting criticism for the failure to find any unconventional weapons so far, the Pentagon is in the process of transferring responsibility for the hunt from the Army`s 75th Exploitation Task Force to the new Iraq Survey Group — the third and most ambitious reconfiguration since mid-March. But the transition, which won`t be completed before mid-July, has created new delays and confusion.

The reorganization, commanders say, will help them find the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration has insisted are hidden in Iraq. For now, however, much of the hunt is on hold as weapons teams await new people, training and orders.

Several of the seven current "sensitive site teams," or SSTs, conducted their last mission June 2 and have been told not to expect another until June 25 or later. Dozens of team members now spend each day washing clothes, taking naps and fighting boredom.

"We`re here to answer the big question," said Lt. Cody Strong, a tactical intelligence officer. "You`d think if this was really a priority, we`d have nonstop missions."

Not all work has stopped. Two other missile and drone-hunting teams were in northern Iraq all week, and two sensitive site teams were sent Thursday to help interrogate a suspect in Baghdad.

An additional site team returned Wednesday from a grueling four-day trip to 15 sites in southern Iraq, the final ones on their target roster. In many cases, intelligence folders prepared for each site failed to note that bombing had turned the target to rubble.

"It`s kind of frustrating — futile really — for us to drive eight hours to check out a crater," said Marine Lt. Col. Robert Q. Rowsey, commander of the team. "All of our targets were put on a list before the war."

Other team leaders complained that most intelligence folders appeared to be based solely on analysis of satellite imagery. Again and again, the intelligence proved wildly off-base.

"The target folder for Uday`s palace at Lake Habbaniyah was real clean," said U.S. Army Maj. Ronald Hann Jr., a highly decorated arms control expert who heads SST-6, referring to a complex for Hussein`s older son. " `There`s the warehouse. There`s the poison gas storage tanks.` Well, the warehouse was a carport. It still had two cars inside. And the tanks had propane for the kitchen."

A veteran U.S. intelligence official here said he is furious over the inaccurate intelligence reports that have sent weapons teams racing to a series of empty sites.

"I`m sitting here, and frustrated isn`t the word anymore," said the official, who has a senior role in the hunt and spoke on condition of anonymity. "I feel almost duped."

The Iraq Survey Group hopes to change all that. Instead of revisiting old U.N. sites, the group will focus on interviewing Iraqis and analyzing documents that already fill three warehouses. The goal is to find fresh clues about any lethal microbes or chemical agents, long-range missiles or enrichment technology for nuclear weapons — all forbidden to Iraq under U.N. resolutions.

The intelligence officer said that common-sense approach should have been taken long ago. "These guys are reinventing the obvious," he said. "And that means they didn`t see the obvious before."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, who ran a Defense Intelligence Agency program that debriefed Iraqi defectors before the war, arrived Tuesday as head of the Iraq Survey Group. He declined an interview request, but a spokesman, Ken Gerhart, said the new search for clues has produced "very promising results."

Navy Capt. Richard Weyrich, who directs 18 rocket scientists, intelligence analysts, chemical weapons and biowarfare experts who have been waiting here since March to disable or destroy unconventional weapons, also defended the new plan.

"What we have been doing to this point is just going through a target list," Weyrich said. "The Iraq Survey Group is bringing the 50-pound brains. They can bring us the intelligence to follow the clues from one place to the next."

The weapons hunt is based here at Camp Slayer, a former Hussein palace complex near the Baghdad airport that also holds U.S. eavesdropping and other classified operations. Two Iraqi trucks that the CIA says are most likely mobile biowarfare production facilities are stored here. There is also a stockade for some of the Iraqi weapons scientists and other top regime officials in custody.

Once renovations are done, Dayton and his staff, including a White House aide, will work in Hussein`s Perfume Palace. The ornate building has a lagoon-like indoor pool on the ground floor, huge military murals on the second and a cavernous blue-domed ballroom on top.

The rest of the camp is equally odd.

Most of the 1,200 or so troops here, plus CIA and FBI officials, covert Special Forces teams, civilian experts and others, camp in two dozen or so garish guest houses that line three artificial lakes. Others bunk in a palace that boasts its own underground bunker, complete with thick steel doors and gold wallpaper. At night, street lights designed to look like gas lamps twinkle in the gloom.

All the buildings were hit by looters, and most have no air conditioning or running water. Soldiers have furnished their oven-like accommodations with glittering chandeliers, wingback chairs, gilt-edged tables and pieces of Saddam-kitsch sculpture scavenged from the complex`s five major palaces.

Some troops live in what they believe was a brothel. Now called the Fishbowl, it features marble fish cascading along the staircase, a fireplace in the gaping mouth of a giant carved carp, and blue-green glass in the roof that casts an aquarium-like glow on those below. Others have taken up residence in what they call Bedrock, a Flintstones-like playground of tiny cave condos carved into fake cliffs and boulders.

By all accounts, the Pentagon`s first weapons-hunting plan was based on the assumption that U.S. forces battling to Baghdad would find a vast array of banned weapons, components and production facilities.

"Frankly, we expected to find large warehouses full of chemical or biological weapons, or delivery systems," said Army Col. John Connell, who heads the sensitive site teams. "At this point, we`re getting fairly sure we`re not going to find a full-up production facility. We`re going to find little pieces."

During the war, four teams trained by the CIA followed combat troops to assess any weapons caches found. If they detected lethal chemicals or germs, they were to call in separate "mobile exploitation teams" to collect samples and conduct field tests. If they confirmed a find, they could call a third set of teams to disable or eliminate the weapons.

No illicit arms were found. And shortages of Arabic translators and interrogators, as well as radios, vehicles and helicopters, meant teams were largely unable to investigate on their own.

The teams were reorganized, retrained and restaffed with intelligence officers, mostly from the Utah National Guard, after major combat ended in mid-April. These new SSTs spent the next six weeks visiting about 300 sites from the prewar target list.

United Nations weapons inspectors — relying in part on intelligence handed over by the CIA — already had searched most of the sites without result shortly before the war, senior officials here said.

"We haven`t closed anything, but we`re almost at the point now of putting a red line through the target list," said Brig. Gen. Steve Meekin, the top-ranking Australian in the Iraq Survey Group. "Most have been comprehensively looted or bombed, and there`s absolutely nothing there now anyway."

Meekin, a lanky man with a bone-crushing handshake, said the Iraq Survey Group has no access to the million-page Iraqi weapons database compiled by U.N. inspectors. He said the group does have Baghdad`s weapons declarations to the U.N. Security Council as well as "all the documents on the U.N. Web site."

Even so, search team leaders said they have little information about what sites U.N. inspectors visited or what they found.

Army Lt. Col. Keith Harrington, a wiry former Green Beret who heads SST-5, recently found 16 barrels of what he believes may be uranium oxide stored at a fertilizer factory at Al Qaim near the Syrian border in western Iraq. He still wonders why U.N. nuclear inspectors who visited the site scores of times left the drums behind.

"We didn`t have their file," Harrington said. "Would it have helped? Absolutely."

Confusing matters further, military and intelligence officials in charge of the hunt have renamed some Iraqi sites that were intensely investigated by U.N. inspectors.

For example, an exploitation team was sent last week to "Samarra" to check a report of material contaminated by mustard gas, a blister agent.

They discovered two bunkers sealed long ago by U.N. inspectors at the Muthana State Establishment, which in the 1980s was the heart of Iraq`s chemical weapons program. U.S. Army Rangers had broken into one of the U.N. bunkers and reported the suspect material inside.

Few here deny the problems, and most say they still believe they ultimately will find evidence of proscribed weapons, even if it`s only leftovers from Hussein`s 1980s programs.

All proudly cite discoveries of stockpiles of conventional munitions, short-range missiles, and other weapons that Iraq was permitted to possess under U.N. resolutions. They say the new policy — to rely more on local tips than on outdated search lists — already is paying off.

Last month, for example, an Iraqi farmer pointed Hann`s SST-6 team to a rock quarry where thousands of antiaircraft, air-to-ground and other missiles and bombs have been stashed away since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Looters had ripped open the packing crates to steal the wood, and hundreds of missiles lay strewn in the dirt.

"My jaw dropped," Hann said.

These days, Hann does what he can to keep his 12-member site team sharp. But the pickings are slim.

On Monday, a planned visit to the nearby firing range was cut short because of a scheduling glitch. A training mission Tuesday to three Republican Guard bunkers, supposedly filled with live munitions, was aborted when the team found that bombing had left the bunkers too dangerous to enter.

On Wednesday, the team donned flak vests and helmets to drive Humvees into Baghdad to buy a fan. On Thursday, they mounted up again to drive to the airport PX to buy Cokes.

"I hate to say it, but there are just days when we don`t do anything," Hann said.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-diamond…
ENVIRONMENT



The Erosion of Civilization
The Fertile Crescent`s fall holds a message for today`s troubled spots.
By Jared Diamond
Jared Diamond is a professor of geography and environmental health sciences at UCLA. His book "Guns, Germs, and Steel: the Fates of Human Societies" won a 1998 Pulitzer Prize.

June 15, 2003

Iraq sits along a stretch of land once so productive that the whole region — which included present-day Syria, Iran and Jordan — was known as the Fertile Crescent. In ancient times, the area led the world in agriculture and technology. It`s hard to reconcile that history with the reality of today, when the term "Infertile Crescent" would seem more appropriate.

The Fertile Crescent`s current desperation stands as testament to the steepest downturn of local fortunes since the end of the last Ice Age. For 8,000 years Iraq and its neighbors led the world as the source of most things embodied in the term "civilization." Technology, ideas and power flowed outward from Iraq to Europe and eventually to America. Iraq`s decline holds lessons the world should heed.

The region`s ancient dominance didn`t arise from any biological superiority of its people, just as America`s dominance today has nothing to do with our own biology. Instead, Fertile Crescent peoples profited from an accident of biogeography: They had the good fortune to occupy the world`s largest zone of Mediterranean climate, home to the largest number of wild plant and animal species suitable for domestication. Until 8500 BC, all the world`s peoples obtained their food by gathering wild plants and hunting wild animals. Then the ancient Iraqis and other Fertile Crescent peoples began to develop farming and herding, domesticating wild wheat, barley, peas, sheep, goats, pigs and cows. Even today, these species remain the world`s staple crops and livestock. Agriculture fueled a population explosion, and also generated food surpluses that could be used to feed full-time professional specialists, who no longer had to devote time to procuring their own food.

These specialists fed by agriculture included smiths and metal workers, who developed the world`s first copper tools around 5000 BC, bronze tools around 3000 BC and iron tools around 1500 BC. The specialists also included accountants and scribes, who developed the world`s first writing system around 3400 BC. That was a huge head start: Writing didn`t reach what is now the United States until 5,000 years later. It makes Iraq`s current rate of illiteracy an especially cruel irony.

Agriculture also fed politicians, bureaucrats and judges. That`s why the world`s first states arose in Iraq around 3500 BC, and the first multiethnic empire arose there around 3000 BC. The Middle East continued to lead and dominate western Eurasia for several thousand more years, and its languages were spoken from Ireland to India. The English we speak today grew out of the Indo-European languages originally spoken by Middle Eastern peoples, and the fact that people in the United States speak it — as opposed to a language derived from ancient Algonquin or some other Native American language family — is a testament to the Middle East`s ancient dominance.

So how did Fertile Crescent peoples lose that big lead? The short answer is ecological suicide: They inadvertently destroyed the environmental resources on which their society depended. Just as the region`s rise wasn`t due to any special virtue of its people, its fall wasn`t due to any special blindness on their part. Instead, they had the misfortune to be living in an extremely fragile environment, which, because of its low rainfall, was particularly susceptible to deforestation.

When you clear a forest in a high-rainfall tropical area, new trees grow up to a height of 15 feet within a year; in a dry area like the Fertile Crescent, regeneration is much slower. And when you add to the equation grazing by sheep and goats, new trees stand little chance. Deforestation led to soil erosion, and irrigation agriculture led to salinization, both by releasing salt buried deep in the ground and by adding salt through irrigation water. After centuries of degradation, areas of Iraq that formerly supported productive irrigation agriculture are today salt pans where nothing grows.

Once the Fertile Crescent began to decline for those environmental reasons, hostile neighbors helped speed the process. The original flow of power westward from the Fertile Crescent reversed in 330 BC, when the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great advanced eastward to conquer the eastern Mediterranean. In the Middle Ages, Mongol invaders from Central Asia destroyed Iraq`s irrigation systems. After World War I, England and France dismembered the Ottoman Empire and carved out Iraq and other states as pawns of European colonial interests. As the end product of this history, the former world center of wealth, power and civilization is now poor in everything except oil. Iraq`s leaders ensured that few benefits of that oil reached their people.

Iraq`s decline holds a broader significance. Many other countries today face similar crippling environmental problems, including the deforestation, overgrazing, erosion and salinization that brought down the Fertile Crescent. Other countries already crippled or nearly so by such problems include Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines and Indonesia.

You may well detect a similarity between this list of looming environmental disasters and the CIA`s list of overseas trouble spots, places prone to civil wars and violent regime changes — places to which we often end up dispatching U.S. troops. Those two lists are related by cause and effect. When environmental damage makes people economically desperate, they are likely to suffer from poor health and short life spans, blame their governments, kill each other, end up with crazy leaders and seek to immigrate illegally to more favored landscapes.

The First World can respond to these Third World problems in one of three ways. It can provide humanitarian aid once a crisis has arisen. It can ignore the situation as long as possible and then intervene militarily once the crisis cannot be ignored (at a cost, in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, of an estimated $100 billion per intervention when you add up all the potential costs of military action and rebuilding). Or it can intervene before a crisis to stave off looming problems.

There are lots of other countries teetering on the brink. We will be hearing more from Bangladesh, Haiti, Nepal, Indonesia and others. Even for a country as wealthy as the United States, there is a limit to the number of $100-billion interventions we can afford, and there are many alternative uses at home for that money — improving our schools, say, or fixing Social Security or establishing universal health insurance.

The most effective and least expensive approach would be to help Third World countries solve their basic environmental and public health problems before they cripple societies. The cost of a global program to combat AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis — the world`s three most costly infectious diseases — is estimated by public health organizations at about $25 billion, or one- quarter the cost of a single military intervention.

Attacking problems before crises is a policy that differs in motivation (though not in policies pursued) from a traditional humanitarian response that comes out of a moral commitment to address crises. Its motive is selfish. Preventing chaos abroad benefits the United States. President Bush would be on the right track with his policy of preemption if he were aiming at preempting crises, rather than at preempting military aggression.

In today`s globalized world, any country can pose a threat: Just look at Somalia and Afghanistan, which rank among the poorest, weakest, most isolated countries on Earth. We can`t take on the whole world militarily. Keeping weak countries from getting into the kind of trouble Iraq found itself in would ultimately save the U.S. money — and generate global political capital.



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

Ein Fahrer, ein Volk, kein heater*

By Jeff Danziger, 6/15/2003

THE LAST old Volkswagen Beetle, after a run of 21 million cars over 70 years, has rolled off the line in Puebla, Mexico. The only way to feel sorry about this is not to be driving one any longer.

I had six of those old VW Beetles when I lived in far-off Vermont, a long while ago in time and distance, and in a spiritual remove as well. All of us, hippies and regular people, drove Beetles.

Nobody in Vermont had any money, and the Beetle seemed to fit the life. It was noisy, slow, and bouncy, and about as complicated as a lawnmower. It didn`t need antifreeze. After 50,000 miles, number four cylinder would blow; you needed a $400 rebuild, which was real money.

For Vermont, the Beetle also had traction. The only weight up front was you and the gas tank. The motor bore down helpfully on the driving wheels. With a fresh set of snow tires the Beetle could go about anywhere, from the first happy snows of Halloween to the last miserable wet messes of early May. I slid through many Vermont winters, and in retrospect, seen through the dim and kindly light of golden memory, it was miserable. People frequently killed themselves right after Christmas rather than go on.

For the living the Beetle wasn`t the first choice, it was the only choice. There were few four-wheel-drive cars, and they were expensive. The bug was designed in the 1930s, unbelievably by Ferdinand Porsche (yes, that Porsche). He was under instructions from the first manufacturer, A. Hitler (yes, that Hitler) to keep it simple and cheap. Porsche forgot the heaters, probably on Hitler`s instructions. Around about October, we cursed them both in harsh retrospect.

Yes, there was a theoretical heater that worked off the exhaust manifolds. Hot air, so the theory went, came up to the passengers through the rocker panels. In practice, the heat simply made rocker panels rust out quicker, after which there was no heat at all. Ah, those early February mornings, the killing cold, the snow crust over everything, the cracking nasal sensation, and the hellish recognition that there was plenty of heat! This was an air-cooled car! Gushers of hot air shot out the back, perversely, while you, the driver, sat up front, scraping away madly at the frost, and moaning in pain.

Anyone not a German could see that we had to get the hot air from the back up to the front. Then the Vermont mind came to the rescue. A farmer turned VW mechanic near Montpelier, Eliot Morse, whose name is etched on my own personal Memorial Wall, made a remarkable invention. He cut a hole under the back seat, and a further hole through the engine shrouds, then poked a length of that floppy hose that they make for dryer vents. The hose came up between the front seats and could be directed at your feet, your hands, or hung from the windshield as a defroster by means of a little custom hook that Morse also invented.

Of course it looked like a dog`s dinner, a mechanical dog, I mean. But a reliable steady waft of warm air made driving to work at 6 a.m. survivable. You weren`t toasty, but you didn`t die, which was the main thing. Why this never occurred to Ferdinand Porsche, but occurred to us in not so smart Vermont, remains a mystery. I had this procedure done to all of my Beetles, and in the last days, I was able to perform it myself. Then Japanese four-wheel cars came along, with regular heaters, and we moved on.

It`s now been 20 years that I have been Beetle-free. But every so often, when I hear an old VW coming down the street, that engine sound like no other, like some sort of worn-out food chopper, I am back in the awful `70s and it`s cold. You can feel an affection for a mechanical thing, even if it tried to kill you every morning. You can even love the thing. But I`ll never forgive Ferdinand Porsche for the evil he did to me. And I thank the VW company for deciding, at long last, that humanity has suffered enough.

Jeff Danziger is an editorial cartoonist.

*One driver, one Volk, no heater.


This story ran on page H11 of the Boston Globe on 6/15/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/166/oped/Ein_Fahrer_ein_Vo…

[Joerver]

The Mideast: Neocons on the Line
A growing number of critics on Capitol Hill and around the world are questioning the Bush administration’s credibility—and its assumptions—as never before.

By Michael Hirsh
NEWSWEEK


June 23 issue — Paul Wolfowitz seems a bundle of contradictions, all of them roiling inside him. Calm yet driven, a champion of bold action who speaks in a soft, somewhat quavery voice, Wolfowitz today finds himself pacing the world stage like a nervous father. He is a father in a sense—to an idea, one that has taken on a life of its own and, somewhat in the manner of a wayward child, is causing its parent no end of grief.

IT WAS WOLFOWITZ, the gentlemanly superhawk, who within days of 9-11 prodded the Bush administration into a radical new strategy: forcefully confronting states that sponsor terrorism. It was Wolfowitz—the ex math whiz who fell in love with the idea of “national greatness” as a youth and is now seen as the Bush administration’s chief intellectual—who pressed Bush hardest to transform the war on terror into a campaign for regime change and democracy in rogue nations, especially in Iraq and the Islamic world.
Now the deputy defense secretary and his fellow neoconservatives are on the defensive. They are battling a growing crowd of critics on Capitol Hill and around the world as the Bush administration’s credibility—and its assumptions—are tested as never before. In Iraq, after another week in which U.S. troops died and got into fierce fire fights, elements of more than half of America’s Army divisions are tied down. Some U.S. officials have begun muttering the dreaded Q word—quagmire, a term Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had mocked on a visit to Baghdad in the days just after the three-week war. In the Mideast, the hard-liners’ move to replace Yasir Arafat with the moderate Mahmoud Abbas—and to ignore the conflict until after the Iraq war—has touched off a new cycle of violence that stunned even the White House in its savagery. It seems increasingly difficult to argue that “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.” In the face of a possible congressional probe into why Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction have not been found, two Pentagon neocons, Doug Feith and Bill Luti, sought earlier this month to identify themselves with, of all people, Bill Clinton. In a fumbling news conference, they insisted that their intel squared with the previous administration’s.


Fairly or not, Paul Wolfowitz has become a lightning rod for much of this criticism, and to “cry Wolfowitz” has already become a catchphrase for the pressing questions about U.S. credibility. At a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Wolfowitz—always a striking presence with his thick black hair, vaguely lupine looks and air of tense repose—was rocked by hostile questioning. Wolfowitz not long ago dismissed Army chief Eric Shinseki’s call for a large peacekeeping force as “wildly off the mark.” Now he indicated that Iraq looked more complicated than Bosnia. “We’ve been in Bosnia for eight years,” Sen. Joseph Biden snapped back. “That would seem to compute that we’re likely to be in Iraq for a long time—a long time.”

Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz pushed the Bush administration toward `ending states` that sponsor terrorism

Wolfowitz himself never thought that his long-sought goal of democratic transformation would be easy. This week, Wolfowitz and the neocon elite gather again for their annual conclave in Beaver Creek, Colo., the ritzy ski resort where last year Natan Sharansky, the Israeli politician and hard-line advocate of Arab democracy, gave the keynote speech (inspiring Dick Cheney, among others). And in Beaver Creek the neocons can—and will—claim an uncertain triumph. There is a kind of emerging democracy in the Palestinian territories. And there is regime change in Iraq. If WMD evidence remains elusive, the horrific evidence of Saddam’s savagery only grows: many Iraqis remain grateful for the U.S. intervention. In some ways, things have been easier than expected: U.S. troops scored a lightning victory in Iraq and the worst fears proved unfounded. Americans were not hit by chemical or biological weapons, and the country hasn’t yet disintegrated into civil war as some warned. Certainly no one expected a sudden flowering of Mideast peace.
Yet even as the neocons savor these victories, some critics suggest their moment may already have passed. Few in the Bush administration invoke the toppling of Saddam’s statue in Baghdad any longer, as they did so euphorically in early May. The future does look messier and more ambiguous than some neocons had hoped, and the hawks now have to figure out how to build things up, rather than knock them down. Among those at last year’s Beaver Creek gathering—which is sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the neocon think tank—was Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader who was then seen as the neocon candidate of choice to lead postwar Iraq. Now he’s been sidelined by the American czar in Baghdad, State Department careerist L. Paul Bremer. Other key neocons, like Wolfowitz’s old ally and friend Richard Perle, have withdrawn from public view; Perle resigned as chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board in March amid questions over alleged conflicts of interest related to his business dealings. Most deflating of all, a new Pew Research poll shows rampant anti-Americanism has overtaken even formerly pro-American Muslim countries like Indonesia and Nigeria, both chaotic places where terrorists can congregate.

Just as worrisome is the issue of how to confront other state sponsors of terror and WMD, like Iran, Syria and North Korea. The administration seems far less willing to go to war in those places than it was in Iraq, pushing for multilateral solutions for the moment. But “the neocons have painted themselves, rhetorically, into a corner,” says a former senior Bush official. “They’re kind of stuck in a position where they can’t just let this go. If they’re not seen as doing something to get Syria and Iran to take care of terror, they’ll look incoherent.”
Yet on these issues the administration seems adrift, and once again internally conflicted. Officials talk of waiting for grass-roots democracy in Iran, but some civilian hawks are still discussing a strategy with parallels to their pre-invasion designs on Iraq: funding covert activity and sponsoring exile leaders like Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran. North Korea is again brazenly threatening to build nuclear weapons and here, too, the administration is flirting with regime change, reducing food aid in an apparent effort to strangle the totalitarian state. Wolfowitz, on a recent trip to South Korea, commented that North Korea “is teetering on the edge of economic collapse.”

Hovering over all this is a more philosophical question: can democracy really be imposed by force, or even outside pressure? And is it such a panacea?
What is clear is that the neocon vision has become the hard core of American foreign policy, making the neocons every critic’s favorite demon. Wolfowitz and Perle are the leading lights, most agree, joined by a supporting cast including I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff; Feith, the Pentagon’s No. 3, and leading ideologues in the Beltway commentariat like William Kristol and Robert Kagan. Collectively, they are often misportrayed as a cabal of conspiring former Democratic hawks who grew alienated from their party after Vietnam. Typically, the neocons are characterized as intellectual groupies who worship Leo Strauss, a mid-20th-century philosopher who idealized Platonic virtues in rulers and whose views have been summed up as “it’s the regime, stupid.”

In fact, some like Perle and Kagan say their views have nothing to do with Strauss, and Wolfowitz, for one, mocks the idea that he is a Straussian. Yes, he took two college courses from Strauss, but he asks, chuckling, “You need an obscure political philosopher to understand that it makes a difference what kind of regime rules Iraq?” The neocons, many of whom are Jewish, are also sometimes maliciously caricatured as shills for Israel’s hard-right Likud Party—even by some in the senior GOP establishment. But that does little to explain how the neocons have won the hearts and minds of good Methodists like Cheney, Presbyterians like national-security adviser Condoleezza Rice or WASPs like Rumsfeld.
The neocon view is, in truth, far more complex than most of these portraits suggest. Essentially a rebirth of Reaganism, today’s neoconservatism has deep roots in the old ideological fights of the cold-war era. It stands at heart for a robust marriage of power and principle, a fusing of America’s precision-guided ability to change regimes with an evangelical belief that the only right regime is democracy. Driving it all is the idea that thanks to America’s unrivaled might, this is the moment in history to complete the global transformation begun by Ronald Reagan—who declared in 1982 that tyranny was destined for the ash heap of history—and left unfinished after the cold war. Especially in a post-9-11 world, this is no time for old-fashioned conservatism. It is a time to be bold. Sharansky, who first got to know the neocons when he was a Soviet dissident, says hard-liners like Wolfowitz and moderates like Secretary of State Colin Powell are mainly refighting the battles of detente vs. confrontation over the Soviet Union. “It’s the same debate—trying to make dictators more friendly or replacing them with democracy and not with other dictators.”
Wolfowitz, for one, resists neat labels to describe his views. He also denies that he has any grand global strategy. For hawks like him, the invasion of Iraq was in large part about finishing a war that never really ended in 1991. But it was also about dispensing with a traditional GOP foreign policy dependent on careful consensus and alliance-building in favor of a more aggressive one. Leaving Saddam in power in 1991, merely handing Kuwait back to its rulers after the gulf war, had been a classic “realist” response once favored by the GOP establishment. But after 9-11 conservatives considered the decision to restore the Arab status quo their biggest mistake, the chief sin of Bush the father. Over the next decade it generated hatemongers like Osama bin Laden, left WMD in the hands of defiant tyrants like Saddam and “peace” in the hands of corrupt autocrats like Yasir Arafat. September 11 was an indictment of every policymaker over the decade who’d seen the Arab world merely as a gas station to the globe. The Arabs had to change, too, fundamentally.
Partly what fuels the neocons’ air of certainty is the sense that they’ve been vindicated by history. Wolfowitz, like Perle, is only in his latest of many incarnations in power. Thirty-four years ago he and Perle had first worked together in pushing for missile defense, decrying the arms-control accords that needlessly held America’s superior technology back, fulfilling the agenda of their mutual mentor, cold-war hawk and grand theorist Albert Wohlstetter. On this, as on so many things, they believed they had been prescient: the Soviet Union, more economically backward than anyone knew, collapsed in the face of U.S. Defense spending, unable to keep up with the high-tech wizardry that today gives America its unparalleled might. It was Wolfowitz who, as far back as the Carter administration, also first warned of the danger from Saddam. And it was Wolfowitz who, in 1992, authored a Defense planning paper that stirred a huge controversy in Washington by declaring that America intended to remain the world’s only great power.
This aggressive world view has, by most accounts, won over George W. Bush, who is himself far more of a Reaganite than he is an acolyte of his father. The neo-Reaganite vision has provided a liturgy and a purpose to the president’s Christian evangelical sense of destiny, and imbued his Texas tough-guy persona with a historic mission. Even before 9-11, the neocons felt they had a soulmate, says Perle—that the son had “a more robust world view” than the father. “He was prepared to assume greater risk for greater gains,” says Perle.

Until now, Democrats and moderate Republicans have found themselves at a loss to counter this ideological onslaught. “These guys are the conservative version of the best and brightest,” says Biden, harking back to the Democratic-policy establishment during the Vietnam War. Republican-establishment types, meanwhile, grumble that their revered Grand Old Party has been body-snatched by a foreign host, former Democratic hawks who have tossed moderation to the winds. “I think the party basically has been taken over by the neocons,” says a senior official from the first Bush administration.
For Wolfowitz, the irony is that while he is known as the most powerful neoconservative in Washington, he’s never swallowed all of the neocon Kool-Aid. True, he seems to have been a hawk from childhood, deeply influenced by his father—famed mathematician Jack Wolfowitz, a Vietnam hard-liner who drilled the lessons of the Holocaust (appeasement never works) into his children. (Wolfowitz’s sister, Laura Sachs, says her brother often jokingly told their father: “You have only yourself to blame for all this.”) Later, at the University of Chicago grad school, a haven for right-wing thinkers, Wolfowitz was smitten with the grandeur of great empires, says Charles Fairbanks, a fellow Chicago grad and friend. Fairbanks remembers a long drive back from Chicago to New York with Wolfowitz. “He had just been reading Livy’s history of Rome. He was obviously somehow in love with political greatness, I think in the same way as the young Lincoln was. He talked for hours at a time about the ancient Romans, about what kind of men they were and what they achieved.”
But wolfowitz is far too pragmatic and smart to push blindly for regime change everywhere. “I actually am a great believer in the importance of evolutionary change,” he says. On Mideast peace, Wolfowitz has privately suggested that the Bushies will end up where Clinton did: pressing the Israelis to give up their settlements (though as yet Ariel Sharon is adamantly resisting). Wolfowitz’s sister, who is an Israeli citizen and holds moderate political views, says her brother “is not a Likud supporter. He believes in the peace process.” And even as Wolfowitz talks of economic collapse in North Korea, he is still seeking to prod dictator Kim Jong Il to follow China’s path: reform from within. On Iran, says Fairbanks, it was Wolfowitz who 20 years ago suggested regime change may not always be a good thing. As State policy-planning chief in 1982, when he and others were conceiving the Reagan Doctrine (the precursor to today’s democracy-transformation vision), Wolfowitz cited the disaster of the then young Khomeini revolution. The Islamist takeover, of course, had been inspired by a 1953 U.S.-orchestrated coup that installed the shah.
The problem that Bush hard-liners must confront is that power and democracy don’t mix easily, that America is not the Rome of Livy. Speaking in the sober tones now coming out of the White House, one senior administration official sums up the problem: America has the power of a true empire, like Rome or like Britain in the 19th century, but not the taste for acting like one. “Look at us in Iraq—how much difficulty we have in saying we will not anoint people to run the country. Does anyone think the Romans or the Brits would have been deterred for one second?” he says. “People keep accusing the administration of being imperialist, or neo-imperialist, or seeking an American empire. It’s just not in our nature to be imperialist.”
It is possible the neocon embrace of regime change and pre-emption may prove to be as important and enduring as cold-war-era containment doctrine. Or it may just be that the military triumph in Iraq marks the high tide of neocon thinking. Having had two regime-changing wars, and having corrected the historic mistake of 1991, the hawks don’t seem eager for another. Even Kristol, never shy about asserting U.S. power (he can afford to be: he’s a magazine editor, not a policymaker), says, “I don’t quite know what to do about North Korea.” The ultimate question, he adds, is whether “Iraq was sort of a one-off deal. Bush understands that if North Korea and Iran are still chugging toward nukes a year from now unimpeded in any way, and the dynamics of the Middle East haven’t been changed at all, then the Bush doctrine gets called into question.” Paul Wolfowitz may be the one who is called in to answer.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/926946.asp?0bl=-0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Dan Ephron in Jerusalem and Tamara Lipper in Washington

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

[Joerver]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/columnists/nyc-…

Truth Is Strongest Weapon In War
Jimmy Breslin

June 15, 2003

I was around when Watergate was being called a third-rate burglary. Brilliant minds in Washington said congressional hearings would be ludicrous, cheap and unpatriotic. Then, Sen. Sam Ervin of North Carolina arrived with a lance to start cross-examining White House people, and we were off into history. I don`t think he went three days when the first murmurs of impeachment were heard.

Therefore, on Friday I looked through my notebooks and files about the deaths in Iraq of two Marines, Cpl. Marcus Rodriguez and Sgt. Riayan Tejeda.

Rodriguez`s funeral was at Blessed Sacrament Church in Cypress Hills. His mother passed out on the sidewalk after the Mass.

Tejeda was buried out of St. Elizabeth`s in Washington Heights. After the service, the mother, bent in pain, had to be helped through a crush of grief on the sidewalk.

Today, the two dead Marines are the symbol for everybody who died in a war that was started because of a series of coordinated lies in Washington that said that Iraq had nuclear bombs. "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The Bush administration used the term so much that it turned into initials, WMD.

I use here a 100-page report from "Defense and the National Interest," a publication respected in war colleges and put out by Charles Spinney, a retired Air Force officer who actually put his reports out while working in the Pentagon since 1975. It is now on the Internet -- with whistle-blowers enthusiastically sending him reports.

Here is just one significant part of his 100-page release:

The State Department said on Sept. 12, 2002, "A new report released on September 9th from the International Institute for Strategic Studies -- an independent research organization -- concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."

In October 2002, the CIA said, "If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year. Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until the last half of the decade."

It will either rain or it will not rain tomorrow.

The Defense and the National Interest Report states that more than 90 percent of the entire Manhattan Project budget went to fissile materials, less than 4 percent went to the weapons laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M.

A bomb with fissile material or no bomb at all.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said that there were no claims of Iraq actually attempting to import fissile material since 1991, and the known fissile material inside Iraq prior to that date has been fully accounted for by the atomic energy agency. In 1981, Iraq tried to import uranium or "yellowcake" from Niger. Twenty-two years later, Niger today cannot export yellowcake without the consent of its three partners, France, Japan and Spain. It has not happened.

The British then excitedly came out with a document with the forged names of half the government of the country Niger, stating that Iraq was buying uranium. One of the signatures was of a dead man. The forgery was sold to an Italian intelligence agent. There was no uranium moved anywhere. Intelligence agencies all over the place are saying that they knew about the forgery.

And then on Jan. 20, George W. Bush announced in his State of the Union address something that had been known to be fraudulent for months and yet he told his country:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently bought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

That`s what Bush said. Why he said it is the question. And why Cheney and Rumsfeld kept trying to justify the war with cries of "WMD" must be questioned by today`s Sam Ervin. Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell loved aluminum tubes. If Saddam has them, he`s ready to fire. The tubes turn out to be suitable for short-distance missiles and useless for nuclear manufacture.

One reason for your government operating this way could be that the small closed group in the White House sees what they want to see and proceeds from there, even if it is plainly delusional to anybody looking in from outside.

The only one who takes on George W. Bush over the weapons is Sen. Bob Graham of Florida. Graham compared Bush to Richard Nixon. He says the Republican closed-door hearings are shameful and a dangerous display of secrecy.

Aside from delusion, the other reason for scaring the country about nuclear bombs is lying. There is the lie being told that is false but which the teller has taken to be true. They give the president a speech that is a lie and he gives it. Then there is the lie that tells the opposite of what the teller knows to be true.

It leaps out that the reason given to Americans for going into Iraq -- to stop them from blowing us up with nuclear weapons -- was an outright lie. It was told to America by President George W. Bush. And people died because of it. What kind of a lie and why it was told is something that only a full investigation by Congress, full and on television, can tell the public and tell us who lied and why.

And tell the families of these two Marines we lost in Iraq and who stand for all the others who died for a lie.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

[Joerver]

Used Car Statesmanship
By Ron Ruggiero
It took me a long time to figure out the kind of statesmanship George W. Bush practices. Oh, sure, it`s easy to deride George W as less than the brightest bulb in the presidential marquee -- or as arrogant as Shaq -- or even as diplomatically prudent as a Klingon warrior.

But, that`s all too general. Then, when he took us to war with Iraq I figured it out. George W practices statesmanship the way a used car salesman practices salesmanship. George W is the first president in the history of the United States to practice Used Car Statesmanship.

Think about it. Used car salesmen will lie, cheat and steal to make a sale, right? So does George W.

Used car salesmen are consumed with the right now, getting the "sale," and have no concern at all with building long term relationships, right? So does George W.

And, used car salesman will, when push comes to shove, use every emotional trick in the book to make that sale. They will bully, intimidate, and play on your emotions to get what they want, right? So does George W.

Sadly, I realized we have a used car salesman running our country.

Lying and the cheating? Where do I begin? How many times have you heard George W tell us that Iraq is linked to al Qaeda ... or that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that posed an "immediate threat" to our safety? This is just like the used car salesman who tells you the car has such low mileage because it was driven by a little old lady from Pasadena who only drove it to from church on Sundays. He`ll say it. He`ll say it again with conviction. But, where`s the proof? In fact, when you look a little closer, you`ll see that the driver`s seat needs replacement and the odometer cable was disconnected.

George W`s used car statesmanship doesn`t end there. See, a used car salesman doesn`t care if he ever sees you again -- he just wants what he wants -- the sale. Long-term relationships are not important. Remember the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gases? He tore it up. The Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia? Into the trash bin of history. Did George W care that he was shredding relationships with the rest of the world that had taken decades to nurture and build? Nah.

George W`s all about the here and now. The patient art of diplomatic statecraft? Pshahh! Who needs that when you are world`s sole remaining superpower -- or the only used car dealer in town. In rushing our nation to war, George W managed to piss off the French, Germans and the Russians. Can you remember the last time THOSE three countries were on the same side? Unfortunately for us, we have a president who is as failed a statesman as the used car salesman who can`t make a sale to the guy who has his car towed onto the dealer`s lot.

Finally, we turn to the bullying, intimidation, and crass emotional appeals of George W`s used car statesmanship. We`ve seen how George W has tried to bully and intimidate the rest of the world. His mantra is very simple -- its my way or the highway. George W tried to bully the United Nations -- but nothing doing there. I just wish George W had learned like the rest of us back in grade school that no one likes a bully.

And, just like the used car salesman who watches the recently widowed grandma walk onto his lot nervously fidgeting with her purse and starts to salivate, George W has salivated over taking advantage of our country`s fragile emotional state after 9/11. And, he has. He has used it to justify everything from stealing our civil liberties, to giving tax cuts to the rich, to denying thousands of federal workers their right to have a union, and, of course, to wage war on Iraq. After 9/11 we were a nation afraid. And, George W doesn`t want us to feel safe after 9/11. He wants us to live in fear. How else do you explain the constant "terror alerts" that are vague and unsubstantiated? How else do you explain the administration telling us to duct tape ourselves into our homes? George W appeals to our fear the way a used car salesman appeals to your fear that the car you want may soon be sold to someone else if you don`t agree to buy it now. He makes the appeal, you get the knot in your stomach, your emotions run high and cloud out reason, and you pay too much for the car. In our case, we just end up paying far too much for an ever elusive "security."

Yes, when you add it all up, we have a president who practices used car statesmanship running our country. Depressing, huh?

Well, one bright spot is that most used car salesman don`t stick around too long. They tend to move along pretty quickly. Haven`t you noticed how they always seem to have a business card with their name handwritten on it?

Oh yeah, as George W would tell you, the name`s only handwritten because they`re ordering more pre-printed cards for him ...

Here`s to handwritten business cards for former presidents in `04.

Ron Ruggiero of Elk Grove, Calif., is an organizer with Service Employees International Union Local 790.

http://www.populist.com/03.12.ruggiero.html
Copyright © 2003 The Progressive Populist

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

June 15, 2003
U.S. media caved in to the Bush agenda
By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor
Why, readers in the U.S. keep asking me, are so many Americans unconcerned their government appears to have misled them and Congress over Iraq, and then waged a war with no basis in law or fact?

Why is there growing outrage in Britain over Tony Blair`s equally exaggerated or patently false warnings over Iraq, while middle America couldn`t seem to care less about George Bush`s "Weaponsgate."

One answer is found in an old joke.

Greenberg is sitting in a bar. He goes up to Woo, a Chinese gentleman, and punches him.

"Why`d you do that?" cries Woo.

"Because of Pearl Harbor," snarls Greenberg.

"But I had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, I`m Chinese!" says Woo.

"Chinese, Japanese, it`s all the same to me," answers Greenberg.

A month later, Greenberg sees Woo in the bar and apologizes to him. The Chinese gentleman smiles, then punches Greenberg.

"Why did you do that?" cries Greenberg?

"Because of the Titanic."

"What do I have to do with the Titanic?" asks Greenberg.

"Greenberg, iceberg, it`s all the same to me."

Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Saudis, Taliban, al-Qaida ... it`s all too much for many geographically challenged Americans. Don`t bother us with the details and strange names, they say, kill `em all, God will sort `em out. The Muslim `A-rabs` did 9/11 and we got revenge. Whacking those I-raqis made us feel a whole lot better. So what if Saddam didn`t really have the weapons of mass destruction good ol` George W. Bush said endangered the entire world? All politicians lie. So what?"

First, venting national outrage over 9/11 was one factor that helped form this group-think.

Second, starting with Afghanistan, the Bush White House threatened big corporate media it would be held "unpatriotic" and occasionally hinted at unspecified reprisals if coverage did not actively support the war effort there and in Iraq.

Big media too often caved in, sometimes sounding like a public relations arm of the administration.

Third, there was near total domination of Iraq media commentary by the special interest groups that helped to engineer this phony war. Almost all of it in the lead-up to war was done by self-serving Iraqi exiles, uninformed generals and neo-conservatives from Washington think-tanks sometimes echoing the views of Israel`s Likud party. In short, a media lynch mob developed, endlessly repeating that Baghdad`s terrifying killer weapons were about to blitz the U.S.

I scanned the major U.S. networks for voices challenging the distortions and bunkum coming from the White House and neo-cons. There was virtually none.

Group-think and the big lie prevailed. The British and Canadian media carried both pro- and anti-war views; as a result, there was far more healthy skepticism in both nations about the war than in America.

By contrast, much of the U.S. mainstream media muffled criticism, became part of the war effort and devoted itself to patriotic flag-waving. Americans would have been totally misled had it not been for such Internet sites as Antiwar.com, Bigeye and LewRockwell, and incisive magazines such as American Conservative and Harpers.

Even the august New York Times allowed itself to be used. Right now, the Times is hand-wringing about two cases of plagiarism and phony reporting by staffers. It should instead be anguishing that its pages trumpeted phony reports about Iraqi weapons and links to al-Qaida that came from anti-Saddam exile groups and the pro-war cabal in the Pentagon.

Most so-called Iraqi "experts" on TV, including some colleagues of mine, merely regurgitated what they had read in the morning`s Times. The Times and much of the major media were duped, to put it politely, abandoning their vital role in our democratic system as tribune and questioner of the politicians.

So, too, the Democratic party, which, as war fever was being stoked by the Bush administration and the press, shamefully rolled over and played dead - with the exception of that great American, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who long ago denounced Bush`s Iraq misadventure, and who now demands a full investigation of how Americans and their Congress were misled.

Absurd exaggerations

The black comedy continues:



Bush citing what turned out to be crudely forged documents in his state of the union address.


"Drones of death" that turned out to be rickety model airplanes.


The "decontamination" trucks cited by Colin Powell that turned out to be fire trucks when inspected by the UN.


The notorious "mobile germ labs" the British press now reports were for inflating artillery balloons and, in fact, were sold to Iraq by the U.K.

Some British and American intelligence officers are accusing their governments of outright lies or absurd exaggerations.

Maybe Americans have become brain-dead from too much TV. Maybe they don`t care terrorism is surging, or that recent polls show the U.S. is reviled, hated, or distrusted around the globe thanks to this administration and its neo-con mentors. Maybe they don`t understand that over 288 Americans and an estimated 26,300 Iraqi civilians and soldiers have so far died in a totally unnecessary conflict. Or that the U.S. in now stuck in an ugly little colonial war in Iraq, its very own West Bank and Gaza.

(Note to American hate-mailers: spare Canada, I`m a New Yorker.)

http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_jun15.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric can be reached by e-mail at [e-mail].
Letters to the editor should be sent to [e-mail] or visit his home page.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

........................................................................................................[/url]
....................................................................................
And a man`s foes shall be they of his own household.

—Matthew 10:36

his is how they pray: a dozen clear-eyed, smooth-skinned "brothers" gathered together in a huddle, arms crossing arms over shoulders like the weave of a cable, leaning in on one another and swaying like the long grass up the hill from the house they share. The house is a handsome, gray, two-story colonial that smells of new carpet and Pine-Sol and aftershave; the men who live there call it Ivanwald. At the end of a tree-lined cul-de-sac, quiet but for the buzz of lawn mowers and kids playing foxes-and-hounds in the park across the road, Ivanwald sits as one house among many, clustered together like mushrooms, all devoted, like these men, to the service of Jesus Christ. The men tend every tulip in the cul-de-sac, trim every magnolia, seal every driveway smooth and black as boot leather. And they pray, assembled at the dining table or on their lawn or in the hallway or in the bunk room or on the basketball court, each man`s head bowed in humility and swollen with pride (secretly, he thinks) at being counted among such a fine corps for Christ, among men to whom he will open his heart and whom he will remember when he returns to the world not born-again but remade, no longer an individual but part of the Lord`s revolution, his will transformed into a weapon for what the young men call "spiritual war."

"Jeff, will you lead us in prayer?"

Surely, brother. It is April 2002, and I have lived with these men for weeks now, not as a Christian—a term they deride as too narrow for the world they are building in Christ`s honor—but as a "believer." I have shared the brothers` meals and their work and their games. I have been numbered among them and have been given a part in their ministry. I have wrestled with them and showered with them and listened to their stories: I know which man resents his father`s fortune and which man succumbed to the flesh of a woman not once but twice and which man dances so well he is afraid of being taken for a fag. I know what it means to be a "brother," which is to say that I know what it means to be a soldier in the army of God.

"Heavenly Father," I begin. Then, "O Lord," but I worry that this doesn`t sound intimate enough. I settle on, "Dear Jesus." "Dear Jesus, just, please, Jesus, let us fight for Your name."
vanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as "the Family." The Family is, in its own words, an "invisible" association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as "members," as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family`s leaders, "a target for misunderstanding."* The Family`s only publicized gathering is the National Prayer Breakfast, which it established in 1953 and which, with congressional sponsorship, it continues to organize every February in Washington, D.C. Each year 3,000 dignitaries, representing scores of nations, pay $425 each to attend. Steadfastly ecumenical, too bland most years to merit much press, the breakfast is regarded by the Family as merely a tool in a larger purpose: to recruit the powerful attendees into smaller, more frequent prayer meetings, where they can "meet Jesus man to man."

In the process of introducing powerful men to Jesus, the Family has managed to effect a number of behind-the-scenes acts of diplomacy. In 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and more recently, in 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a clandestine meeting, leading to the two sides` eventual peace accord last July. Such benign acts appear to be the exception to the rule. During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa`s postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century`s most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise. "We work with power where we can," the Family`s leader, Doug Coe, says, "build new power where we can`t."

At the 1990 National Prayer Breakfast, George H.W. Bush praised Doug Coe for what he described as "quiet diplomacy, I wouldn`t say secret diplomacy," as an "ambassador of faith." Coe has visited nearly every world capital, often with congressmen at his side, "making friends" and inviting them back to the Family`s unofficial headquarters, a mansion (just down the road from Ivanwald) that the Family bought in 1978 with $1.5 million donated by, among others, Tom Phillips, then the C.E.O. of arms manufacturer Raytheon, and Ken Olsen, the founder and president of Digital Equipment Corporation. A waterfall has been carved into the mansion`s broad lawn, from which a bronze bald eagle watches over the Potomac River. The mansion is white and pillared and surrounded by magnolias, and by red trees that do not so much tower above it as whisper. The mansion is named for these trees; it is called The Cedars, and Family members speak of it as a person. "The Cedars has a heart for the poor," they like to say. By "poor" they mean not the thousands of literal poor living barely a mile away but rather the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom: the senators, generals, and prime ministers who coast to the end of Twenty-fourth Street in Arlington in black limousines and town cars and hulking S.U.V.`s to meet one another, to meet Jesus, to pay homage to the god of The Cedars.

There they forge "relationships" beyond the din of vox populi (the Family`s leaders consider democracy a manifestation of ungodly pride) and "throw away religion" in favor of the truths of the Family. Declaring God`s covenant with the Jews broken, the group`s core members call themselves "the new chosen."

The brothers of Ivanwald are the Family`s next generation, its high priests in training. I had been recommended for membership by a banker acquaintance, a recent Ivanwald alumnus, who had mistaken my interest in Jesus for belief. Sometimes the brothers would ask me why I was there. They knew that I was "half Jewish," that I was a writer, and that I was from New York City, which most of them considered to be only slightly less wicked than Baghdad or Amsterdam. I told my brothers that I was there to meet Jesus, and I was: the new ruling Jesus, whose ways are secret.

From the March 2003 issue of Harper`s Magazine. Copyright © 2003 Harper`s Magazine Foundation. All rights reserved.


Weiter unter:
http://www.harpers.org/online/jesus_plus_nothing/jesus_plus_…

[Joerver]

Wollen die USA ernstmachen?

USA contra Iran

Krieg der Worte

Aufgeheizte Stimmung zwischen dem Iran und den USA. US-Präsident George W. Bush hat pro-demokratischen Demonstranten im Iran Unterstützung zugesagt und ihre Proteste als einen positiven Schritt auf dem Weg zur Freiheit bezeichnet. Teheran wirft ihm im Gegenzug Einmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten Irans vor.


Washington/Teheran - In der iranischen Hauptstadt Teheran war es Sonntag in der fünften Nacht in Folge zu Protesten gegen den herrschenden islamischen Klerus gekommen. Auch aus zwei anderen iranischen Städten wurden kleinere Protestaktionen berichtet. Die Demonstranten fordern von der geistlichen Führung des Iran und von der Regierung Reformen sowie mehr individuelle Freiheit.

"Dies ist der Beginn eines Bekenntnisses der Menschen zu einem freien Iran, was meiner Meinung nach positiv ist", sagte Bush am Sonntag in Kennebunkport, wo er sein Wochenende verbringt. "Ich glaube, dass sich eines Tages die Freiheit überall durchsetzen wird, weil die Freiheit eine mächtige Antriebskraft ist", fügte er hinzu.

Die Demonstrationen am Sonntag verliefen friedlich. Bei einigen Protesten am Samstag war es dagegen zu schweren Gewaltausbrüchen gekommen, weil fundamentalistisch-islamische Gruppen Demonstranten mit Schlagstöcken, Ketten und Messern attackiert hatten.

Die USA hatten die Gewaltanwendung gegen die Demonstranten verurteilt. "Die Vereinigten Staaten sehen den Einsatz von Gewalt gegen iranische Studenten, die friedlich ihre politische Meinung äußern, mit großer Besorgnis", hatte es in einer Erklärung des Präsidialamtes geheißen. "Die Iraner haben wie alle Menschen das Recht, ihr eigenes Schicksal zu bestimmen und die Vereinigten Staaten unterstützen ihr Streben nach einem Leben in Freiheit."

Die Bedeutung der Proteste werde von den USA überinterpretiert, sagte ein Sprecher des iranischen Außenministeriums am Sonntag. "Die Amerikaner ignorieren die Millionen Menschen, die den Obersten Führer und Präsidenten begrüßen, aber sie nennen die Proteste einiger weniger die Stimme des Volkes", fügte der Sprecher hinzu.

Im Iran kontrollieren seit der islamischen Revolution 1979 konservative Geistliche Justiz und Armee. Sie blockieren die Reformen, die Präsident Mohammad Chatami und eine Mehrheit im Parlament anstreben. Nach dem Ende des Irak-Kriegs haben sich die Spannungen zwischen dem Iran und den USA verstärkt. Die USA werfen dem Iran vor, nach Atomwaffen zu streben und den internationalen Terrorismus zu unterstützen. Der Iran hat dies zurückgewiesen.

Aufruf an Deutschland

Der US-Regierungsberater Richard Perle rief Deutschland unterdessen zu einer offenen Unterstützung der Opposition im Iran auf. "Deutschland sollte durch öffentliche Unterstützung dazu beitragen, dass die Stimme der Opposition in Iran lebendig bleibt", hatte Perle am Samstag in Berlin gesagt. Perle ist Mitglied eines Beratergremiums des US-Verteidigungsministeriums und war einer der Planer des Irak-Krieges.

Demonstrant getötet?

Bei den Zusammenstößen zwischen Demonstranten und Anhängern der konservativen geistlichen Führung in Iran ist laut Medienberichten ein Demonstrant getötet worden. Der Mann starb der Zeitung "Nasim-e-Saba" zufolge, nachdem er am Freitag in der Stadt Schiras von selbst ernannten Sicherheitskräften angegriffen worden war. Auch in Teheran eskalierte die Lage. Nach dem Sturm militanter Regime-Anhänger auf Studentenwohnheime griff die Justiz jedoch überraschend durch.

Dutzende Personen wurden nach Berichten des staatlichen Rundfunks festgenommen. Damit wollte sich die ebenfalls von Hardlinern kontrollierte Justiz nach Ansicht von Beobachtern offenbar der Kritik entgegenstellen, sie decke die Gewalt von militanten Gefolgsleuten des Klerus.

In der Nacht zum Samstag hatten Anhänger des höchsten Geistlichen, Ayatollah Ali Chamenei, nach Angaben von Studenten schlafende Bewohner von Studentenwohnheimen angegriffen und mehrere von ihnen festgenommen. Mehr als 50 Studenten seien verletzt worden, zwei Dutzend seien seit dem Überfall verschwunden.

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Several Soldiers Hurt When U.S. Convoy Is Ambushed


By Khaled Yacoub Oweis
Reuters
Sunday, June 15, 2003; 2:30 PM


NEAR BALAD, Iraq, June 15 - Guerrillas ambushed a U.S. convoy in the hostile region north of Baghdad on Sunday, wounding several soldiers, as a new U.S. mission was launched to hunt for Saddam Hussein loyalists blamed for recent attacks.

A crippled U.S. truck smouldered on the highway south of the restive town of Balad after the ambush, its tires and canopy ablaze. Apache helicopters buzzed overhead, searching for the attackers. Tanks and armored vehicles surrounded the truck. Troops trained their guns at the fields around the road.

Soldiers said several casualties had been evacuated.

They said the convoy had been travelling from Baghdad to Balad, about 90 km (60 miles) to the north. It was attacked about 20 km south of Balad.

The ambush came as the U.S. military launched a new mission, Operation Desert Scorpion, to root out Saddam Hussein loyalists after a spate of attacks that have killed about 40 U.S. soldiers since major combat was declared over on May 1.

The new U.S. military sweep followed last week`s Operation Peninsula Strike -- the biggest such U.S. maneuver in Iraq since May 1 -- when a series of raids were mounted in the fertile plains around Balad near the Tigris river.

On Friday morning, seven Iraqis died in an attack by U.S. troops after an American tank patrol was ambushed. That number had been previously reported as 27, but the Army later revised that figure.

The U.S. military has said that some 400 Iraqis were detained in the operation around Balad, which began last Monday and was winding down by the weekend. It said about 60 were still in custody, and four U.S. soldiers were wounded during the operation, along with two Iraqi "hostile civilians."

Angry locals said U.S. troops had ransacked houses and assaulted residents. They said the operation would only serve to fuel hostility towards the U.S. occupiers of Iraq.

The U.S. military said its Operation Desert Scorpion aimed to win hearts and minds as well as hunt guerrillas. A Central Command statement said it was "designed to identify and defeat selected Baath party loyalists, terrorist organisations and criminal elements while delivering humanitarian aid simultaneously."

In the Sunni town of Falluja, 45 miles west of Baghdad, troops searched some houses overnight, but by morning they were distributing food and supplies. Hostility to the Americans is widespread in Falluja after a series of clashes, but the town was quiet on Sunday with a low-key army presence.

The attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and two nearby areas -- to the west around Ramadi and Falluja, and to the north around Balad, Baquba and Tikrit, Saddam`s home town.

Many locals in the troubled areas say they have no love for Saddam but that anger is mounting towards U.S. soldiers.

"We were oppressed under Saddam and now we are oppressed under the Americans," a trader in Falluja said.

U.S. General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a television interview that Saddam was probably still alive and several groups were behind recent attacks.

"I think, probably the majority opinion is that he is alive and it`s something that has to be dealt with," Myers told the U.S. Fox News Channel on Saturday.

Sunday marked the end of a two-week amnesty for Iraqis to hand in heavy weapons without punishment. Iraqis caught with banned weapons without a permit will now face a fine and a jail term of up to a year.

Many Iraqis have complained that they dare not give up their guns until security is restored following the anarchy that ensued after Saddam`s overthrow on April 9.

The U.S. army said that during the amnesty Iraqis handed in 123 pistols, 76 semi-automatic rifles, 435 automatic rifles, 46 machineguns, 11 anti-aircraft weapons and 381 grenades and bombs -- a drop in Iraq`s ocean of weaponry.


© 2003 Reuters

[Joerver]

+Mal was ganz neues. Cohen zum runterladen.7MB

`Waiting For The Miracle`

. . .When you`ve fallen on the highway
and you`re lying in the rain,
and they ask you how you`re feeling
of course you say you can`t complain-
if you`re squeezed for information,
that`s when you`ve got to play it dumb;
You just say you`re out there waiting
for the miracle to come. . . .

Download And Play, `Waiting For The Miracle`,
By Leonard Cohen, mp3 File

Buy The CD, `The Future`, By Leonard Cohen
At Amazon.com



http://www.the-broadside.com/Waiting%20For%20The%20Miracle.m…

.

[Joerver]

Die Fragen werden immer kritischer und direkter.

At least 187 Americans, 37 Britons and thousands of Iraqis have already been killed in the fight to disarm Iraq.


Some in Congress turning skeptical about war rationale
Intelligence hearings to review CIA report
Marc Sandalow, Washington Bureau Chief
Sunday, June 15, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/15/MN27…


Washington -- The first paragraph of a widely distributed CIA report last October was straightforward and emphatic:

"Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

That conclusion was repeated over and over again by top administration officials, including President Bush, as the No. 1 reason to launch a pre- emptive attack on Iraq. It contributed heavily to Congress` strong support for a war resolution.

Now, after three months of mostly futile searches for such weapons, there is growing doubt that the statement is true.

As in the Vietnam War a generation ago, policy-makers are reluctant to make statements that might be interpreted as questioning an action in which so many lost their lives. At least 187 Americans, 37 Britons and thousands of Iraqis have already been killed in the fight to disarm Iraq.


CREDIBILITY QUESTIONED
Yet as Congress begins a high-stakes investigation this week into the intelligence that justified the attack on Iraq, even some who stood behind Bush are openly questioning his administration`s credibility.

"Either the intelligence was an utter, massive failure -- or even worse than that, the books were cooked and there was a preconceived decision to use military force," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, and one of only two Northern California Democrats who voted to give the president authority to go to war last fall.

"We were told directly that (Hussein) was an imminent threat to this country, and we had to change our long-standing policy and wage a pre-emptive strike," Tauscher said. "And now we find that we weren`t being given the full picture. . . . I was certainly misled about Iraq being an imminent threat."

What began a few months ago as a curious absence of weapons is blossoming into a full-fledged credibility crisis. Explanations abound. Some believe the weapons remain hidden in Iraq; some believe they were smuggled into Syria; some believe they were destroyed years ago.

Yet the failure to produce a cache of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons reinforces the belief among some Americans and war opponents around the world that something less politically palatable -- Iraq`s oil fields, defense of Israel, American imperialism -- was the true motivation behind the attack.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and was provided a classified and much fuller report by the CIA in October.

"I am amazed that nothing has been found to date," Feinstein said last week.

"If (weapons of mass destruction) are not found within a relatively short period, there will be an enormous credibility problem for the United States in the eyes of the world -- and in the eyes of many of us."

The efforts of hundreds of troops searching the California-size nation for weapons has so far uncovered only circumstantial evidence: two mobile labs believed to be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons and a cache of protective gas masks.

Yet nothing has been found to verify Secretary of State Colin Powell`s specific claim to the U.N. Security Council in February that "our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents . . . enough agents to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. "

Intelligence officials say that weapons will still be found, noting that Iraq remains quite dangerous. They point to Hussein`s long history of deception and the development of weapons systems built under an inspection regime with a high premium on camouflage and concealment.

"We are confident that we are going to find stuff," said one official.

Those charged with overseeing the intelligence community, however, are beginning to doubt that the certainty of the reports they received can be backed by evidence.

"If the intelligence community had such certainty, how come they couldn`t lead us to (the weapons)?" said House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who spent 10 years on the House Intelligence Committee. "Why couldn`t they lead the United Nations (weapons inspectors) to them?"

There is also concern that if the intelligence reports are correct, that means that huge caches of dangerous weapons may remain, and that even the fall of Baghdad and the collapse of Hussein`s government may not have provided the United States the victory it sought.

"The scariest possibility is that (weapons of mass destruction) are still there under Baghdad, and that folks who want to hurt us know where it is," said Rep. Jane Harman, of Rancho Palos Verdes (Los Angeles County), who replaced Pelosi as the House Intelligence Committee`s top ranking Democrat.

Signs of Hussein`s efforts to stockpile biological, chemical and nuclear weapons go back many years. A White Paper issued by the Department of State under President Bill Clinton in 1998 cited seven years of research by weapons` inspectors and concluded that: "They believe Iraq maintains a small force of Scud-type missiles, a small stockpile of chemical and biological munitions and the capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical weapons production. "

"I don`t think very many people who follow this dispute that," said Harman.

Even Pelosi, who vocally challenged Bush`s contention that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, did not dispute the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons before the war.


LESS CERTAIN
"The neighborhood has them; it`s a dangerous neighborhood," said Pelosi last week, sounding less certain about Iraq`s arsenal. "They could have not found them because they were taken out, or maybe they were given up to the U.N.

already. They could have not found them because they are not there."

Pelosi, who served on the Intelligence Committee longer than any other Democrat, said part of the ambiguity stems from the subjective nature of intelligence reports.

"I could show you a dining room table, with plates and forks and knives for 10, and I could say that`s a beautiful setting. And you could say, `There are 10 weapons.` "

Most of the intelligence information is classified and unavailable to the public. However, even the October CIA report displays a far more nuanced picture in the backup material, using words like "probably" and "strongly suggests," that are absent in the opening paragraphs or in speeches made by Bush and other top officials.

The scheduled congressional hearings, which will take place largely behind closed doors, are unlikely to answer all the public`s questions. Even the information made public is often technical or in densely bureaucratic language.

For example, a statement released by the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday said the panel`s two ranking members noted "the DCI has offered the full cooperation of the IC to assist the HPSCI in its review."

Translation: The CIA director says he`ll cooperate with the committee.

E-mail Marc Sandalow at [e-mail].

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Sidney Morning Herold

A mission in Iraq built on a lie

June 16 2003

When Bush wondered what to do about September 11 an ultra-right lobby group was there to tell him, writes Robert Manne.


It is gradually becoming transparent that the endlessly repeated claim used to justify the invasion of Iraq - that Saddam Hussein possessed a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction - was false.

The 200 most plausible sites for the storage of such weapons have been inspected. Many of the most senior military, intelligence and scientific figures in the regime have been captured and interrogated. Yet not one weapon of mass destruction has so far been found.

The spurious justification constitutes, in my opinion, one of the greatest foreign policy scandals involving Western governments since 1945.

It is surely imperative for all those who care about democracy - whether or not they supported the war - to try to discover an explanation for the deception and the true causes of what has occurred.

One important moment on the road that led to the invasion of Iraq can be found in the formation in 1997 of the Project for the New American Century. This lobby group represented almost all the most powerful figures associated with the defence and foreign policy wing of American neo-conservatism: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol.


The PNAC neocons were all former hardline Cold Warriors and muscular internationalists, who supported the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan with enthusiasm. All were equally contemptuous of the naive liberalism of Jimmy Carter and the status quo realpolitik of Henry Kissinger. All, moreover, regarded the arrival of the era of US global hegemony at the end of the Cold War as providing a splendid opportunity for spreading American ideals of liberal democracy and free trade, if necessary by military means. All supported a serious increase in US defence spending. All were suspicious about the rise of China in the long term. All advocated a policy of preventing the emergence of any superpower rival to the US.

The PNAC neocons were also unconditional supporters of Israel, with close links to the most hawkish elements of Likud. Some advocated pre-emptive strikes of the kind Israel had used in 1981 to take out Iraq`s nuclear plant at Osirak. All were extremely hostile to Israel`s enemies in the Middle East - Syria, Iran and Iraq. Indeed, one of the first initiatives of the PNAC was the publication of an open letter to president Bill Clinton advocating the armed overthrow of Saddam`s regime.

Although some members of the PNAC supported John McCain and not George Bush for the Republican presidential candidacy in 2000, it was the selection of Cheney as Bush`s running mate which provided the neocons with what turned out to be their historic opportunity. With Cheney`s support, 10 of the 18 signatories of the PNAC letter to Clinton on regime change in Iraq moved into key positions in the new Bush Administration. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith were appointed to the three most senior positions in the Department of Defence.

The neocons made little serious policy headway in the first months of the Bush presidency, but then September 11 occurred. In an article in Commentary in February last year, the neo-conservative godfather Norman Podhoretz captured the new situation rather well: "One hears that Bush, who entered the White House without a clear sense of what he wanted to do there, now feels there was a purpose behind his election all along; as a born-again Christian, it is said, he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world."

It did not require the presence of the neocons in the administration to convince Bush to go to war with Afghanistan to destroy the al-Qaeda bases there. Their presence, however, was crucial to the next decision: to move from war against Afghanistan to war against Iraq.

After September 11 Bush was a President in search of a missionary grand strategy for fighting global terrorism and radical Islam. The neocons were the only group inside his administration with a ready blueprint which answered to his mood.

The first significant neocon victory was Bush`s announcement, early last year, concerning the existence of an axis of evil, comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Their even more substantial achievement, however, was as the architects of the new revolutionary US strategic doctrine of September last year. It announced that, as a consequence of the danger of "rogue states" launching surprise attacks on the US or secretly passing weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups, in the future pre-emptive, unilateral US military action against such states might be required.

With this new strategic doctrine the victory of the neocons seemed complete.

It was not quite so. The neocons hoped for a US war against Iraq without sanction from the United Nations. After a short political struggle for the mind of the President, the combined alliance of Tony Blair, Colin Powell at the Department of State and old Republican hawks like James Baker and Brent Scowcroft prevailed. Bush agreed to take his case for war on Iraq to the UN.

Although the true purpose of the neocons` planned war against Iraq was not to disarm Saddam but to bring about "regime change", the case for war had to be argued exclusively in terms of the threat to peace posed by Saddam`s illegal possession of weapons of mass destruction. Fighting wars to bring about regime change is in breach of international law. Such an argument could not be mounted at the UN.

In order to put the case for war, unambiguous evidence of Iraq`s possession of such weapons had to be produced. As is becoming clear, the traditional gatherers of such intelligence - the CIA and the Pentagon`s DIA - had reservations. To achieve greater certainty Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz created, inside the Pentagon, a new body called the Office of Special Plans, under the leadership of a neocon ex-Cold Warrior, Abram Shulsky. As Seymour Hersh has argued in a recent article in The New Yorker, it was through uncritical acceptance or even manipulation of intelligence supplied by Iraqi defectors that the Office of Special Plans was able to deliver the concrete evidence concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the case for war required.

If Hersh is right, it was on the basis of this kind of highly politicised intelligence that Bush, Blair and Howard claimed to know for certain that Saddam had amassed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons which were ready for use; that the production of such weapons was increasing in tempo; that it was almost certain that within a short few years Saddam would be in possession of nuclear weapons as well.

It now appears that every part of this assessment was false. If so, the conclusion seems inescapable. The Anglophone democracies invaded Iraq on the basis of a lie.

Robert Manne is professor of politics at La Trobe University.



This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/15/1055615673779.html

[Joerver]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact



SELECTIVE INTELLIGENCE
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Donald Rumsfeld has his own special sources. Are they reliable?
Issue of 2003-05-12
Posted 2003-05-05
They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal—a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community. These advisers and analysts, who began their work in the days after September 11, 2001, have produced a skein of intelligence reviews that have helped to shape public opinion and American policy toward Iraq. They relied on data gathered by other intelligence agencies and also on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress, or I.N.C., the exile group headed by Ahmad Chalabi. By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush’s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda. As of last week, no such weapons had been found. And although many people, within the Administration and outside it, profess confidence that something will turn up, the integrity of much of that intelligence is now in question.

The director of the Special Plans operation is Abram Shulsky, a scholarly expert in the works of the political philosopher Leo Strauss. Shulsky has been quietly working on intelligence and foreign-policy issues for three decades; he was on the staff of the Senate Intelligence Com-mittee in the early nineteen-eighties and served in the Pentagon under Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle during the Reagan Administration, after which he joined the Rand Corporation. The Office of Special Plans is overseen by Under-Secretary of Defense William Luti, a retired Navy captain. Luti was an early advocate of military action against Iraq, and, as the Administration moved toward war and policymaking power shifted toward the civilians in the Pentagon, he took on increasingly important responsibilities.

W. Patrick Lang, the former chief of Middle East intelligence at the D.I.A., said, “The Pentagon has banded together to dominate the government’s foreign policy, and they’ve pulled it off. They’re running Chalabi. The D.I.A. has been intimidated and beaten to a pulp. And there’s no guts at all in the C.I.A.”

The hostility goes both ways. A Pentagon official who works for Luti told me, “I did a job when the intelligence community wasn’t doing theirs. We recognized the fact that they hadn’t done the analysis. We were providing information to Wolfowitz that he hadn’t seen before. The intelligence community is still looking for a mission like they had in the Cold War, when they spoon-fed the policymakers.”

A Pentagon adviser who has worked with Special Plans dismissed any criticism of the operation as little more than bureaucratic whining. “Shulsky and Luti won the policy debate,” the adviser said. “They beat ’em—they cleaned up against State and the C.I.A. There’s no mystery why they won—because they were more effective in making their argument. Luti is smarter than the opposition. Wolfowitz is smarter. They out-argued them. It was a fair fight. They persuaded the President of the need to make a new security policy. Those who lose are so good at trying to undercut those who won.” He added, “I’d love to be the historian who writes the story of how this small group of eight or nine people made the case and won.”



According to the Pentagon adviser, Special Plans was created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true—that Saddam Hussein had close ties to Al Qaeda, and that Iraq had an enormous arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons that threatened the region and, potentially, the United States.

Iraq’s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction had been a matter of concern to the international community since before the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past. At some point, he assembled thousands of chemical warheads, along with biological weapons, and made a serious attempt to build a nuclear-weapons program. What has been in dispute is how much of that capacity, if any, survived the 1991 war and the years of United Nations inspections, no-fly zones, and sanctions that followed. In addition, since September 11th there have been recurring questions about Iraq’s ties to terrorists. A February poll showed that seventy-two per cent of Americans believed it was likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th attacks, although no definitive evidence of such a connection has been presented.

Rumsfeld and his colleagues believed that the C.I.A. was unable to perceive the reality of the situation in Iraq. “The agency was out to disprove linkage between Iraq and terrorism,” the Pentagon adviser told me. “That’s what drove them. If you’ve ever worked with intelligence data, you can see the ingrained views at C.I.A. that color the way it sees data.” The goal of Special Plans, he said, was “to put the data under the microscope to reveal what the intelligence community can’t see. Shulsky’s carrying the heaviest part.”

Even before September 11th, Richard Perle, who was then the chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, was making a similar argument about the intelligence community’s knowledge of Iraq’s weapons. At a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee hearing in March, 2001, he said, “Does Saddam now have weapons of mass destruction? Sure he does. We know he has chemical weapons. We know he has biological weapons. . . . How far he’s gone on the nuclear-weapons side I don’t think we really know. My guess is it’s further than we think. It’s always further than we think, because we limit ourselves, as we think about this, to what we’re able to prove and demonstrate. . . . And, unless you believe that we have uncovered everything, you have to assume there is more than we’re able to report.”

Last October, an article in the Times reported that Rumsfeld had ordered up an intelligence operation “to search for information on Iraq’s hostile intentions or links to terrorists” that might have been overlooked by the C.I.A. When Rumsfeld was asked about the story at a Pentagon briefing, he was initially vague. “I’m told that after September 11th a small group, I think two to start with, and maybe four now . . . were asked to begin poring over this mountain of information that we were receiving on intelligence-type things.” He went on to say, “You don’t know what you don’t know. So in comes the daily briefer”—from the C.I.A.—“and she walks through the daily brief. And I ask questions. ‘Gee, what about this?’ or ‘What about that? Has somebody thought of this?’” At the same briefing, Rumsfeld said that he had already been informed that there was “solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members.”

If Special Plans was going to search for new intelligence on Iraq, the most obvious source was defectors with firsthand knowledge. The office inevitably turned to Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. The I.N.C., an umbrella organization for diverse groups opposed to Saddam, is constantly seeking out Iraqi defectors. The Special Plans Office developed a close working relationship with the I.N.C., and this strengthened its position in disputes with the C.I.A. and gave the Pentagon’s pro-war leadership added leverage in its constant disputes with the State Department. Special Plans also became a conduit for intelligence reports from the I.N.C. to officials in the White House.

There was a close personal bond, too, between Chalabi and Wolfowitz and Perle, dating back many years. Their relationship deepened after the Bush Administration took office, and Chalabi’s ties extended to others in the Administration, including Rumsfeld; Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy; and I. Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. For years, Chalabi has had the support of prominent members of the American Enterprise Institute and other conservatives. Chalabi had some Democratic supporters, too, including James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A.

There was another level to Chalabi’s relationship with the United States: in the mid-nineteen-nineties, the C.I.A. was secretly funnelling millions of dollars annually to the I.N.C. Those payments ended around 1996, a former C.I.A. Middle East station chief told me, essentially because the agency had doubts about Chalabi’s integrity. (In 1992, Chalabi was convicted in absentia of bank fraud in Jordan. He has always denied any wrongdoing.) “You had to treat them with suspicion,” another former Middle East station chief said of Chalabi’s people. “The I.N.C. has a track record of manipulating information because it has an agenda. It’s a political unit—not an intelligence agency.”



In August, 1995, General Hussein Kamel, who was in charge of Iraq’s weapons program, defected to Jordan, with his brother, Colonel Saddam Kamel. They brought with them crates of documents containing detailed information about Iraqi efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction—much of which was unknown to the U.N. inspection teams that had been on the job since 1991—and were interviewed at length by the U.N. inspectors. In 1996, Saddam Hussein lured the brothers back with a promise of forgiveness, and then had them killed. The Kamels’ information became a major element in the Bush Administration’s campaign to convince the public of the failure of the U.N. inspections.

Last October, in a speech in Cincinnati, the President cited the Kamel defections as the moment when Saddam’s regime “was forced to admit that it had produced more than thirty thousand liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. . . . This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.” A couple of weeks earlier, Vice-President Cheney had declared that Hussein Kamel’s story “should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself.”

The full record of Hussein Kamel’s interview with the inspectors reveals, however, that he also said that Iraq’s stockpile of chemical and biological warheads, which were manufactured before the 1991 Gulf War, had been destroyed, in many cases in response to ongoing inspections. The interview, on August 22, 1995,was conducted by Rolf Ekeus, then the executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, and two of his senior associates—Nikita Smidovich and Maurizio Zifferaro. “You have an important role in Iraq,” Kamel said, according to the record, which was assembled from notes taken by Smidovich. “You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.” When Smidovich noted that the U.N. teams had not found “any traces of destruction,” Kamel responded, “Yes, it was done before you came in.” He also said that Iraq had destroyed its arsenal of warheads. “We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons,” Kamel explained later in the debriefing. “I don’t remember resumption of chemical-weapons production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filling. . . . All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed.”

Kamel also cast doubt on the testimony of Dr. Khidhir Hamza, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected in 1994. Hamza settled in the United States with the help of the I.N.C. and has been a highly vocal witness concerning Iraq’s alleged nuclear ambitions. Kamel told the U.N. interviewers, however, that Hamza was “a professional liar.” He went on, “He worked with us, but he was useless and always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. . . . He was even interrogated by a team before he left and was allowed to go.”

After his defection, Hamza became a senior fellow at the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington disarmament group, whose president, David Albright, was a former U.N. weapons inspector. In 1998, Albright told me, he and Hamza sent publishers a proposal for a book tentatively entitled “Fizzle: Iraq and the Atomic Bomb,” which described how Iraq had failed in its quest for a nuclear device. There were no takers, Albright said, and Hamza eventually “started exaggerating his experiences in Iraq.” The two men broke off contact. In 2000, Hamza published “Saddam’s Bombmaker,” a vivid account claiming that by 1991, when the Gulf War began, Iraq was far closer than had been known to the production of a nuclear weapon. Jeff Stein, a Washington journalist who collaborated on the book, told me that Hamza’s account was “absolutely on the level, allowing for the fact that any memoir puts the author at the center of events, and therefore there is some exaggeration.” James Woolsey, the former head of the C.I.A., said of Hamza, “I think highly of him and I have no reason to disbelieve the claims that he’s made.” Hamza could not be reached for comment. On April 26th, according to the Times, he returned to Iraq as a member of a group of exiles designated by the Pentagon to help rebuild the country’s infrastructure. He is to be responsible for atomic energy.



The advantages and disadvantages of relying on defectors has been a perennial source of dispute within the American intelligence community—as Shulsky himself noted in a 1991 textbook on intelligence that he co-authored. Despite their importance, he wrote, “it is difficult to be certain that they are genuine. . . . The conflicting information provided by several major Soviet defectors to the United States . . . has never been completely sorted out; it bedeviled U.S. intelligence for a quarter of a century.” Defectors can provide unique insight into a repressive system. But such volunteer sources, as Shulsky writes, “may be greedy; they may also be somewhat unbalanced people who wish to bring some excitement into their lives; they may desire to avenge what they see as ill treatment by their government; or they may be subject to blackmail.” There is a strong incentive to tell interviewers what they want to hear.

With the Pentagon’s support, Chalabi’s group worked to put defectors with compelling stories in touch with reporters in the United States and Europe. The resulting articles had dramatic accounts of advances in weapons of mass destruction or told of ties to terrorist groups. In some cases, these stories were disputed in analyses by the C.I.A. Misstatements and inconsistencies in I.N.C. defector accounts were also discovered after the final series of U.N. weapons inspections, which ended a few days before the American assault. Dr. Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in political science at Cambridge University, compiled and examined the information that had been made public and concluded that the U.N. inspections had failed to find evidence to support the defectors’ claims.

For example, many newspapers published extensive interviews with Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a civil engineer who, with the I.N.C.’s help, fled Iraq in 2001, and subsequently claimed that he had visited twenty hidden facilities that he believed were built for the production of biological and chemical weapons. One, he said, was underneath a hospital in Baghdad. Haideri was apparently a source for Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claim, in his presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5th, that the United States had “firsthand descriptions” of mobile factories capable of producing vast quantities of biological weapons. The U.N. teams that returned to Iraq last winter were unable to verify any of al-Haideri’s claims. In a statement to the Security Council in March, on the eve of war, Hans Blix, the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector, noted that his teams had physically examined the hospital and other sites with the help of ground-penetrating radar equipment. “No underground facilities for chemical or biological production or storage were found so far,” he said.

Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and “Frontline,” the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation “was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,” and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain’s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. “We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,” the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane—which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training—when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. “That’s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,” the former agent said. “They train in basements. You don’t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.”

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.



A former Bush Administration intelligence official recalled a case in which Chalabi’s group, working with the Pentagon, produced a defector from Iraq who was interviewed overseas by an agent from the D.I.A. The agent relied on an interpreter supplied by Chalabi’s people. Last summer, the D.I.A. report, which was classified, was leaked. In a detailed account, the London Times described how the defector had trained with Al Qaeda terrorists in the late nineteen-nineties at secret camps in Iraq, how the Iraqis received instructions in the use of chemical and biological weapons, and how the defector was given a new identity and relocated. A month later, however, a team of C.I.A. agents went to interview the man with their own interpreter. “He says, ‘No, that’s not what I said,’” the former intelligence official told me. “He said, ‘I worked at a fedayeen camp; it wasn’t Al Qaeda.’ He never saw any chemical or biological training.” Afterward, the former official said, “the C.I.A. sent out a piece of paper saying that this information was incorrect. They put it in writing.” But the C.I.A. rebuttal, like the original report, was classified. “I remember wondering whether this one would leak and correct the earlier, invalid leak. Of course, it didn’t.”

The former intelligence official went on, “One of the reasons I left was my sense that they were using the intelligence from the C.I.A. and other agencies only when it fit their agenda. They didn’t like the intelligence they were getting, and so they brought in people to write the stuff. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with—to the point of being bizarre. Dogmatic, as if they were on a mission from God.” He added, “If it doesn’t fit their theory, they don’t want to accept it.”



Shulsky’s work has deep theoretical underpinnings. In his academic and think-tank writings, Shulsky, the son of a newspaperman—his father, Sam, wrote a nationally syndicated business column—has long been a critic of the American intelligence community. During the Cold War, his area of expertise was Soviet disinformation techniques. Like Wolfowitz, he was a student of Leo Strauss’s, at the University of Chicago. Both men received their doctorates under Strauss in 1972. Strauss, a refugee from Nazi Germany who arrived in the United States in 1937, was trained in the history of political philosophy, and became one of the foremost conservative émigré scholars. He was widely known for his argument that the works of ancient philosophers contain deliberately concealed esoteric meanings whose truths can be comprehended only by a very few, and would be misunderstood by the masses. The Straussian movement has many adherents in and around the Bush Administration. In addition to Wolfowitz, they include William Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, and Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, who is particularly close to Rumsfeld. Strauss’s influence on foreign-policy decision-making (he never wrote explicitly about the subject himself) is usually discussed in terms of his tendency to view the world as a place where isolated liberal democracies live in constant danger from hostile elements abroad, and face threats that must be confronted vigorously and with strong leadership.

How Strauss’s views might be applied to the intelligence-gathering process is less immediately obvious. As it happens, Shulsky himself explored that question in a 1999 essay, written with Gary Schmitt, entitled “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence (By Which We Do Not Mean Nous)”—in Greek philosophy the term nous denotes the highest form of rationality. In the essay, Shulsky and Schmitt write that Strauss’s “gentleness, his ability to concentrate on detail, his consequent success in looking below the surface and reading between the lines, and his seeming unworldliness . . . may even be said to resemble, however faintly, the George Smiley of John le Carré’s novels.” Echoing one of Strauss’s major themes, Shulsky and Schmitt criticize America’s intelligence community for its failure to appreciate the duplicitous nature of the regimes it deals with, its susceptibility to social-science notions of proof, and its inability to cope with deliberate concealment.

The agency’s analysts, Shulsky and Schmitt argue, “were generally reluctant throughout the Cold War to believe that they could be deceived about any critical question by the Soviet Union or other Communist states. History has shown this view to have been extremely naïve.” They suggested that political philosophy, with its emphasis on the variety of regimes, could provide an “antidote” to the C.I.A.’s failings, and would help in understanding Islamic leaders, “whose intellectual world was so different from our own.”

Strauss’s idea of hidden meaning, Shulsky and Schmitt added, “alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.”

Robert Pippin, the chairman of the Committee on Social Thought at Chicago and a critic of Strauss, told me, “Strauss believed that good statesmen have powers of judgment and must rely on an inner circle. The person who whispers in the ear of the King is more important than the King. If you have that talent, what you do or say in public cannot be held accountable in the same way.” Another Strauss critic, Stephen Holmes, a law professor at New York University, put the Straussians’ position this way: “They believe that your enemy is deceiving you, and you have to pretend to agree, but secretly you follow your own views.” Holmes added, “The whole story is complicated by Strauss’s idea—actually Plato’s—that philosophers need to tell noble lies not only to the people at large but also to powerful politicians.”

When I asked one of Strauss’s staunchest defenders, Joseph Cropsey, professor emeritus of political science at Chicago, about the use of Strauss’s views in the area of policymaking, he told me that common sense alone suggested that a certain amount of deception is essential in government. “That people in government have to be discreet in what they say publicly is so obvious—‘If I tell you the truth I can’t but help the enemy.’” But there is nothing in Strauss’s work, he added, that “favors preëmptive action. What it favors is prudence and sound judgment. If you could have got rid of Hitler in the nineteen-thirties, who’s not going to be in favor of that? You don’t need Strauss to reach that conclusion.”

Some former intelligence officials believe that Shulsky and his superiors were captives of their own convictions, and were merely deceiving themselves. Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of counter-terrorism operations and analysis at the C.I.A., worked with Shulsky at a Washington think tank after his retirement. He said, “Abe is very gentle and slow to anger, with a sense of irony. But his politics were typical for his group—the Straussian view.” The group’s members, Cannistraro said, “reinforce each other because they’re the only friends they have, and they all work together. This has been going on since the nineteen-eighties, but they’ve never been able to coalesce as they have now. September 11th gave them the opportunity, and now they’re in heaven. They believe the intelligence is there. They want to believe it. It has to be there.”



The rising influence of the Office of Special Plans has been accompanied by a decline in the influence of the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. One internal Pentagon memorandum went so far as to suggest that terrorism experts in the government and outside it had deliberately “downplayed or sought to disprove” the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. “For many years, there has been a bias in the intelligence community” against defectors, the memorandum said. It urged that two analysts working with Shulsky be given the authority to “investigate linkages to Iraq” by having access to the “proper debriefing of key Iraqi defectors.”

A former C.I.A. task-force leader who is a consultant to the Bush Administration said that many analysts in the C.I.A. are convinced that the Chalabi group’s defector reports on weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda have produced little of value, but said that the agency “is not fighting it.” He said that the D.I.A. had studied the information as well. “Even the D.I.A. can’t find any value in it.” (The Pentagon, asked for comment, denied that there had been disputes between the C.I.A. and Special Plans over the validity of intelligence.)

In interviews, former C.I.A. officers and analysts described the agency as increasingly demoralized. “George knows he’s being beaten up,” one former officer said of George Tenet, the C.I.A. director. “And his analysts are terrified. George used to protect his people, but he’s been forced to do things their way.” Because the C.I.A.’s analysts are now on the defensive, “they write reports justifying their intelligence rather than saying what’s going on. The Defense Department and the Office of the Vice-President write their own pieces, based on their own ideology. We collect so much stuff that you can find anything you want.”

“They see themselves as outsiders, ” a former C.I.A. expert who spent the past decade immersed in Iraqi-exile affairs said of the Special Plans people. He added, “There’s a high degree of paranoia. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re on the side of angels, and everybody else in the government is a fool.”



More than a year’s worth of increasingly bitter debate over the value and integrity of the Special Plans intelligence came to a halt in March, when President Bush authorized the war against Iraq. After a few weeks of fighting, Saddam Hussein’s regime collapsed, leaving American forces to declare victory against a backdrop of disorder and uncertainty about the country’s future. Ahmad Chalabi and the I.N.C. continued to provoke fights within the Bush Administration. The Pentagon flew Chalabi and hundreds of his supporters, heavily armed, into Iraq, amid tight security, over angry objections from the State Department. Chalabi is now establishing himself in Baghdad. His advocates in the Pentagon point out that he is not only a Shiite, like the majority of Iraqis, but also, as one scholar put it, “a completely Westernized businessman” (he emigrated to England with his parents in 1958, when he was a boy), which is one reason the State Department doubts whether he can gain support among Iraqis.

Chalabi is not the only point of contention, however. The failure, as of last week, to find weapons of mass destruction in places where the Pentagon’s sources confidently predicted they would be found has reanimated the debate on the quality of the office’s intelligence. A former high-level intelligence official told me that American Special Forces units had been sent into Iraq in mid-March, before the start of the air and ground war, to investigate sites suspected of being missile or chemical- and biological-weapon storage depots. “They came up with nothing,” the official said. “Never found a single Scud.”

Since then, there have been a number of false alarms and a tip that weapons may have been destroyed in the last days before the war, but no solid evidence. On April 22nd, Hans Blix, hours before he asked the U.N. Security Council to send his team back to Iraq, told the BBC, “I think it’s been one of the disturbing elements that so much of the intelligence on which the capitals built their case seemed to have been so shaky.”

There is little self-doubt or second-guessing in the Pentagon over the failure to immediately find the weapons. The Pentagon adviser to Special Plans told me he believed that the delay “means nothing. We’ve got to wait to get all the answers from Iraqi scientists who will tell us where they are.” Similarly, the Pentagon official who works for Luti said last week, “I think they’re hidden in the mountains or transferred to some friendly countries. Saddam had enough time to move them.” There were suggestions from the Pentagon that Saddam might be shipping weapons over the border to Syria. “It’s bait and switch,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “Bait them into Iraq with weapons of mass destruction. And, when they aren’t found, there’s this whole bullshit about the weapons being in Syria.”

In Congress, a senior legislative aide said, “Some members are beginning to ask and to wonder, but cautiously.” For now, he told me, “the members don’t have the confidence to say that the Administration is off base.” He also commented, “For many, it makes little difference. We vanquished a bad guy and liberated the Iraqi people. Some are astute enough to recognize that the alleged imminent W.M.D. threat to the U.S. was a pretext. I sometimes have to pinch myself when friends or family ask with incredulity about the lack of W.M.D., and remind myself that the average person has the idea that there are mountains of the stuff over there, ready to be tripped over. The more time elapses, the more people are going to wonder about this, but I don’t think it will sway U.S. public opinion much. Everyone loves to be on the winning side.”



Weapons may yet be found. Iraq is a big country, as the Administration has repeatedly pointed out in recent weeks. In a speech last week, President Bush said, “We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.” Meanwhile, if the American advance hasn’t uncovered stashes of weapons of mass destruction, it has turned up additional graphic evidence of the brutality of the regime. But Saddam Hussein’s cruelty was documented long before September 11th, and was not the principal reason the Bush Administration gave to the world for the necessity of war.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has been a strong supporter of the President’s decision to overthrow Saddam. “I do think building a democratic secular state in Iraq justifies everything we’ve done,” Kerrey, who is now president of New School University, in New York, told me. “But they’ve taken the intelligence on weapons and expanded it beyond what was justified.” Speaking of the hawks, he said, “It appeared that they understood that to get the American people on their side they needed to come up with something more to say than ‘We’ve liberated Iraq and got rid of a tyrant.’ So they had to find some ties to weapons of mass destruction and were willing to allow a majority of Americans to incorrectly conclude that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the World Trade Center. Overemphasizing the national-security threat made it more difficult to get the rest of the world on our side. It was the weakest and most misleading argument we could use.” Kerrey added, “It appears that they have the intelligence. The problem is, they didn’t like the conclusions.”

[Joerver]

Wer will da noch behaupten, der Krieg sei zu Ende

Policing Iraqis tests US troops
Rory McCarthy in Falluja
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

Hundreds of American soldiers swept through Falluja yesterday in a further, apparently more precise, operation against guerrilla resistance. Eight men were arrested.

Last week soldiers arrested 400 people in Duluiyah, north of Baghdad,"to capture or destroy terrorist elements", but by the end of the week all but 60 had been released without charge.

US officials then claimed that 27 members of an "organised group" which attacked a tank convoy in the village of al-Hir early on Friday had been killed. It now seems that only seven men died, five of them apparently innocent farmers.

Last week US jets bombed a camp in Rawa, near the Syrian border, killing 70 people, who appeared to be guerrillas, and destroying dozens of crates of weapons.

These operations are highlighting the complexities facing the US forces as they shift from combat to policing a heavily armed country, and try to root out a small but determined guerrilla force.

Last night, the US troops faced resistance in the form of an ambush. A military convoy was attacked on a highway near Balad. A truck was set ablaze, apparently after being hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. A Reuters correspondent, Khaled Yacoub Oweis, said US Apache helicopters were flying in the area and tanks and armoured personnel carriers were at the spot, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. Soldiers said several casualties had been evacuated.

Earlier yesterday, at 2am, more than 1,300 soldiers, backed by helicopters and tanks, entered Falluja. They raided farmhouses north-west of the town, arresting seven people. Another was arrested for violating the curfew.

Soldiers delivered food, school books, medicine, and toys, to win the support of the deeply conservative Sunni Muslim town. Yesterday an army "psychological operations team" in Humvees fitted with loudspeakers toured the town trying to explain the raid.

The announcement said: "Coalition forces arrested resistance fighters loyal to the Ba`ath and the fedayeen. These people were a threat and danger to the security of the people in Falluja and the coalition force. Arresting these wanted men makes Falluja safer."

The message encouraged former soldiers to go to the mayor`s office to apply for jobs in the new Iraqi army.

In public at least, few of the townspeople appeared convinced. "Under our law you are innocent until proved guilty but the Americans punish us before we are found guilty," said Khalaf Abid Shabibh, 82.

He and his four sons were released on Thursday after 10 days in US custody, accused of allowing Saddam Hussein or his family to hide in their house. "I`ve never met Saddam, I`m just an ordinary merchant. These Americans are savages. They should know that violence creates violence."

On Saturday hundreds from the Khazraji tribe, one of the few Shia tribes in this Sunni-dominated area, gathered at a farmhouse in al-Hir to mourn the death of five farmers shot dead by Americans on Friday. Villagers said two men attacked tanks near the village and they were killed. But in the exchange of fire the tanks machine-gunned five others who lived in a nearby farmhouse.

Relatives said the first shots killed Ali Jassam Abbas, 75, who was sleeping in a tent in his sunflower fields. Four of his sons and his grandson heard the shots and went running towards him. They too were shot.

The brothers Hamza Ali, 35, Abid Ali, 32, and Amr Ali, 31; and Abbas` grandson Qasim Jabbar, 20 were killed. The fourth brother, Mazhar Ali, was badly injured in the leg.

Their cousin Saad Hashim Atyia, 43, said: "When they started running the Americans started shooting."

An officer went to the family home later to apologise.

"He apologised, but we do not accept that. At the beginning we were pleased the Americans came to Iraq. But now they are not fulfilling their promises."


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Money no object as the Bush fundraising juggernaut sets off
President aims to collect $20m in just two weeks in bid for 2004 re-election

Gary Younge in New York
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

In preparation for his failed bid for Congress in 1978 a young George Bush went to a Republican party candidate school, where he was visited with a flash of inspiration. "I`ve got the greatest idea of how to raise money for the campaign," he told David Dreier, now a California Congressman. "Have your mother send a letter to your family`s Christmas-card list! I just did, and I got $350,000."

The Bushes have never had much problem raising money. They are well connected in politics and deeply embedded into the corporate world over generations, and money sticks to them like scandal stuck to the Clintons - partly because of what they do but largely because of who they are.

President Bush, however, has turned it into an art form. This week he kicks off a fund-raising binge during which he aims to collect $20m (£12m) in just two weeks - only slightly less than all the nine Democratic presidential hopefuls managed to raise in three months combined.

The following fortnight will see the president attend seven fundraisers, vice president Dick Cheney four, and first lady Laura Bush three. Bush-Cheney 04 Inc, the election committee they established less than a month ago, is hoping to set records in fundraising that both convince the Republican party base of his invincibility and intimidate the Democrats before they have even started.

Tomorrow he will be the guest of honour at a $2,000 a head reception at the Washington Hilton. After that he will head to Georgia, New York, and California, while his wife, Laura, and Mr Cheney concentrate primarily on swing states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

During the last elections Mr Bush broke the mould of presidential fundraising, forgoing public financing and the limits that come with it, and collecting more than $100m. For the next election, standing as an incumbent with audiences looking back on September 11 and ahead to the fruits of his tax cuts, he is looking to double his money. Nobody, in either party, doubts his ability to do so.

He could raise as much as $5m next week in New York in one night alone - $2m more than what is believed to be the record for the most successful fundraiser to date, held in the city by Mr Bush in 1999. The event, an evening reception at the New York Sheraton, will bring together leading lights in finance, insur ance, law and construction.

"This thing is blown wide open," James Ortenzio, chairman of the Republican committee in Manhattan, told the New York Observer. "The response for this event, and the other Bush events, defies the political laws of physics."

Effortless


The beauty of it is that fundraising for Mr Bush is now virtually effortless: his presidential presence is sufficient to draw in donations. All his Republican supporters have to do is riffle through their rollerdexes in search of more phone numbers. "No one is turning down any calls or saying `I don`t want to contribute`," said one of Mr Bush`s most active fundraisers.

By contrast, raising money for Mr Bush`s Democratic candidates is hard graft. "The fundamental difference is that Bush himself spends no time on it," Steve Elmendorf, a senior aide to Democratic hopeful Dick Gephardt who spends eight hours a day seeking contributions, told the New York Times. "He gets on a plane, shows up for 15 minutes, and leaves. And each of these [Democratic] candidates spends volumes of time on the phone asking for money."

The Republicans began asking for money two weeks after Mr Bush`s prime time landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, in a Viking jet, to declare the war against Iraq had ended. "It`s just a matter of finding someone who hasn`t gotten calls from other people making calls."

In 2000 Mr Bush created a network of fundraisers who sought donations on his behalf. More than 200 people managed to collect at least $100,000 and earned themselves the title "pioneers", which facilitated their access to the higher reaches of the administration. This year they have created a new, higher rank for the chief money-makers - "rangers". They have pledged to raise at least $200,000. Top of the pile, however, remain the "regents" who can conjure up at least $250,000.

Democratic efforts pale by comparison, partly because there are so many candidates at this stage but also because their base is far poorer. Last Saturday Senator John Edwards, a Democratic contender from North Carolina, held a fundraiser for $50 a head in Raleigh, in his home state.

The Democrats may be forced to make Mr Bush`s financial superiority an issue. "The way he raises money shows what kind of trouble democracy is in in this country," said Howard Dean, another Democratic presidential candidate.

"The Democrats have no choice but to try to make money Bush`s liability," one Republican fundraiser told the New York Times. "They have to try to tie the money to special interests, tie the special interests to unpopular issues, and then tie it all around Bush`s neck. The problem is that Democrats are taking special interest money, too."

Momentum


Money in American politics has its own momentum. Potential donors assess a candidate`s viability not just by their standing in the polls but also by the size of their coffers.

Those who appear to have the best chance of winning then attract more money while those with less money lag behind or drop out. By racing ahead in fundraising so early, Mr Bush is making a statement about his intention to dominate the race. Such a strategy is not without problems. During the last election bad weather forced Mr Bush to miss an event at a school in Rhode Island. He did, though, make it to a $1,000 a head Republican bash that was next on his schedule. Seizing on the blunder, the Democratic challenger, Al Gore, rearranged his plans so he could go the school, leaving Mr Bush in disgrace. "You`re getting a lot of attention at this school," Mr Gore told the children. "And you know why? Because your education is the most important thing to the people who came here."

Democrats hope that similar gaffes, allied to a strong campaign that motivates their base, could yet neutralise Mr Bush`s cash advantage." It`s no surprise to anyone that the money Bush raises is going to be off the charts," said Democratic consultant Howard Wolfson. "Does having these resources help him? Absolutely. Is it going to re-elect him president? That remains to be seen."

It`s all about the cash, stupid

· Mark Hanna, who raised more than $70m in today`s money as manager of William McKinley`s 1896 presidential election campaign, said: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can`t remember the second one."

· The cost of a presidential candidacy has been rising steadily for decades. In 1980 the combined field of would-be presidents raised $92m. In 2000 the figure was $351m. In every election since 1976 the candidate who has raised most money by the end of the year preceding the election has gone on to win his party`s nomination.

· During the 1988 election George Bush the elder and Michael Dukakis each received $46m in public funds. The public payments were intended to keep the candidates from soliciting funds from major contributors. But the Bush and Dukakis campaigns then raised a further $25m each in $100,000 donations through national Republican and Democratic parties.

· A fundraising dinner organised by the Republican National Committee in January 1996 promised those who donated $250,000 private meetings with House and Senate committee chairmen, lunch with Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker, and a private reception with Republican presidential candidates.

· In the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign, 81 people raised more than $53,000 each. Of these, 20 became ambassadors or received some other choice offer from the administration. In addition, all but 28 were treated to at least one of the infamous White House coffees. There were allegations of the misuse of White House facilities - coffee mornings, dinners and overnight stays in the Lincoln bedroom - related to Clinton`s re-election campaign.

· During the same campaign Al Gore drew controversy for his visit to a Buddhist temple in California, where campaign contributions were made in violation of a law banning fundraising at religious sites. He has repeatedly said he did not know the visit was a fundraising event.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

John Ashcroft hat sich auch noch sehr unbeliebt gemacht bei den Schwulen, weil er Veranstaltungen in Washington verboten hat.

Gay is the new black
The gay rights issue has been a ticking timebomb for the Bush government. And now it looks about to explode

Gary Younge
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

"The difference between being black and being gay," said one gay activist, "is that you don`t have to come down at breakfast one morning and break it to your parents: `Mum, Dad, I`m black.`" In American politics at present it also means that if you`re black, you are less likely to be the subject of overt abuse from Republicans. And if you are, then you can at least usually expect them to be punished for it.

The same can not be said for lesbians and gay men. Six months after senator Trent Lott was forced to resign after suggesting that America would have been a better place if a segregationist had won the presidency in the 40s, his colleagues appear free to spout homophobia at will and whim.

Most recent was the decision by the US justice department - where attorney general John Ashcroft holds prayer meetings every morning - to ban its employees from holding a lesbian and gay pride event (this is gay pride month). Such was the furore that by the end of last week the decision had been partly reversed - the event can go ahead but this time without government funding. More shocking was Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum - number three in the nation`s upper chamber - who in April ranked homosexuality alongside polygamy, incest, adultery and bestiality.

After some initial dithering, to gauge the public mood, Lott was dumped. After similar prevarication, Santorum was defended. "[He] took a very courageous and moral position based upon principles and his world view," said Tom DeLay, the house majority leader.

Republican strategist, Rich Galen, summed up the contradiction thus: "In America in 2003, you can`t say bad things about African-Americans, but you can still say bad things about gays. That`s where we are."

That is is not quite true. Racism in America`s public discourse is certainly more subtle than homophobia, but no less pervasive. Whenever politicians refer to welfare, crime, inner-city deprivation, teenage pregnancy or affirmative action - which is often - they are talking about race, and rarely in terms supportive of minorities.

While racism has been employed to galvanise the white Republican base in past elections - most notably by president George Bush`s father in 1988 and Newt Gingrich in 1994 - homophobia may yet become the rallying cry for the next one. When it comes to finding a signifier for the indulgent excesses of liberal Democrats and the Republicans` no-nonsense adherence to the values of middle America, gay is the new black.

"Candidate Bush said in the second [presidential] debate that he felt marriage was a sacred covenant, limited to a man and a woman," said Kenneth Connor, president of the rightwing Family Research Council. "That was not a huge issue in 2000. Mark it down. It will be a big, big issue in 2004."

This is not President Bush`s wish. He would rather the whole issue just went away. Since he came to office he has appointed an openly gay ambassador and Aids tsar. But all his judicial appointments so far have been hostile to gay rights, and his refusal to reprimand Santorum indicates that he is all too willing to tolerate intolerance in his ranks.

For Bush this is not a matter of moral principle but political calculation. He has made enough of an impact on restricting abortion rights to keep the faithful happy and provide a lightning rod for Democrats and women`s groups. He does not need any more enemies. As the standard-bearer of compassionate conservatism he has no wish to be seen as isolating a relatively small group for special opprobrium - unless of course they are Arab immigrants, in which case he can hide behind national security. The order to allow the justice department`s gay pride event to go ahead after all is widely believed to have come from the White House.

Moreover, the ramifications of scapegoating lesbians and gays would go way beyond the actual gay voters - who according to the gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, comprise just 5% of the electorate. A Republican party that is mean to a few is widely regarded as having the potential to be mean to the many. The issue of sexual orientation may not be as explosive a touchstone as race, but a homophobic campaign would attract few new voters and repel many - particularly among moderates, women and the young. The issue of gay marriage is incredibly divisive. Polls show that while most Americans (51%) are against it, more than a third - a large proportion of whom are women - support it.

The response to last weekend`s lingering televised kiss between Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, two gay winners of the Tony awards, also suggests political culture is lagging way behind popular culture. "I love this man," said Shaiman. "We`re not allowed to get married in this world ... But I`d like to declare, in front of all these people, I love you and I`d like to live with you the rest of my life." The audience cheered. Of the 8 million viewers there were just 10 phone calls and 68 emails containing negative feedback.

Despite this, some of Bush`s most fervent and active supporters are still keen to bring the issue to the fore. Conservative Christians, who used to exert pressure from outside, now form an influential base within the party. Today they exercise either "strong" or "moderate" influence in 44 Republican state committees, compared with 31 in 1994, according to a study in Washington magazine Campaigns and Elections. The man who used to run the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, is now the head of the Georgia Republican party.

The conservative right have been increasingly irritated with what they regard as Bush`s ambivalent attitude towards gay rights. After Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, met with the HRC, Connor asked whether he was fit to run Bush`s campaign, claiming he was "out of touch with Bush`s most loyal and committed voters".

Whether the evangelical right can deliver on their threats is another matter. As fundamentalists, compromise does not come easily to conservative Christians - particularly on social issues. But with Bush enjoying more than 90% approval ratings among Republicans, the president could call their bluff. He knows they won`t vote Democrat, though he fears they might stay at home.

And even if Bush could persuade his own side to bury the subject, the courts could resurrect it. A supreme court ruling on a law in Texas which criminalises sexual practices between same-sex couples that are lawful when performed by heterosexuals, is expected by the end of today. The Massachusetts supreme court should rule on the legality of same-sex marriages by mid-July.

The most that conservatives can hope from either judgment is a confirmation of the status quo. More likely, however, is that one or both will extend the rights of lesbians and gay men, sending the Christian right into a frenzy and demanding that Bush make a stand. Under pressure from his own side he would be forced to show us where the conservatism ends and compassion really starts.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Iraq`s lethal peace
It could yet change American minds

Leader
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

In the latest US ground strikes against Iraqi "militants" such as yesterday`s raid on Falluja, the local people have used signalling systems - including lights and coloured flares - when the American forces approach. These signals, says the US command, are evidence of civilian collusion with "Ba`athist fighters" in their midst, further proof that tough action is justified. The citizens of Falluja and elsewhere have a simpler explanation: they need to warn their neighbours to take cover from an invader who, in the words of its commander Lt Gen David McKiernan, will "strike hard and with lethal force" whenever it thinks fit.

These ambiguities are familiar in any situation when an occupying army is confronted by resistance on the ground. Some of those targeted over the last few days in the Sunni strongholds north of Baghdad may indeed be "Saddam loyalists". Others will be ordinary people shot because they were misidentified or in the wrong place, whose tragedies quickly become a footnote in last week`s wire stories. Operation Peninsula Strike has left more than 100 dead and taken 400 prisoners, of whom 60 were later released as being "of no use to American officials". How many of the dead would also have been "of no use"?

The grim story reported by our correspondent today from a village north of Baghdad, where a family of shepherds were shot by US tanks, is just one of many. In another incident last week, a family were killed as they "worked in their wheat field to extinguish fires set by US flares".

The US commanders themselves acknowledge that their occupation has met growing resistance and that they are engaged in what Gen McKiernan calls "a cycle of action, reaction and counter-action." Significantly, this realisation is reaching deep into the US heartland. Newspapers from Cleveland, Tallahassee, Charlotte and Salt Lake City carried headlines this weekend such as "Losing the peace", "Iraq war still hot, commanders say", "Civilian deaths intensify anti-US ire" and "The war is over, but US soldiers keep dying".

Almost unnoticed outside Iraq, the senior US administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has issued a proclamation outlawing any "gatherings, pronouncements or publications" that call for the return of the Ba`ath party - or for opposition to the US occupation. Mr Bremer has tried to reassure by saying that the armed attacks on US forces are only "five or six or maybe 10 (fighters), no evidence of central command and control". If opposition is so small-scale, what is the need for such a blanket proclamation?

It also puts into dubious perspective Mr Bremer`s insistence that the Iraqi people are free to decide their future for themselves (even if they "choose socialism", he told journalists last week). In reality, the US applauds demonstrators who protest against the religious regime in Iran, but bans those who object to the occupying regime in Iraq.

The latest military offensives, with their ambiguous bodycounts and dodgy "terrorist" identifications, began to recall the US "search and destroy" operations in Vietnam over 30 years ago. So does the talk of a "counter-insurgency" campaign though as yet on a smaller scale. One crucial difference is that US public opinion has continued to support the president. According to Gallup, 70% say that things are going well for the US, even if there are more doubts about the "WMD threat". Yet the longer that US troops remain at war - whatever it is called - in Iraq, the more that public support will be tested.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

So langsam machen sich die Auswirkungen des Irak Kriege auf die anderen Länder bemerkbar. Der befürchtete Stich ins Wespennest.

Intense security after `terror` gunfight in Mecca
Jonathan Steele
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

Saudi troops threw up unprecedentedly tight security checkpoints throughout Mecca, Islam`s holiest city, yesterday, after a fierce gun battle with a suspected terrorist group left two police officers and five militants dead.

The clash between the Saudi authorities and Islamic militants in the birthplace of the prophet Mohammed is likely to add new fuel to accusations that the government is a puppet of the United States.

Washington has been urging the Saudis to take firmer action against extremists in the kingdom, particularly since nine Americans and several other foreigners were killed on May 12 when a group of suicide bombers blew up buildings in three residential compounds in the capital, Riyadh.

Co-ordinated attacks in three separate places by such a large group of suicide bombers have not been seen since the September 11 attacks in the US. Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis.

In Mecca yesterday, soldiers were stopping and searching cars on the outskirts and at checkpoints all over the city. Women`s handbags were searched, a rare step in a country which enforces gender segregation.

The violence erupted on Saturday night with a shoot-out at a block of flats in the middle class al-Khalidiya district. The area is three miles from Mecca`s main mosque which is the site of the annual Muslim pilgrimage known as the hajj.

Saudi television said police killed five suspected "terrorists" and arrested several others who were plotting an "imminent terrorist attack". It gave no details of the target.

An interior ministry source was quoted as saying the apartment was rigged with explosives, and police found 72 homemade bombs, machine guns, ammunition, and chemical substances used for making explosives.

Five people were arrested - two Chad nationals, one Egyptian, one Saudi, and a fifth whose nationality was not known - in addition to several other suspects, the television said. Five people from the neighbourhood were slightly injured in the operation.

It was not immediately clear if the attacks were linked to the suicide bombings which killed 35 people in Riyadh. But Saudi authorities are under pressure to find the organisers of the attacks, which they blamed on Osama bin Laden`s al Qaeda network.

Earlier, Saudi authorities announced the arrests of a number of people in Medina, Islam`s second holiest city, where Mohammed is buried. They said the arrests were peaceful, but security in Medina has also been very tight recently. Accused of act ing too slowly against Islamic extremism after the attacks in the US, Saudi authorities have tried to show a strong commitment to fighting terrorism since similar extremism hit home.

The government last week announced it had fired several hundred Islamic clerics and suspended more than 1,000 for preaching intolerance.

It also said it had implemented new regulations to prevent flow of Saudi money to terrorist groups overseas. Adel al-Jubeir, a senior foreign policy adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, claimed the Riyadh bombings had "galvanised" his government.

The government last week announced names of 12 nationals whom it said were the suicide bombers who carried out the triple attacks in Riyadh. Twenty-five suspects are being held.

Along with the unusual roadblocks in Mecca yesterday, police patrolled inside and outside Al-Nur hospital, where those wounded in Saturday`s clash were taken.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Orwell and me
Margaret Atwood cried her eyes out when she first read Animal Farm at the age of nine. Later, its author became a major influence on her writing. As the centenary of George Orwell`s birth approaches, she says he would have plenty to say about the post-9/11 world

Margaret Atwood
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian

I grew up with George Orwell. I was born in 1939, and Animal Farm was published in 1945. Thus, I was able to read it at the age of nine. It was lying around the house, and I mistook it for a book about talking animals, sort of like Wind in the Willows. I knew nothing about the kind of politics in the book - the child`s version of politics then, just after the war, consisted of the simple notion that Hitler was bad but dead. So I gobbled up the adventures of Napoleon and Snowball, the smart, greedy, upwardly mobile pigs, and Squealer the spin-doctor, and Boxer the noble but thick-witted horse, and the easily led, slogan-chanting sheep, without making any connection with historical events.

To say that I was horrified by this book is an understatement. The fate of the farm animals was so grim, the pigs so mean and mendacious and treacherous, the sheep so stupid. Children have a keen sense of injustice, and this was the thing that upset me the most: the pigs were so unjust. I cried my eyes out when Boxer the horse had an accident and was carted off to be made into dog food, instead of being given the quiet corner of the pasture he`d been promised.

The whole experience was deeply disturbing to me, but I am forever grateful to Orwell for alerting me early to the danger flags I`ve tried to watch out for since. In the world of Animal Farm, most speechifying and public palaver is bullshit and instigated lying, and though many characters are good-hearted and mean well, they can be frightened into closing their eyes to what`s really going on. The pigs browbeat the others with ideology, then twist that ideology to suit their own purposes: their language games were evident to me even at that age. As Orwell taught, it isn`t the labels - Christianity, Socialism, Islam, Democracy, Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good, the works - that are definitive, but the acts done in their name.

I could see, too, how easily those who have toppled an oppressive power take on its trappings and habits. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was right to warn us that democracy is the hardest form of government to maintain; Orwell knew that to the marrow of his bones, because he had seen it in action. How quickly the precept "All Animals Are Equal" is changed into "All Animals Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal Than Others". What oily concern the pigs show for the welfare of the other animals, a concern that disguises their contempt for those they are manipulating. With what alacrity do they put on the once-despised uniforms of the tyrannous humans they have overthrown, and learn to use their whips. How self-righteously they justify their actions, helped by the verbal web-spinning of Squealer, their nimble-tongued press agent, until all power is in their trotters, pretence is no longer necessary, and they rule by naked force. A revolution often means only that: a revolving, a turn of the wheel of fortune, by which those who were at the bottom mount to the top, and assume the choice positions, crushing the former power-holders beneath them. We should beware of all those who plaster the landscape with large portraits of themselves, like the evil pig, Napoleon.

Animal Farm is one of the most spectacular Emperor-Has-No-Clothes books of the 20th century, and it got George Orwell into trouble. People who run counter to the current popular wisdom, who point out the uncomfortably obvious, are likely to be strenuously baa-ed at by herds of angry sheep. I didn`t have all that figured out at the age of nine, of course - not in any conscious way. But we learn the patterns of stories before we learn their meanings, and Animal Farm has a very clear pattern.

Then along came Nineteen Eighty-Four, which was published in 1949. Thus, I read it in paperback a couple of years later, when I was in high school. Then I read it again, and again: it was right up there among my favourite books, along with Wuthering Heights. At the same time, I absorbed its two companions, Arthur Koestler`s Darkness At Noon and Aldous Huxley`s Brave New World. I was keen on all three of them, but I understood Darkness At Noon to be a tragedy about events that had already happened, and Brave New World to be a satirical comedy, with events that were unlikely to unfold in exactly that way. (Orgy-Porgy, indeed.) Nineteen Eighty-Four struck me as more realistic, probably because Winston Smith was more like me - a skinny person who got tired a lot and was subjected to physical education under chilly conditions (this was a feature of my school) - and who was silently at odds with the ideas and the manner of life proposed for him. (This may be one of the reasons Nineteen-Eighty-Four is best read when you are an adolescent: most adolescents feel like that.) I sympathised particularly with Winston`s desire to write his forbidden thoughts down in a deliciously tempting, secret blank book: I had not yet started to write, but I could see the attractions of it. I could also see the dangers, because it`s this scribbling of his - along with illicit sex, another item with considerable allure for a teenager of the 50s - that gets Winston into such a mess.

Animal Farm charts the progress of an idealistic movement of liberation towards a totalitarian dictatorship headed by a despotic tyrant; Nineteen Eighty-Four describes what it`s like to live entirely within such a system. Its hero, Winston, has only fragmentary memories of what life was like before the present dreadful regime set in: he`s an orphan, a child of the collectivity. His father died in the war that has ushered in the repression, and his mother has disappeared, leaving him with only the reproachful glance she gave him as he betrayed her over a chocolate bar - a small betrayal that acts both as the key to Winston`s character and as a precursor to the many other betrayals in the book.

The government of Airstrip One, Winston`s "country", is brutal. The constant surveillance, the impossibility of speaking frankly to anyone, the looming, ominous figure of Big Brother, the regime`s need for enemies and wars - fictitious though both may be - which are used to terrify the people and unite them in hatred, the mind-numbing slogans, the distortions of language, the destruction of what has really happened by stuffing any record of it down the Memory Hole - these made a deep impression on me. Let me re-state that: they frightened the stuffing out of me. Orwell was writing a satire about Stalin`s Soviet Union, a place about which I knew very little at the age of 14, but he did it so well that I could imagine such things happening anywhere.

There is no love interest in Animal Farm, but there is in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Winston finds a soulmate in Julia; outwardly a devoted Party fanatic, secretly a girl who enjoys sex and makeup and other spots of decadence. But the two lovers are discovered, and Winston is tortured for thought-crime - inner disloyalty to the regime. He feels that if he can only remain faithful in his heart to Julia, his soul will be saved - a romantic concept, though one we are likely to endorse. But like all absolutist governments and religions, the Party demands that every personal loyalty be sacrificed to it, and replaced with an absolute loyalty to Big Brother. Confronted with his worst fear in the dreaded Room 101, where a nasty device involving a cage-full of starving rats can be fitted to the eyes, Winston breaks: "Don`t do it to me," he pleads, "do it to Julia." (This sentence has become shorthand in our household for the avoidance of onerous duties. Poor Julia - how hard we would make her life if she actually existed. She`d have to be on a lot of panel discussions, for instance.)

After his betrayal of Julia, Winston becomes a handful of malleable goo. He truly believes that two and two make five, and that he loves Big Brother. Our last glimpse of him is sitting drink-sodden at an outdoor cafe, knowing he`s a dead man walking and having learned that Julia has betrayed him, too, while he listens to a popular refrain: "Under the spreading chestnut tree/ I sold you and you sold me ..."

Orwell has been accused of bitterness and pessimism - of leaving us with a vision of the future in which the individual has no chance, and where the brutal, totalitarian boot of the all-controlling Party will grind into the human face, for ever. But this view of Orwell is contradicted by the last chapter in the book, an essay on Newspeak - the doublethink language concocted by the regime. By expurgating all words that might be troublesome - "bad" is no longer permitted, but becomes "double-plus-ungood" - and by making other words mean the opposite of what they used to mean - the place where people get tortured is the Ministry of Love, the building where the past is destroyed is the Ministry of Information - the rulers of Airstrip One wish to make it literally impossible for people to think straight. However, the essay on Newspeak is written in standard English, in the third person, and in the past tense, which can only mean that the regime has fallen, and that language and individuality have survived. For whoever has written the essay on Newspeak, the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four is over. Thus, it`s my view that Orwell had much more faith in the resilience of the human spirit than he`s usually been given credit for.

Orwell became a direct model for me much later in my life - in the real 1984, the year in which I began writing a somewhat different dystopia, The Handmaid`s Tale. By that time I was 44, and I had learned enough about real despotisms - through the reading of history, travel, and my membership of Amnesty International - so that I didn`t need to rely on Orwell alone.

The majority of dystopias - Orwell`s included - have been written by men, and the point of view has been male. When women have appeared in them, they have been either sexless automatons or rebels who have defied the sex rules of the regime. They have acted as the temptresses of the male protagonists, however welcome this temptation may be to the men themselves. Thus Julia; thus the cami-knicker-wearing, orgy-porgy seducer of the Savage in Brave New World; thus the subversive femme fatale of Yevgeny Zamyatin`s 1924 seminal classic, We. I wanted to try a dystopia from the female point of view - the world according to Julia, as it were. However, this does not make The Handmaid`s Tale a "feminist dystopia", except insofar as giving a woman a voice and an inner life will always be considered "feminist" by those who think women ought not to have these things.

The 20th century could be seen as a race between two versions of man-made hell - the jackbooted state totalitarianism of Orwell`s Nineteen Eight-Four, and the hedonistic ersatz paradise of Brave New World, where absolutely everything is a consumer good and human beings are engineered to be happy. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, it seemed for a time that Brave New World had won - from henceforth, state control would be minimal, and all we would have to do was go shopping and smile a lot, and wallow in pleasures, popping a pill or two when depression set in.

But with 9/11, all that changed. Now it appears we face the prospect of two contradictory dystopias at once - open markets, closed minds - because state surveillance is back again with a vengeance. The torturer`s dreaded Room 101 has been with us for millennia. The dungeons of Rome, the Inquisition, the Star Chamber, the Bastille, the proceedings of General Pinochet and of the junta in Argentina - all have depended on secrecy and on the abuse of power. Lots of countries have had their versions of it - their ways of silencing troublesome dissent. Democracies have traditionally defined themselves by, among other things - openness and the rule of law. But now it seems that we in the west are tacitly legitimising the methods of the darker human past, upgraded technologically and sanctified to our own uses, of course. For the sake of freedom, freedom must be renounced. To move us towards the improved world - the utopia we`re promised - dystopia must first hold sway.

It`s a concept worthy of doublethink. It`s also, in its ordering of events, strangely Marxist. First the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which lots of heads must roll; then the pie-in-the-sky classless society, which oddly enough never materialises. Instead, we just get pigs with whips.

I often ask myself: what would George Orwell have to say about it?

Quite a lot.

· This is an edited extract from Margaret Atwood`s contribution to BBC Radio 3`s Twenty Minutes: The Orwell Essays series, broadcast tonight at 8.05pm. Roy Hattersley`s and John Carey`s essays will be broadcast at the same time on Tuesday and Wednesday respectively. Margaret Atwood`s latest novel, Oryx and Crake, is published by Bloomsbury.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

June 16, 2003
G.I.`s Offer Carrot of Relief as Well as Stick of Raids
By DAVID ROHDE


HALLUJA, Iraq, June 15 — American troops pressed forward today in a new campaign combining military raids against suspected supporters of Saddam Hussein with high-visibility relief projects for Iraqi civilians. Commanders said they hoped that the two-sided approach would help eradicate armed resistance against American forces.

Hours after soldiers carried out raids in Baghdad today, military engineers set out to build soccer fields for children there.

When commanders opened the new campaign in this city 35 miles west of Baghdad, they promised that the stick of American military might would be matched with the carrot of civilian aid.

Three hours after 1,300 soldiers raided locations across Falluja, arresting seven suspected Hussein supporters and seizing a pipe bomb and communications equipment, the carrot emerged in the person of Carleigh McCrory, 20, an Army reserve engineer from Louisiana whose unit was painting walls at a school and putting up blackboards.

The tension between the operation`s dual aspects had been evident the day before, she said, as her unit installed fans and blackboards at another school. For four hours, she said, a crowd of children and adults pelted her and other soldiers with stones, glass and apples while the soldiers stood guard outside the school.

"It`s kind of contradictory for them," she said. "You bomb them, and three roads over you`re fixing the school."

Lt. Col. James Danna, of the First Armored Division, said the American military was trying to convey the message that it was not an enemy of the Iraqi people, even while conducting operations against remnants of the old government.

"We`re here to make Iraq better," he said. "We`re targeting individuals."

The new campaign echoes the pattern of American bombing during the war, when military planners made presidential palaces and government ministries their targets and tried to avoid civilian neighborhoods, bridges and public utilities in an effort to convey that the United States was attacking Mr. Hussein`s government, and not the Iraqi people.

Commanders said today that the first stage of the campaign would involve raids on specific individuals and locations every 48 hours for the next two to four weeks. Colonel Dana said American forces would look to their British counterparts for advice on techniques used in Northern Ireland to thwart attacks without harming the broader population.

Military officials said the possible capture of Mr. Hussein, who has not been seen publicly since the war, is not the central goal of the campaign. But they said his capture or the discovery of his remains would be a boon to their efforts. In the last three weeks, attacks by suspected Hussein supporters have killed 10 Americans and wounded dozens more in central Iraq areas dominated by Sunnis of Mr. Hussein`s branch of Islam.

In Baghdad today, soldiers from the First Armored Division raided a suspected weapons market in the Karadah neighborhood, Colonel Danna said. Ten men were detained after soldiers found eight 23-millimeter antiaircraft guns and three 105-millimeter artillery pieces. Later in the day, engineering units built two soccer fields in the same district.

Without disclosing details, Colonel Danna described multiple raids being considered in Baghdad. One, for example, would involve searching apartments believed to be used by former Saddam Fedayeen militiamen for storing weapons and firing on American forces. Another would follow a tip on the whereabouts of hidden documents related to Iraq`s suspected arsenal of illicit weapons.

The success of those raids would depend heavily on the quality of tips received from Iraqis. "This is 95 percent humint," he said, referring to human intelligence.

Over the last 24 hours, a prototype of the new approach played out here in Falluja.

Two weeks ago, 4,000 soldiers from the Third Infantry Division were deployed here, quadrupling the size of the American force in the town. Falluja, where American soldiers killed 18 protesters in disputed shootings in April, has been the scene of repeated attacks on American troops.

Today, at a run-down cinderblock elementary school near the one where Iraqis threw stones at American soldiers on Saturday, about 100 children gathered, seemingly delighted as the Americans painted a classroom and installed blackboards inside.

Laughing and shouting in broken English, boys tried to communicate with Americans standing guard with M-16`s slung across their chests. At one point, a soldier played the game "Simon Says" with the children, prompting squeals of delight.

But there were also signs of hostility from civilians.

At one point, a veiled Iraqi woman issued strict instructions to her young daughter.

"You shouldn`t speak with them," she said, referring to Americans. "They are infidels. We are Muslims."

A few feet away, a boy tacked a new ending onto a traditional prayer, chiming "There is no God but God, and America is the enemy of God."

Others praised the Americans, but said they feared the fighting.

"No, we don`t want them to leave," Muthana Asad, a 30-year-old butcher cradling his infant son in his arm, said of the American military. "We don`t want them to harm anyone. We don`t want anyone to harm them."

Inside the school, children were clearly delighted by the renovations. But the school`s director, a woman dressed in a religiously conservative black robe and white head scarf, said the Americans should focus on maintaining law and order, not repairing schools.

Omar Ahmed, a 22-year-old college student also dressed in a religiously conservative outfit, said the Americans should be focusing their energies on creating a new Iraqi government, and end the military occupation. "We don`t want them to paint the school," he said. "We want them to form a government."

Ms. McCrory, the 20-year-old reservist, said she was confused by the mixed Iraqi reactions, but also felt sympathy for the Iraqis` suffering. The bright-eyed young woman with short blond hair said she had hated her time in Baghdad. "Have you ever smelled a burning body?" she asked. "I`ll never forget the smell of a burning body."

That morning as she walked into the school, a frightened-looking woman approached her in tears.

"Why are you here?" she recalled the woman asking. "Are you here to kill my children?"

No, the young soldier responded, she was there to repair the school.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 16, 2003
Young Iranians Are Chafing Under Aging Clerics` Edicts
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR


TEHRAN, June 15 — The Islamic Association, a national student organization, is not quite what its name suggests.

"No organization can operate in this country without putting `Islamic` in its name," snorts the elected leader of one association chapter, before launching a group discussion about dismantling theocracy established by the 1979 Islamic revolution.

The tension pitting official Iran against the kind of society in which most Iranians want to live cuts through all aspects of life here, erupting regularly into violence.

The latest outburst has been playing out in downtown Tehran for nearly a week, with nightly violent clashes between those seeking greater freedom and those bent on maintaining the government.

The demonstrations continued tonight, although they were more subdued than the ones late last week.

The government, which on Saturday blamed "thugs and hooligans" for fomenting the violence, has begun arresting students and their supporters.

The unrest does not appear to be over. Today, President Bush, in Kennebunkport, Me., lent his support to the demonstrators, saying, "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive."

In Iran today, several hundred dissident intellectuals, including several clerics, issued a statement supporting the right of Iranians to criticize their government. Further, the statement denounced as "heresy" the possession of absolute power — a reference to Iran`s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Finally, the Iranian Student News Agency reported that students planned to hold their first daytime demonstration at noon Monday in downtown Tehran.

The week`s protests highlight the question of how long a group of aging clerics can impose their vision of an Islamic state on a nation 70 percent of whose people are under 30.

While some Iranians still believe in their theocracy, the majority want a sweeping transformation. They do not want to be told what to think, what to wear, what to read, what to watch and how to behave, and they are frustrated at the glacial pace of change.

Still, the demonstrations do not really pose a serious challenge to the mullahs, because opponents of the system lack a unifying figure or organization that can translate their demands into public pressure.

They thought they had found their champion in President Mohammed Khatami, but calls for his resignation — along with cries of "Kill all the mullahs!" — during the protests showed how disillusioned his former supporters have become, how angry that their votes made so little difference.

"Six years ago everyone was persuaded that the Islamic Republic could stay and Mr. Khatami as a clergyman could be president and we needed some changes like freedom of speech," said Mohsen Sazegara, a former aide to Ayatollah Khomeini and a reformist journalist, speaking before he was detained today with his son on charges of incitement.

"Now day by day people are becoming more radical in their demands," he added. "People are saying everything must be changed."

But there is no collective vision of a viable alternative. "The problem with reforms is that Iranians know what they don`t want, but they do not know what they want," said Muhammad, a 24-year-old student. Many students interviewed did not want their full names or schools published, saying they feared subsequent harassment.

Mostly, young people here want the government to stop interfering in their day-to-day lives.

Faruda, a 20-year-old math major at an Isfahan university, was told to report to the campus morals committee last month.

"They said I was talking to men too much," she said, and that her clothing was immodest.

They lectured her for three hours, Faruda said, handing her a list of 13 verses to read from the Koran about proper women`s dress. "I just listened; you can`t argue back because it`s the Koran," she said.

Men get into similar trouble. Students at the same university said a male student was cursed as an infidel and beaten by members of Baseej, a paramilitary government organization whose older members are the shock troops used to put down student demonstrations. His infraction? Walking down the dormitory corridor in his underwear.

Reformists point out that students in Tehran can hold hands in public now, but in the provinces even that liberty is denied.

"It takes a lot of courage just to walk with a woman down the main street of Isfahan," said Payam, a 21-year-old with the shoulder-length hair that many male students grow as a form of protest.

"We don`t want a government that prescribes to us all the time what is good and what is bad," he added.

Activist students are struck by the fact that the revolution puts great emphasis on education, then seeks to veil their minds.

"We should be able to criticize the government, the religion," said Hamed, a 21-year-old engineering major. "If we want to be able to understand it, we should be able to criticize it."

Students concede that they are given far more leeway than society in general. Student journals published articles backing the American invasion of Iraq, for example, something impossible in the country at large.

But its the lack of change in society in general that grates on many.

Take this spring`s mysterious ban on manteaux — the coats women are supposed to wear in public. Their hemlines have been creeping steadily upward, to the point that they come much closer to long shirts than the black cloaks considered the ideal revolutionary hejab.

Suddenly in May all the manteaux shops in Tehran got a warning to stop selling short coats.

"Recently the improper Islamic hejab of some women in the city has caused certain worries and social abnormalities," the letter began, warning store owners not to sell anything tight-fitting, above the knee or with slits.

The offending item disappeared from store windows, and many women stopped wearing the short pink or white cloaks, even though government agencies contacted by the Iranian press denied sending the letter.

"We shouldn`t listen, but we get scared, so you see a lot of women wearing darker colors these days," said Aliyeh Almoodayee, a 21-year-old graphics art student.

Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, the spokesman for President Khatami, said: "They want to create the perception of fear. They are trying to do something to say they are powerful, but they cannot make real problems for people anymore."

Reformists believe that, with 48 million Iranians under 30, time is their ally. Change must come eventually.

There are, of course, those who support crackdowns.

"Times are hard so young men have trouble getting married," said Fatimeh Ahmedi, a 40-year-old mother. "The freer women become the more men would be tempted to get involved in immoral acts."

Such sentiments find their echoes among conservative students and others. In the office of the Islamic Students Society, the conservative counterpart of the Islamic Association, portraits of the late revolutionary patriarch Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini stare down from the wall in every room and his thoughts dominate the conversation.

"We have an ideology in this country and it forms the center of all our dialogues," said Majdodin Muallimi, the secretary general of the society. "What is more important than anything to us is our religion, our faith and our ideology."

Mr. Muallimi and others like him admit that the Islamic revolution has failed to get rid of government corruption or to create economic growth, as it promised to do, but they argue that Iranians still support the system. They point to the 80 percent participation of people in the last presidential election as proof.

Former stalwart supporters of the revolution like Hassan, a 65-year-old retiree from a government enterprise in Isfahan, are tired of their votes being thus misrepresented. That is something Hassan would like to change.

"The day the shah left the country was the happiest day of my life," he said. "But these have become the worst days — whatever they promised the revolution would bring was a lie. Unemployment is high, inflation is bad, the economy is bad, the society is full of addicts."

He and his wife and children joined millions who did not cast ballots in the February elections for municipal councils. Turnout in major cities hovered around 10 percent.

"The political clerics took our participation as a approval for the system as a whole," said Hassan, adding that the clerics exploit religion just to hang onto power. "So we decided not to go do any of that anymore."

Despite their rancor, Hassan and many of the students disagree with those, and there are some, who would like to see the United States force a change of government, as it did in Iraq.

They were dismayed by President Bush`s praise of the demonstrations, believing that many Iranians will see his words as foreign meddling, strengthening the conservatives. Indeed, both the leadership and the press loyal to it have portrayed the students and their supporters as the paid tools of the United States.

They said that many people went into the streets at the behest of monarchist television stations, based in California and broadcasting to Iran via satellite. Those people, the government said, want the shah`s son returned to power, a view most Iranians considered a joke.

Far better, many students and men like Hassan say, to leave the process of developing a democracy to the Iranians themselves.

"We were taught to accept everything, not to ask why," Hassan said. "Change will come with the new generation when we are all gone. Change will come with my grandsons, because they ask why about everything."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

Vor ein paar Tagen wurden die Regel auf dem Medienmarkt gelockert, das Geschenk für Mr. Murdock.

June 16, 2003
Regulate the F.C.C.
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

The Federal Communications Commission — in business to protect the public`s interest in our nation`s airwaves — has by a 3-to-2 vote opened the floodgates to a wave of media mergers that will further crush local diversity and concentrate the power to mold public opinion in the hands of ever-fewer giant corporations.

This troubles some readers, listeners and viewers who don`t like homogenized news or one-size-fits-all entertainment forced down their throats. When I inveighed against this impending sellout a couple of weeks ago, thousands — no kidding, an unprecedented torrent — of e-mails came roaring in, many beginning "Though I consider you a rightwing nutcase on most issues, I`m 100% with you against this big-media power grab."

John McCain, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, was also startled by the public reaction to the Floodgate scandal: "750,000 people sent messages to the F.C.C.," McCain tells me. "This sparked more interest than any issue I`ve ever seen that wasn`t organized by a huge lobby."

Here`s what happened: a single media giant, up to now allowed to own television stations reaching slightly more than a third of the nation`s viewers, will soon — thanks to Floodgate — be able to reach nearly half, a giant`s giant step toward 100 percent "penetration." And as for "cross-ownership" — the ability for newspapers to buy TV and radio stations in the same city and vice versa — the F.C.C. as much as said "c`mon in, local domination by a media powerhouse is fine."

Now it`s up to Congress to overturn the ruling by the roundheeled F.C.C. On Thursday, Senate Commerce will mark up a bill put forward by Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, to roll back the penetration to 35 percent. It will be amended by Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, to roll back the cross-ownership.

Where does Chairman McCain stand? The maverick whose hero is the trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt is uncharacteristically torn. He`s against regulation in principle and admires F.C.C. Chairman Michael Powell, so he won`t support Stevens`s rollback to 35 percent (which McCain thinks will pass in committee, and which he won`t fight) or support Dorgan`s amendment on cross-ownership (which McCain thinks is doomed — "the fix is in on cross-ownership").

But I can feel the Arizonan coming around. "There`s already too much concentration in radio," he says, as only four companies reach almost all listeners in the U.S. in what some of us remember as a blessedly local medium. "That could be the miners` canary. We`ll hold hearings on that." (He should call in artists to examine how one radio combine gained a stranglehold on popular music.)

McCain`s hesitancy means that this week`s strong hand for diversity and diffusion of power is Stevens. With conservative allies like Trent Lott and Kay Bailey Hutchison joining most Democrats, Stevens has the votes for his bill. Dorgan tells me that if he cannot get a modified version of his cross-ownership rollback amendment passed, there is another way — through the Congressional Review Act — of bringing the issue to the floor.

Forgive the inside baseball (this is beginning to read like a Bob Novak column), but the legislative intricacy shows how a power grab engineered by a seemingly unstoppable lobby has at least a chance of being stymied by an aroused public resentful of media manipulation.

Media moguls slavering for massive mergers don`t worry about any Senate action described above. They are sure they have Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana and chairman of House Commerce, in their pocket, and think they can kill any rollback in the House.

Mebbeso, but never underestimate the political sagacity of an old Senate bull like Stevens, who doesn`t get his bills passed for show. There may be some serious homeland-security angles to communications legislation that would be of interest to House conservatives and could form the basis of House-Senate cooperation.

The effect of the media`s march to amalgamation on Americans` freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners. This far-reaching political decision should be made by Congress and the White House, after extensive hearings and fair coverage by too-shy broadcasters, no-local-news cable networks and conflicted newspapers.

Listeners, viewers and readers are interested. You should see this stack of mail.

Email: [e-mail]



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Vielleicht will er den Leuten wieder tief in die Augen schauen und dort den Frieden sehen.

washingtonpost.com
Bush Still Hopeful On Mideast Peace
President Blames Hamas for Violence

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A19


KENNEBUNKPORT, Maine, June 15 -- President Bush today said he saw a lull in violence in the Middle East and renewed his expression of optimism that a peace accord would be reached between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Speaking after a round of golf and a Sunday church service near the Bush family`s vacation compound here, Bush broke three days of silence on the violence in the Middle East by continuing to put sole responsibility for the violence on the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestinian militant group known as Hamas. "The mission of the free world, those who care for peace, is to deny the people like Hamas the ability to destroy and to kill."

Bush said he continued to believe there would be a free and prosperous Palestinian state, but said that first "the free world, those who love freedom and peace, must deal harshly with Hamas and the killers. And that`s just the way it is in the Middle East."

Also today, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it was possible that U.S. forces could be sent to the region to deal with Palestinian terrorists. "It`s always a possibility," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "But having said that, I would just say this is down the trail." He said that although the United States must be "very, very careful" about such an engagement, "clearly, if force is required ultimately to rout out terrorism, it is possible that there will be an American participation."

Bush declined to say whether he would give funds or arms to the Palestinian Authority to fight Hamas or whether he would send national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to the region. Bush has dispatched diplomat John Wolf to keep the parties on the "road map" to Middle East peace that Bush has proposed.

"I`m confident we can achieve peace," Bush said. "It`s going to be a tough road, but I am determined to continue to lend the weight of this government to advance peace."

The White House said, contrary to claims by some Israeli officials, that the president had not placed calls to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas. Bush said there was no need to deliver the message himself. "The message is clear," he said. "Prime Minister Abbas wants peace; Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon wants peace; America wants peace; the European Union wants peace. But there are clearly killers who don`t. And for those of us who are interested in moving the process forward, we must combine our efforts to cut off all money, support for anybody who tries to sabotage the peace process."

Bush took questions for four minutes this morning outside First Congregational Church here, where he attended a 45-minute Father`s Day service after a quick round of early-morning golf. Though White House officials have spoken of the Middle East situation as increasingly bleak, Bush today voiced some of the optimism he expressed shortly after the Israeli-Palestinian summit he hosted in Aqaba, Jordan, earlier this month, before a flurry of Palestinian suicide bombings and Israeli attacks on Hamas figures.

Bush also called "positive" the anti-government demonstrations in Iran.

On the last full day of a long weekend in Kennebunkport, Bush said he would observe Father`s Day by golfing, fishing and dining with his 79-year-old father, the former president, who wondered if that all might be a "little much." During the church service, the First Family listened to a "children`s time" discussion of the Holy Trinity described as three flavors of ice cream -- vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.

Bush plans to celebrate passage of the recent tax cut Monday in New Jersey with business leaders, at the start of a heavy week of fundraising for his 2004 reelection campaign.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Das ist heute morgen das Angebot von der WP incl. Agenturmeldungen aus Nahost.

Hunt in N. Iraq For al Qaeda Is Hit and Miss
Troops Rely on Sketchy Sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62607-2003Jun…

Iran Faults U.S. for 5 Days of Protests
Demonstrations Lauded By Bush as `Positive`
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62604-2003Jun…

Ex-Iraqi Ambassador: Saddam Deserved Fate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63651-2003Jun…

Mediation Efforts Intensify in Mideast
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63638-2003Jun…


Iraqi Cops Feel Defanged by U.S. Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63637-2003Jun…

Army of Iraqi Shiites Shifts to Aid Work
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63577-2003Jun…

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Senate Panel to Review Weapons Data


By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A18


Senate intelligence committee Chairman Pat Roberts said yesterday his panel will hold closed hearings and probably will produce a report on what U.S. intelligence agencies knew about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war and whether the Bush administration conveyed that information accurately to the public.

He said that intelligence agencies have delivered "voluminous" material to the committee and that he has encouraged all members to read it before they begin questioning analysts or policymakers. Hearings, he said, will take place behind closed doors but could conclude with a public hearing if members think one is warranted.

Roberts, appearing on CBS`s "Face the Nation," pledged to move on a bipartisan basis to examine the issue outside a "political context." He said he thinks the committee "will probably have a classified report and a public report."

Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, complained during the same program that Senate Republicans are not doing enough to ensure there is a thorough bipartisan review of whether the information about Iraq`s development of weapons of mass destruction was hyped to build support for the war, a question he said "goes to the heart of our intelligence."

Roberts (R-Kan.) said he plans to interview administration officials. He reiterated his "open invitation" to anyone in the intelligence community "who thinks that their analytical product was skewed in any way, or if they were intimidated, or if they were coerced." He said the committee has already heard from one person who would want to share such concerns, he said.

The CIA has previously said that one of its employees complained to the agency ombudsman late last year that information was being distorted to support going to war, but that the complaint was ill-founded. An official has denied that three such complaints have been filed with the CIA ombudsman, as The Washington Post reported May 31.

CIA Director George J. Tenet and senior foreign policy officials in the Bush administration have sought to rebut criticism that the agency`s intelligence on Iraq`s possession of chemical and biological weapons was exaggerated. The search for such weapons in Iraq continues.

There was continued speculation yesterday that material may have been moved to Iran or Syria, including from Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

Her panel is set to begin hearings this week on whether intelligence was politicized. So far, Harman told "Fox News Sunday," she does not believe the intelligence was distorted, as some have charged, but she said she wants to examine whether it was credible in the first place, and whether it was oversimplified in Bush administration rhetoric. "We`re going to find that out," she said.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com Liberty Is Security


By William Raspberry

Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A23


Every once in a while, someone will circulate a petition asking Americans to endorse a set of principles that have been paraphrased to disguise the fact that they are the same principles contained in the Bill of Rights. And whenever it happens, large numbers of Americans say no.

Many do so, no doubt, because they are leery of signing anything. But many others, I suspect, really don`t like the idea that public school teachers shouldn`t be allowed to lead their students in prayer, or that people should be allowed to say awful things about our government in public, or that the press should be free of any government control, or that the courts should let guilty people go free because of "technicalities."

The occasional petitions ought to remind us how easily we can be persuaded to give up rights we imagine we will never need -- and how cavalierly we regard the rights of people who strike us as "strange" or "dangerous."

To take a current example: The French Moroccan Zacarias Moussaoui, accused by the Justice Department of being a conspirator in the 9/11 attacks -- indeed the only suspect we`ve charged in those attacks -- is insisting on the right to face his accusers and to question a witness who could help his legal defense.

But the government says that allowing Moussaoui to question that witness, an al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody, would be a threat to our national security, presumably compromising our intelligence sources.

How many Americans would reach what seems to me the only legally defensible conclusion: that the government must choose between its competing interests in prosecuting Moussaoui and protecting its intelligence? My guess is that an awful lot of us would scrape our ethical barrels for a pro-government conclusion. This is war. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. The defendant, who has repeatedly denounced America, is a foreigner not entitled to the protection of the Constitution.

But the people whose rights we are quickest to jettison are nearly always those least able to resist, whether Japanese Americans during World War II or the hapless souls (at least some of them likely to be innocent) imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, unable to find witnesses or lawyers or even to have their families know where they are.

And the abridgment of rights is almost always led by people who are sincere in their belief that the people they go after are dangerous.

Make the danger vivid enough and those who ought to be protecting our liberties -- the legislatures, the governmental bureaucracies and, too often, the media -- will look the other way. So will too many Americans.

But not all. Just last week, the American Civil Liberties Union hosted its first-ever membership conference, put together, according to Laura W. Murphy, director of the group`s Washington office, "in response to a groundswell of opposition" to the Patriot Act, which suspends or weakens a number of long-established civil liberties.

ACLU units in 123 jurisdictions have passed resolutions denouncing both the post-9/11 legislation and the freer rein on FBI surveillance of political and religious activities, she said.

"People have come to Washington because they want to know what they can do about these incursions on our liberties."

It`s no surprise that the ACLU membership "gets it" -- or that rank-and-file Americans don`t.

It isn`t that Americans are ignorant of the facts. We know about Guantanamo and Moussaoui and the difficulty of locating Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction. But most of us don`t know what to think of all these things until those we trust -- our political leaders, public intellectuals and the press -- help us sort them out.

The government (and not just the current president and attorney general) always wants more power and more freedom from the impediments to its use. And the people, most often, will go along.

Someone needs to remind us that what is special about America is not just its power, unprecedented in the world, but also its principles. The one is secure enough, the other in more peril than we`re willing to admit.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Der Artikel ist geschrieben von einem ehemaligen republikanischen Senator.

washingtonpost.com
Divided by Zealots


By Alan K. Simpson

Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A23


Heading into next year`s election, the Republicans have a very popular president and a credible advantage with the electorate on the core principles of limited government, free enterprise, strong defense and personal responsibility.

Maybe it is still about Sept. 11, but most of our fellow countrymen seem to understand what America is all about. It is about a common flag and a common language and a fractious public culture. We`re never going to unite the country around a particular set of religious beliefs, nor would we wish to. If you go home at night and worship the Great Eel, that`s your business. But we can unite the country around practical policies that improve the collective life of all of our people.

There is something Republicans must always remember: The media are not going to portray clarity; they are going to portray conflict, confusion and controversy. And they are going to do it every single time, especially if they can find a schism or us fighting among ourselves. I was in this contact sport of politics for 31 years. People take some good shots at you, and that goes with the territory. You learn to "take part or get taken apart."

But for some incomprehensible reason, Republicans seem to like to eat their young. We have the steely-eyed zealots trying to inflict their personal views on others. They don`t care a whit whether you are with them 90 percent of the time. They are the 100 percenters, and what really matters to them is that old 10 percent, and they`ll use venom and invective to tear people down. We do that too many times and it sure turns folks off. And the Democrats just love it!

On the personal and singular issue of abortion, many seem to have the attitude that government really does know best (a very non-Republican view on all other issues) and that individual Americans are incapable of thinking and deciding for themselves on this terribly anguishing and intimate issue.

As a longtime supporter of the right to choose, I have never believed that Congress or the federal government should interfere with the deeply personal and private decisions that women sometimes face regarding unintended or crisis pregnancies. A lot of Republicans agree with me -- and a lot do not. You really have to have rocks for brains if you honestly think we`re going to solve that horrible conflict anytime soon.

President Bush gets it even if they don`t. We damn sure don`t need the vitriol and demonization from the cultural warriors on the left and the right. We have enough on our plates that really needs doing. President Bush knows all about it. He has a rugged bunch of people on the Hill who simply want to block him. Their game is: Don`t let him accomplish anything. It doesn`t help the country, but it`s pretty good politics.

You can get around those folks by bringing people into office to help you get things done -- maybe not on all 50 things you want, but on 30 or 40. That`s why the president tells us the Republican Party is the party of the open door. We want more people to get involved.

We want to grow this fine Grand Old Party. And we want to share our core principles to make America strong and secure; to provide a stable framework in which people can make their livings, raise their families and work together in their communities; and to allow every American a chance at the pursuit of happiness.

President Bush understands that we have a limited and unique opportunity to attract people to this party and to get some good things done for our country. Somebody should send the word to the zealots.

The writer is a former Republican senator from Wyoming and a member of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition`s advisory board.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die so gerne verniedlichte Beziehung amerikanischer Politiker zur Wirtschaft. Ich glaube nicht, dass Korruption uramerikanisch ist.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8086
Enough DeLay


Micah L. Sifry, is senior analyst with Public Campaign, and co-editor with Christopher Cerf of The Iraq War Reader: History, Documents, Opinions, published in April 2003 by Simon & Schuster.


A few days ago, The Washington Post front-paged a story linking House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) to $56,500 in campaign contributions made in 2002 from a Kansas-based energy company, Westar. One executive of Westar e-mailed his colleagues that "we have a plan for participation to get a seat at the table" of the House-Senate conference committee on the Bush administration’s energy plan. "The total of the package will be $31,500 in hard money (individual) and $25,000 in soft money (corporate)," and included "$11,500 in immediate needs for a group of candidates associated with Tom DeLay, Billy Tauzin, Joe Barton and Sen. Richard Shelby."

Given that the Bush-backed bill was doling out more than $27 billion in targeted tax breaks to energy companies, this was not an unusual investment. Westar was seeking relief from regulatory oversight that would have allowed it to transfer $3 billion in debt off its balance sheets and, potentially, onto the monthly bills of consumers through rate hikes. The Westar exec’s e-mail went on to say that Rep. DeLay’s "agreement is necessary before the House Conferees can push the language we have in place in the House bill." And so 13 Westar officials paid $31,500 to the candidates they were told to support and the company gave $25,000 to Texans for a Republican Majority PAC, a committee closely tied to DeLay. Rep. Barton put the company’s exemption into the law, with Reps. DeLay, Tauzin and Barton all voting to keep it there when Democrats tried to strip it out. Later it was withdrawn after a grand jury started investigating the company for securities fraud.

Rep. DeLay’s office has insisted that there was no quid pro quo between Westar’s donations and the exemption. "When people contribute to Delay or causes he supports, they are supporting his agenda, we are not supporting theirs," a spokesman insists. He admits that DeLay met with Westar officials last year, but asserts, "We have no control over any fantasies they might have about what they might get for a campaign contribution."

Hmmm. Let’s see. America’s businessmen are the smartest in the world, DeLay no doubt believes, but they’re dupes when it comes to investing $56,500 of their hard-earned dollars on some leading Congressmen?

It might be possible to believe DeLay’s denials if this weren’t part of a pattern of behavior. But consider this history:


On Apr. 3, 2001, the Associated Press reported that DeLay was making recorded calls to small business owners, promising them meetings with top Bush officials where they could voice their opinions on issues like tax reform in exchange for a $20,000 contribution to join his Business Advisory Council. It is against the law for elected officials to promise favors for political donations.

DeLay is no stranger to the other side of the game, either. On May 14, 1996, Edwin Lupberger, then the CEO of Entergy Corp., wrote DeLay a letter to thank him for meeting with him during a dinner for Republican Team 100 donors -- people who gave or raised over $100,000 for the Republican Party -- and discussing pending legislation. "There is an issue before Congress of significant importance to our company and industry -- repeal of the Public Utility Holding Act of 1935," Lupberger wrote. He urged DeLay to push the relevant committee chairmen to act on repealing the act. Over the summer, Entergy gave $20,000 in soft money to the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In September, DeLay went to the floor of the House to push the law`s repeal.

In October 2001, DeLay added a provision to anti-terrorism legislation that would have prevented foreign governments from recouping billions from tobacco companies in lost revenues and damages. Public Citizen reports that a political committee he controls (known as a "527" organization) took in $131,500 from tobacco interests in the year prior to that.

In the fall of 2002, Congress passed legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security that included several special interest provisions roundly attacked by many lawmakers. These included limits on legal liabilities for companies that produce vaccines (a sop to pharmaceutical maker Eli Lilly), a boondoggle for Texas A&M University, and a provision undoing an amendment sponsored by the late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) that would have barred companies using offshore tax havens from getting homeland security contracts. The leaders of the Senate promised to take up corrective legislation removing these provisions, but DeLay only said he would "consider" allowing the House to vote on such changes. This January, Congress removed the Lilly provision. But DeLay`s tough line worked. Congress eviscerated the Wellstone rule, and special liability protections for airport screening companies have been retained as well.

DeLay`s rise in politics was fueled by Enron. The rogue company hosted the first fundraiser for his leadership PAC, raising $280,000 for him at the event. And DeLay fought hard for the company`s agenda of regulatory relief. Not only did Enron reward Delay with $32,700 over his years in Congress (making him its number eight top beneficiary overall), it gave two of his top aides a $750,000 consulting contract and paid his wife Christine $40,000 for a no-show job.
"If you want to play in our revolution, you have to live by our rules," DeLay tells lobbyists. He has two lists of the 400 largest PACs, those who he deems friendly and those he deems unfriendly. "We’re just following the old adage of punish your enemies and reward your friends," DeLay says. He once told Congress Daily, "Money is not the root of all evil in politics. In fact, money is the lifeblood of politics." Clearly, money is Tom DeLay’s lifeblood. Maybe, if the Justice Department can be moved to investigate this latest Delay scandal, it could be his downfall as well.

[Joerver]

Get Out Of Iraq - An Issue For 2004
June 14, 2003
By Mike McArdle

We had to get Saddam or he was coming to gas your granny. And it had to be now if not sooner because Saddam had tons of the stuff, huge stockpiles of gas and bugs and drones that he was going to drop them on the United States before poor Granny even got a chance to duct tape her windows shut.

Donald Rumsfeld, whose job it is to keep Granny safe from insane dictators with warehouses full of gas and bugs told us that he even knew where all the stuff was. "We know where they are. They`re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." said Rummy, invoking all points of the compass to tell us that Iraq was awash in all this deadly stuff and if we didn`t get after Saddam it would be heading for a schoolyard or an office building near you.

In fact Saddam was so intent on attacking the US that we couldn`t wait for inspectors to go about the business of finding and destroying this stuff because even in the unlikely event that Saddam didn`t kill us with the bugs and the germs he was just itching to hand the stuff over to his good buddies in Al Qaeda so they could cook up a gassy buggy 9/11.

So in the face of overwhelming world opposition Bush and Rummy and Condi and Colin sent their huge military force off to the cradle of civilization to protect us from Saddam. The evil, threatening dictator`s flimsy excuse for an army crumbled in about three weeks and he departed for parts unknown.

And then they searched for the weapons that he was going to use on Granny. They searched Tikrit and Baghdad. They searched east, west, south and north somewhat.

And they didn`t find diddlysquat. No gas. No bugs. Nothing nookyular.

Poor Granny. It turns out she was safe from Saddam after all but she`s probably in a lot more danger (physical and economic) now than she ever was when he was running Baghdad. The unspeakable stupidity and ideological arrogance of our leadership has seen to that.

But it just may be that the gang of fools has finally made its fatal political mistake.

Iraq today is a mess with little to no essential public services. Weeks after the end of the war electricity in Baghdad works only part of the day. Clean water is virtually nonexistent. Garbage piles up in the streets as the temperature climbs above 100. Hospitals are understaffed and most of the medicine was looted during the war. The ethnic and religious divisions that Hussein had suppressed by force are threatening to tear what`s left of the country apart. If there`s anything at all uniting the country it`s a desire to see the Americans leave and some are expressing that desire through guerilla activity.

There is no more political upside to the Iraq war- there are no more bows to take. There won`t be any more statues coming down or staged photo-ops on flight decks, no more playing cards with pictures of the bad guys. There will just be a steady trickle of American bodies coming home and a rather unsightly stream of American money flowing into a country that most Americans couldn`t find on a map. Our soldiers could be soon be dealing with the kind of intifada that the Israelis have been beating back for the past decade - only this one is far from home and bears little relevance to the security of people in America. At the same time the presence of an American force in an Islamic country has proven to be an excellent recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and that does relate to the security of Americans.

If the Democrats have any political sense at all they will make getting out of the Iraq quagmire one of their major issues next year. They should propose a timetable (in weeks) for UN forces to assume the duties of US soldiers and supervise a free and fair election in conjunction with a US offer to abide by the results and withdraw its troops.

With a weak economy American voters figure to be in no mood to continue to spend any more money to occupy a country that blood and treasure have already been expended on. Let the Bush administration try to justify spending more money to defend America from a threat that never existed to start with.

Get out of Iraq. If the Democrats can actually find the courage to challenge the Bush administration on a foreign policy matter this could be one of their best issues in 2002. It`s for the good of the soldiers who are stranded in that tortured country; it`s for the good of those who need basic human services that are threatened by the huge deficits that the continued presence in Iraq is exacerbating (there`s Granny again).

And it`s the right thing to do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/06/14_issue…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die einzige Frage ist wer wird Nachfolger von Mr. Blair.

Kriegsgrund-Affäre

Blairs Big Bluff

Von Michael Sontheimer, London

Während US-Sonderkommandos im Irak vergeblich nach Saddam Husseins schrecklichen Massenvernichtungswaffen suchen, wird in London immer deutlicher: Tony Blair hat die Briten mit dubiosen und manipulierten Geheimdienstinformationen in den Irak-Krieg getrieben.

London - Es ist wie verhext. 230 verdächtige Lokalitäten im gesamten Irak haben die amerikanischen Spezialkommandos zur Aufspürung von Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen mittlerweile abgesucht. Jedem Hinweis ihrer Geheimdienste sind sie nachgegangen.

Die Waffenexperten haben bei ihrer Suche nach Giftgaslagern unter anderem einen Kinderspielplatz umgegraben, ein Schwimmbad entdeckt und eine Schnapsbrennerei ausgehoben. Was sie dummerweise nicht gefunden haben, sind Anlagen zum Bau von Atombomben, Scud-Raketen, Gefechtsköpfe mit B- und C-Kampfstoffen oder Giftgas. Inzwischen sind den Suchkommandos die Ziele ausgegangen, nur ein kleiner Teil der zeitweise bis 2000 Mann starken Truppe sucht weiter nach Saddams verborgenen Arsenalen.

Zwei Tage bevor die ersten Cruise Missiles in Bagdad einschlugen, am 18. März, hatte Premierminister Tony Blair im Londoner Unterhaus erklärt, der Verbleib von "10.000 Litern Anthrax, mindestens 80 Tonnen Senfgas, möglicherweise zehnmal mehr" sei ungeklärt. Außerdem treibe Saddam Hussein ein "Scud Missiles Programm" voran. US-Präsident George W. Bush hatte sich einen Tag zuvor auf Geheimdiensterkenntnisse berufen, "die keinen Zweifel daran lassen, dass das Regime des Irak weiterhin die tödlichsten jemals erfundenen Waffen besitzt und verbirgt".

"Unser Premier hat uns betrogen"

Doch - mehr als zwei Monate nach dem Sturz Saddams und der Besetzung des Irak - fehlt noch immer jede Spur von diesen schrecklichen Waffen. Damit gerät die politische Rechtfertigung und juristische Begründung des weltweit umstrittenen Krieges, der die Vereinten Nationen, die Nato und die EU gespalten hat, immer heftiger ins Wanken.

Gleichzeitig können sich die Kriegskritiker in ihren Vermutungen bestätigt sehen: Die Führer der Koalition der Willigen haben offensichtlich die Weltöffentlichkeit mit Propagandalügen zu manipulieren versucht.

Immerhin war es ein hochrangiger britischer Agent, der anonym die BBC unterrichtete, dass seine Regierung an vertraulichen Informationen "herumgedoktort" und sie "aufgesext" habe. Die wegen der britischen Irakpolitik zurückgetretene Ex-Ministerin Clare Short sagt: "Unser Premier hat uns betrogen."

Wie frühzeitig Blair bereits die Invasion des Irak vorbereiten ließ, stellte sich jetzt - eher nebenbei - in einer Sitzung des Verteidigungsausschusses des Unterhauses heraus, als Luftmarschall Brian Burridge dem Gremium eine Analyse des Waffengangs vorlegte. Schon im Sommer 2002, erklärte Burridge, hätten amerikanische und britische Kommandeure damit begonnen, den Angriff auf Saddam Hussein zu planen. "Idealerweise" sollte die Invasion dann - wie auch gesehen - im Frühjahr 2003 gestartet werden.

Aufgebauschte Propaganda

Dies passt zu der Annahme Shorts, nach der Blair sich spätestens Anfang September vergangenen Jahres mit dem US-Präsidenten bei einem Treffen in Camp David auf den Regimewechsel verständigt habe. Als Invasionstermin, so Short, hätten die beiden Mitte Februar 2003 festgelegt. "Blair stimmte einem Datum für militärische Aktion zu", so die Kritik der Ex-Ministerin, "was den Abschluss des Blix-Prozesses und eine anständige zweite UN-Resolution unmöglich machte."

Beständig kommen auch in London neue Details ans Tageslicht, wie ausdauernd und massiv Tony Blair und seine Regierung die Geheimdienste Ihrer Majestät unter Druck gesetzt haben, um von ihnen die politisch gewünschten Informationen zu bekommen. Blair hatte nach dem schnellen Sieg im Irak auf einen Popularitätsschub gesetzt, wie ihn Maggie Thatcher nach dem Falkland-Krieg erfahren hatte. Doch das genaue Gegenteil ist eingetreten: Nach einer Umfrage des "New Statesman" haben 43 der Prozent der Briten heute eine schlechtere Meinung von ihrem Premier als vor einem Jahr, nur 13 Prozent eine bessere.

"Größer als Watergate"

"Größer als Watergate" nannte ein Labour-Abgeordneter die Kriegsgrund-Affäre kürzlich. Die unter Völkerrechtlern umstrittene juristische Rechtfertigung der Invasion stützte sich auf die Uno-Resolution 1441, deren Ziel es war, Saddams Massenvernichtungswaffen zu zerstören. Blair selbst hat im Unterhaus beteuert, dass es ihm um die Durchsetzung dieser Resolution gehe, nicht darum, Saddam Hussein zu stürzen. Deshalb kann der Premier derzeit auch nicht viel mehr tun, als beständig seine "absolute Zuversicht" darin beschwören, dass doch noch Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden werden.

Auf Blair und Bush schlägt ein Problem zurück, das sie schon bei der gut ein Jahr währenden politischen und propagandistischen Vorbereitung des Krieges beständig plagte. Ihre Geheimdienste lieferten einfach keine brauchbaren Informationen über das weltbedrohende irakische Waffenarsenal und erst recht keine Beweise für die Existenz von Verbindungen zwischen Saddam Hussein und der al-Qaida.

Seit dem Abzug der Uno-Waffeninspektoren 1998 verfügten die westlichen Dienste über keinerlei Informanten im Irak. Die einzigen menschlichen Quellen waren Überläufer, die zumeist der vom Pentagon finanzierte Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabis den US-Diensten zuführte. "Die haben natürlich alles erzählt", so der britische Irakexperte Toby Dodge, "um sich eine gute Startposition zu verschaffen und den Sturz Saddams zu befördern."

Schon der Uno-Chef-Waffeninspekteur Hans Blix war, als er und seine Kontrolleure noch im Irak arbeiten konnten, über die Zuverlässigkeit der Informationen, die er von britischen und amerikanischen Diensten über angebliche Waffenverstecke bekam, "ein wenig erschüttert." In keinem einzigen Fall fand sich etwas. "O Gott", dachte sich Blix, "wenn das ihre besten Informationen sind, wie sieht dann der Rest aus?"

Lesen Sie morgen im zweiten Teil, wie Blairs Chefsprecher Alastair Campbell als Spin-Doctor des Krieges den Waffengang vorbereitete und skrupellos Geheimdienst-Informationen manipulierte



© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[TanteElse]

[rv_2011]

DER SPIEGEL 25/2003 - 16. Juni 2003
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,252956,00.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,252956,00.html

SPIEGEL-Gespräch

"Europa ist Europa ist Europa"

US-Senatorin Hillary Rodham Clinton über ihre Auseinandersetzung mit George W. Bush, ihre Zweifel an der Existenz irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen, ihren Einsatz für ein kooperativeres Amerika und die Wiederherstellung der transatlantischen Freundschaft

SPIEGEL: Frau Senatorin, die Vorstellung von Amerika, die Sie in Ihrem Buch entwerfen, ist das genaue Gegenteil von dem Land, für das George W. Bush steht. Heißt das, wir brauchen die Hoffnung auf ein freundlicheres, rücksichtsvolleres und kooperativeres Amerika nicht aufzugeben?

Clinton: Es ist nun einmal so: Amerika muss die herausragende Stellung akzeptieren, die es derzeit einnimmt. Das heißt eben auch, dass wir bereit sein müssen, unsere Stärke einzusetzen, sogar militärisch, wenn das notwendig ist. Ich habe deshalb auch die Politik des Präsidenten gegenüber Afghanistan und sogar gegenüber dem Irak unterstützt. Dennoch wird immer deutlicher, dass diese Regierung viele Gelegenheiten ungenutzt verstreichen lässt, wenn es darum geht, solche internationalen Partnerschaften aufzubauen, die die USA auf Dauer stärker machen und unser Verhältnis zu Europa vertiefen würden. Von der Stärkung dieser Zusammenarbeit hängt nicht weniger ab als unsere gesamte Zukunft. Die müssen wir auf ein sichereres und solideres Fundament setzen, statt allein auf den Einsatz unserer militärischen Stärke zu vertrauen.

SPIEGEL: Viele Europäer haben das Gefühl, dass es in Washington keine Opposition mehr gibt. Wo sind denn die Demokraten geblieben?

Clinton: Nach acht Jahren Erfahrung im Weißen Haus weiß ich, dass in unserem Regierungssystem der Präsident nun einmal über die stärkste Stimme verfügt. Mit diesem Nachteil müssen wir Demokraten fertig werden. Auch die Tatsache, dass dieses Land ein schweres Trauma erlitten hat, erschwert unsere Aufgabe. Gerade als Senatorin von New York weiß ich aus erster Hand, wie dramatisch und schmerzlich die Ereignisse vom 11. September für die Amerikaner waren.

SPIEGEL: Das kann doch aber nicht der Grund sein, dem Präsidenten das Feld allein zu überlassen.

Clinton: Gerade deswegen müssen wir uns überlegen, wie wir unsere Stimme wieder wirkungsvoller einsetzen können. Ich habe mein Buch nicht zuletzt geschrieben, um die Amerikaner und unsere Freunde in der Welt daran zu erinnern, dass wir schon einmal acht Jahre lang auf dem richtigen Kurs in eine globalisierte und integrierte Welt waren, die so oder so kommt. Richtig ist, uns Demokraten ist es nicht gelungen, diese Perspektive wieder deutlich zu machen ...

SPIEGEL: ... was nichts Gutes für die Wahlen im nächsten Jahr verheißt.

Clinton: Das stimmt so nicht. Die jetzigen Bewerber um die Präsidentschaftskandidatur der Demokraten machen durchaus klar, was alles gegen Präsident Bush spricht. Ich bin sicher, dass das im Lauf des Jahres auch deutlicher wird und das Wahlergebnis knapper ausfallen wird, als viele Leute denken.

SPIEGEL: Als Ihr Mann und Sie das Weiße Haus verließen, hatte sich die Wirtschaftspolitik als sehr erfolgreich erwiesen. Jetzt hebt der Senat mit aktiver Hilfe einiger Ihrer demokratischen Parteifreunde diese Politik wieder auf zu Gunsten von Steuersenkungen, die vornehmlich Besserverdienenden zugute kommen und die neue Schuldenberge auftürmen.

Clinton: Das ist ein tragischer Fehler. Ich glaube, dass die Wirtschaftspolitik der letzten Regierung eine gute Balance gewahrt hat. Eine sparsame Haushaltspolitik hat dazu beigetragen, private Investitionen zu fördern. Dadurch wurden mehr als 22 Millionen Arbeitsplätze geschaffen, die viele Menschen aus der Armut befreit haben. Selbstverständlich sind auch viele dabei zu Millionären geworden. Unglücklicherweise hat diese Regierung nun die längst überholte Politik wieder aufgenommen, die sich an der Nachfrage orientiert und die schon der Vater dieses Präsidenten als Voodoo-Wirtschaftspolitik bezeichnet hat. Es ist doch längst erwiesen, dass Senkungen des Steuersatzes für alle vornehmlich den Wohlhabenden zu größeren Einkommen verhelfen. Das ist schon aus mathematischen Gründen so.

SPIEGEL: Gegen Steuersenkungen wird es aber kaum Proteststürme geben.

Clinton: Es geht in Wahrheit auch gar nicht um Steuersenkungen. Diese Regierung versucht doch, das zu erreichen, woran die vorherigen republikanischen Regierungen in den achtziger Jahren gescheitert sind: Sie will erreichen, dass die Regierung in Washington wegen ihrer Überschuldung keine anderen Aufgaben mehr erfüllen kann als die Landesverteidigung. Wer in einem Meer von Haushaltsdefiziten versinkt, kann sich eben nicht um solche sozialen Probleme kümmern, die unser Land weniger fair, weniger gleich und weniger wohlhabend machen, soweit es die Allgemeinheit betrifft. Für die Reichen unter uns sieht das natürlich ganz anders aus.

SPIEGEL: Wie lange kann diese Politik denn noch weitergeführt werden?

Clinton: Trotz aller rhetorischen Bemäntelungsversuche durch das Weiße Haus werden die negativen Auswirkungen dieser Politik allmählich sichtbar. In den vergangenen beiden Jahren sind im Privatsektor mehr als zwei Millionen Arbeitsplätze verloren gegangen. Auf die Dauer wird sich die Realität gegen alle rhetorischen Verschleierungsversuche durchsetzen.

SPIEGEL: In Ihren Memoiren beschreiben Sie den britischen Premierminister Tony Blair als politischen Verbündeten und engen persönlichen Freund. Inzwischen ist er der beste Freund von George W. Bush. Hat Sie das enttäuscht?

Clinton: Blair versucht immer das zu tun, wovon er überzeugt ist. Wir haben eine Menge Zeit mit ihm und seiner Frau Cherie verbracht, und in der Innenpolitik gibt es weiterhin viele Übereinstimmungen. Seine Unterstützung für den Krieg gegen den Irak wird sicherlich daran gemessen werden, welche Fakten jetzt darüber ans Tageslicht kommen - genauso wie es derzeit bei uns geschieht. Dennoch bleibt er ein enger Freund und ein politischer Verbündeter.

SPIEGEL: In Ihrem Buch beschuldigen Sie die Republikaner, sie hätten Bill Clinton beim Kampf gegen den Terrorismus nicht unterstützt. Wollen Sie andeuten, die Anschläge vom 11. September hätten verhindert werden können?

Clinton: Auf diese Frage weiß niemand eine Antwort. Dennoch ist es nur fair, daran zu erinnern, was mein Mann und seine Regierung alles unternommen haben, um wirksamere Gesetze zu verabschieden und mehr Geld für den Anti-Terror-Kampf bereitzustellen. Das haben die Republikaner damals verhindert, und noch heute streite ich ständig mit der Regierung darüber, wie wir uns hier auf mögliche Anschläge vorbereiten. Wir geben einfach nicht genügend Geld für Abwehrmaßnahmen im eigenen Land aus, weder für Polizei noch für Feuerwehren, noch für Notfallhelfer - eben nicht für all jene, die im Falle eines Falles an vorderster Front kämpfen. Sie in Europa haben sehr viel größere Erfahrungen mit dem Terror und reagieren deshalb auch besser darauf.

SPIEGEL: Für die meisten Amerikaner war der Feldzug gegen den Irak Teil des Kriegs gegen den Terrorismus. Viele Europäer konnten dagegen keine Verbindungen zwischen Saddam Hussein und Osama Bin Laden erkennen. Wer hat denn nun Recht?

Clinton: Bis heute gibt es keine Beweise für eine solche Verbindung, und ich habe meine Position auch nie von solchen Verbindungen abhängig gemacht. Es hat vor dem Krieg keinen glaubwürdigen Beweis für eine solche Verbindung gegeben. Erst nach dem Zusammenbruch der Taliban und der Vertreibung von al-Qaida aus Afghanistan ist es vorgekommen, dass al-Qaida-Aktivisten in den Irak gegangen sind.

SPIEGEL: Massenvernichtungswaffen, angeblich der entscheidende Grund für den Krieg, sind noch nicht gefunden worden.

Clinton: Darüber müssen wir uns endlich Klarheit verschaffen. Ich habe deswegen einen Untersuchungsausschuss im Kongress gefordert, und ich hoffe, dass beide Parteien nun gemeinsam dieser Frage nachgehen, nicht nur um Vergangenes aufzuklären, sondern auch für unsere eigene Zukunft - gerade unter dieser Regierung. Wenn sie den Einsatz militärischer Gewalt gegen Terroristen plant, müssen wir absolut sicher sein können, dass ihre Entscheidungen auch auf korrekten Informationen beruhen.

"Mit der Doktrin der Präventivschläge bin ich nicht einverstanden."

SPIEGEL: Hat diese Regierung ein Glaubwürdigkeitsproblem?

Clinton: Nicht notwendigerweise der Präsident. Es geht vielmehr um die Glaubwürdigkeit unserer Geheimdienste. Was auch immer vorgefallen ist, die Fakten müssen jetzt auf den Tisch. Diese Regierung hat einige sehr plötzliche Veränderungen politischer Doktrinen vorgenommen. Sie hat sich zu einer Politik von Präventivschlägen bekannt, mit der ich nicht einverstanden bin. In den meisten Fällen sind die schlicht überflüssig. Sie könnten vielleicht unter einigen eng definierten Umständen anwendbar sein, aber dann muss man sich eben auf die Qualität und die Genauigkeit unserer Geheimdiensterkenntnisse verlassen können.

SPIEGEL: Soll das heißen, dass der Krieg gegen den Irak unter falschen Voraussetzungen geführt worden ist?

Clinton: Noch bin ich nicht bereit, auf diese Frage mit Ja zu antworten. Ich weiß, dass meinem Mann dieselben Geheimdiensterkenntnisse vorgelegen haben. Die wirkliche Frage lautet: Haben wir zutreffende Informationen erhalten, oder wurden die Erkenntnisse aus militärischen oder politischen Gründen frisiert. Auf diese Frage habe ich noch keine Antwort.

SPIEGEL: In Ihrem Buch streichen Sie besonders heraus, dass Sie mit Frankreich und auch mit Präsident Jacques Chirac recht gut klarkamen. Das können Ihre Nachfolger nicht behaupten. Wie gefährlich ist die Entfremdung zwischen den USA und Frankreich, zwischen den USA und Europa?

Clinton: Was Frankreich, aber auch was Deutschland angeht, hoffe ich auf eine Anstrengung unserer Regierung, diese Entfremdung zu überbrücken. Wir werden sicher nicht immer einer Meinung sein, aber die Unterschiede beruhen vornehmlich auf unterschiedlichen Perspektiven. Wir haben noch immer gemeinsame Werte: Wir haben unser Zusammenleben demokratisch geregelt, wir genießen die Freiheit, und wir unterstützen Mitmenschen, die weniger glücklich dran sind. All das ist der wesentliche Kern dieser außerordentlich erfolgreichen transatlantischen Gemeinschaft. Ich hoffe, dass wir zu dieser Art von Partnerschaft zurückfinden.

SPIEGEL: Die Bereitschaft zu vergeben gehört ganz sicher nicht zu den Stärken von George W. Bush. Wie wichtig sind persönliche Beziehungen zwischen führenden Politikern?

Clinton: Ehe ich ins Weiße Haus einzog, habe ich nicht einmal geahnt, wie wichtig die sind. Menschen reagieren nun mal aufeinander, indem sie einander in die Augen sehen und nicht nur auf die Worte achten, sondern auf alle Signale, die von einer Person ausgehen. Wenn man sagen muss, Jacques oder Gerhard oder Tony, dies ist etwas, woran ich glaube und wofür ich deine Unterstützung brauche, kommt man ohne persönliche Beziehungen gar nicht aus. Wenn man nur das Telefon hätte und nicht auch den ständigen Kontakt, auf den sich persönliche Beziehungen gründen, wäre manches sehr viel schwieriger zu erreichen.

SPIEGEL: Sie beschreiben auch, wie gut Ihr Mann mit Helmut Kohl zusammenarbeiten konnte, offenbar sogar besser als mit Gerhard Schröder. Gibt es dafür Gründe?

Clinton: Mit beiden Kanzlern sind wir gut ausgekommen. Der Grund, warum ich mir mehr Zeit dafür genommen habe, über Kanzler Kohl zu schreiben, liegt darin, dass ich ihn für eine der wichtigsten politischen Figuren der Nachkriegszeit halte. Hier gab es jemanden, der die Rolle Amerikas aus dem Erlebnis seiner eigenen Kindheit verstand. Er hat sich gegen heftige politische Widerstände durchgesetzt, um die Wiedervereinigung Deutschlands zu erreichen. Er verstand die wichtige Rolle, die Deutschland in der Europäischen Union spielen musste. Mehrere Male habe ich mit ihm über die Bedeutung des Euro gesprochen. Er sah in der gemeinsamen Währung eine Möglichkeit, den europäischen Kontinent wirklich zusammenzuschweißen.

"Viele Amerikaner wissen gar nicht, was Deutschland alles tut."

SPIEGEL: Viele Amerikaner sehen in der deutschen Haltung zum Irak-Krieg vor allem Undankbarkeit. Sie auch?

Clinton: Was den internationalen Einsatz der Bundeswehr angeht, hat sich Deutschland in relativ kurzer Zeit unglaublich gewandelt. Viele Amerikaner wissen doch gar nicht, was Deutschland alles tut. Gerade erst erlitten Bundeswehrsoldaten in Afghanistan einen schrecklichen Verlust. Deutsche bilden in Kabul Polizei und Militär aus. Deutschland hat uns bei unseren Bemühungen in Bosnien und im Kosovo geholfen. Ich würde es sehr begrüßen, wenn unsere Medien diese Tatsachen vollständiger berichten würden. Allerdings ist es auch verständlich, dass die Amerikaner sich größere deutsche Unterstützung für ihren Irak-Kurs gewünscht haben.

SPIEGEL: Unterscheiden Sie auch zwischen einem alten und einem neuen Europa?

Clinton: Europa ist Europa ist Europa. Die wirkliche Herausforderung liegt doch darin, wie wir in Zukunft mit einem mächtigen und wirtschaftlich erfolgreichen Europa leben können.

SPIEGEL: In Ihren Memoiren beschreiben Sie Ihre Karriere und die Ihres Mannes als die Verwirklichung des amerikanischen Traums. Können Sie erklären, warum Sie beide trotzdem so viel Widerspruch hervorgerufen haben, warum so viele Amerikaner Sie regelrecht hassen?

Clinton: Das vergangene Jahrzehnt war bei uns durch eine heftige politische Auseinandersetzung über die Zukunft Amerikas gekennzeichnet. Es ging darum, ob es richtig war, die Chancen von Minderheiten zu verbessern, im Gesundheitswesen ein Sicherheitsnetz einzuziehen und mehr Chancengleichheit zu schaffen, unabhängig davon, ob jemand einflussreiche oder vermögende Eltern hat. Als mein Mann Präsident wurde, hatte die Republikanische Partei gar nicht mehr damit gerechnet, dass es noch einen weiteren demokratischen Präsidenten geben würde. Mit Ausnahme der einen Amtszeit von Jimmy Carter hatten sie in 24 Jahren das Gefühl gewonnen, das Weiße Haus für immer erobert zu haben. Als dann Bill Präsident wurde, hat das eine gewaltige Reaktion hervorgerufen.

SPIEGEL: Die Konservativen betrachteten Sie als widerliche Emporkömmlinge?

Clinton: Ja, und das wurde noch unterstützt durch die Art, in der die Medien ihre Berichterstattung über Politiker veränderten - auch über ihr Privatleben. Dennoch nutzten die Republikaner ihre Politik der Persönlichkeitszerstörung in erster Linie aus politischen Gründen: Weder 1992 noch 1996 konnten sie Bill Clinton in Wahlen besiegen. Und auch meine Wahl zur Senatorin im Jahr 2000 konnten sie nicht verhindern. Deshalb versuchten sie, uns in unseren Persönlichkeiten zu dämonisieren, und wollten so von unserer Politik und unseren Standpunkten ablenken. Dieser Prozess hält auch heute noch an und wird sich unweigerlich erneut an meinen Memoiren entzünden. In Wirklichkeit liegen diesen Auseinandersetzungen zwei sehr unterschiedliche Vorstellungen davon zu Grunde, wie Amerika hier und innerhalb der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft handeln sollte.

SPIEGEL: Der erste Satz in Ihrem Buch lautet: "Ich wurde nicht als First Lady oder Senatorin geboren." Sind Sie vielleicht geboren worden, um Präsidentin zu werden?

Clinton: Nein, nein, ich bewerbe mich nicht um die Präsidentschaft. Ich bin sehr glücklich als Senatorin. Von dieser Position aus kann ich mich weiterhin dafür einsetzen, was ich als Mehrheitsmeinung der Amerikaner empfinde.

SPIEGEL: Frau Senatorin, wir danken Ihnen für dieses Gespräch.

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-challeng…
NEWS ANALYSIS

Foreign Hot Spots Holding America`s Feet to the Fire
By Robin Wright
Times Staff Writer

June 16, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration`s three boldest foreign policy interventions — Afghanistan, Iraq and now the Arab-Israeli conflict — are all losing critical momentum and the U.S. ability to control events may slip away unless bolder action is taken, according to experts, current and former U.S. officials and two new reports.

Hanging in the balance, they warn, are America`s credibility abroad and the direction of the Islamic world — moving toward moderation or deeper extremism.

"We were overconfident that American power could somehow intimidate or inhibit the local sources of power and violence. But those power centers — Hamas, Afghan warlords and anti-American forces in Iraq, be they Saddam Hussein loyalists or others — are proving resilient and extremely powerful," said Ellen Laipson, former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council and now president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a foreign policy think tank in Washington. "And they`re all proving to be significant and stubborn challenges for the United States."

Two weeks after President Bush`s summits with Israeli and Mideast leaders produced pledges on a new "road map" to peace, the Arab-Israeli conflict is instead escalating. The militant Palestinian group Hamas is now threatening to target all Israeli civilians, while Israel is pledging a "war to the bitter end" against the militants.

Differences between Israel and the Palestinian Authority about how to pursue peace have now been eclipsed by extremist groups, and so far, military clampdowns have only fueled support for them.

"Control of events seems to be slipping away," said Robert Malley, a former National Security Council staff member in the Clinton administration who is now Mideast program director at the International Crisis Group, a conflict watchdog organization. "The history of U.S. initiatives has often been too little, too late — whether the Mitchell plan, the Tenet plan and perhaps now the road map. These are initiatives whose shelf life had expired by the time they were put on the table."

In Iraq, the war may be over, but the country remains a dangerous combat zone. The political transition has proved messier than anticipated and reconstruction more complex and costly.

"American forces are in a race against the clock. If they are unable to restore both personal security and public services and establish a better rapport with Iraqis before the blistering heat of summer sets in, there is a genuine risk that serious trouble will break out," the International Crisis Group concluded in a report issued last week.

And Afghanistan, where Bush launched military action to root out Osama bin Laden`s Al Qaeda network after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, is the most precarious arena. Despite vehement American pledges not to abandon Afghanistan again, as the U.S. did a decade earlier, the nation is again in trouble.

The Western-backed interim government — now halfway into its two-year term to stabilize the country, write a new constitution and transform political and economic life — essentially controls only the capital. An estimated 100,000 Afghans in various militias hold sway in much of the country. The economy is still in tatters.

"Without greater support for the transitional government of President Hamid Karzai, security in Afghanistan will deteriorate further, prospects for economic reconstruction will dim and Afghanistan will revert to warlord-dominated anarchy," concludes a report by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Asia Society to be released this week. "This failure could gravely erode America`s credibility around the globe and mark a major defeat in the U.S. war on terrorism."

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden and Taliban leaders remain elusive. And Al Qaeda operatives continue to mount terrorist strikes.

U.S. officials say that much has been achieved in Afghanistan, Iraq and on the Israeli- Palestinian front. All three are long-term challenges that will eventually turn around — and the alternative of doing nothing would have been much worse, they add.

"People have often been in too great a rush to judgment, drawing grand conclusions from one event or one day`s developments," said Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst who is a senior research fellow at the National Defense University.

Even critics of the administration agree that it defied dire predictions with almost breathtaking military victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the new Middle East road map sets the most specific goals and deadlines — and has the widest world and regional backing — of any effort in a decade, they say.

Yet there is a growing sense of unease among foreign policy experts as well as some U.S. officials that the problems in each area will increase America`s vulnerability rather than diminish it.

The enormous time required to transform these three arenas — each pivotal to the administration`s broader goals of fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism and spreading democracy — is working against the U.S., they say.

"It`s hard for us to produce results weeks or months after presidential proclamations," said Laipson, the Stimson Center president. "We`ve been humbled or reminded of what a slow and uneven path true political change takes. It is a generational experiment, and it doesn`t happen in one season or one U.S. election cycle."

Short-term expectations, among both local populations and American voters, of near- miraculous transformations are now working against long-term goals in each area.

"People think wars solve problems. They don`t. They simply turn over responsibilities to someone else — while the core problems remain the same," Yaphe said.

A history of failed peace efforts is undermining the Middle East road map, analysts say. Both Israelis and Palestinians had "tremendous cynicism and skepticism" about the peace process even before the latest initiative was introduced, said Shibley Telhami, a Brookings Institution fellow and holder of the Anwar Sadat chair for peace and development at the University of Maryland.

"People on both sides are so tired of promises. They`ve seen it so often in the past: handshakes and pictures and conferences that don`t end up changing anything and, instead, more people die," he said.

Also, what happens in one arena shapes both public attitudes and U.S. prospects for success in another, analysts say.

The problems in Afghanistan have made many Muslims wary of U.S. pledges to follow through in democratizing Iraq or helping to create a Palestinian state. The failure to find chemical or biological arms in Iraq to back up U.S. claims that Baghdad posed an imminent threat has made Arabs suspicious of U.S. motives throughout the Middle East. And deployment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in two Muslim nations has triggered fears about American intentions and possibly an even greater confrontation between the West and the Islamic world.

"You have only one chance to make a good first impression," Telhami said. "In Iraq, a lot of people hated the regime, so the United States had something going for it. But then we ended up unprepared for what followed. So a lot of people who expected the war with Iraq to make the U.S. stronger in the eyes of the world, and therefore able to do more in the region, have found instead that the U.S. has been weakened."

The array of challenges has produced recommendations for bolder U.S. action in each arena.

On the Israeli-Palestinian front, Washington is abuzz with ideas from Congress, think tanks and former U.S. envoys about a more muscular international presence, including U.S. or North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops, to separate the two sides and allow the Palestinian government to build a new security force.

The International Crisis Group`s report on Iraq urges the U.S. to empower Iraqis faster to craft policy and accelerate local elections to maximize popular support and participation. It also calls for funding an international force to conduct joint patrols with Iraqis to end disorder.

To prevent anarchy in Afghanistan, the report from the Council on Foreign Relations and Asia Society says, Washington needs to move quickly to help extend government control outside the capital and inject at least $1 billion for reconstruction in each of the next five years.

"We`ve been quite fortunate that not one of these crises has yet to blow up in our faces," a well-placed diplomat said last week. "Unfortunately, any one of them still could — at any moment."

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-delay16…
THE NATION


GOP`s Go-To Guy Could Pose Risks for President
Tom DeLay`s combative conservatism may harm Bush`s effort to broaden the GOP`s appeal.
By Janet Hook
Times Staff Writer

June 16, 2003

WASHINGTON — Rep. Tom DeLay, a tough political power broker from Texas, is known throughout the nation`s capital as "The Hammer." But for President Bush, he is more like a double-edged sword.

DeLay, the House majority leader, is renowned for the pull-no-punches partisan style that earned him his nickname and made him one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. Since Bush took office, DeLay has put his clout into driving the administration`s agenda through Congress.

But some analysts say that DeLay`s pugnacious conservatism — most recently illustrated by his resistance to a White House-backed tax cut bill to provide benefits for low-income families — also poses political risks for Bush.

While Bush seeks to broaden the appeal of the GOP with his brand of "compassionate conservatism," DeLay excels at catering to the party`s core conservative base in a way that some fear will alienate independent voters.

"Tom DeLay has his strengths," said Rep. James C. Greenwood (R-Pa.), who disagrees with him on such issues as abortion rights and gun control. "But I don`t think that among his great strengths is the ability to warm the hearts of `soccer moms` and other swing voters."

Having kept relatively quiet for a few months after becoming House majority leader in January, DeLay increasingly has shown his combative edge.

Last week, the White House urged House Republicans to quickly pass tax benefits for lower-income families, hoping to douse criticism that the new tax cut law Bush pushed through Congress gave short shrift to the working poor. Defying pressure to approve a narrowly tailored Senate bill on the issue, DeLay and his allies passed a more sweeping measure that, because it includes costly tax breaks for more-affluent families, is sure to prolong the controversy.

This spring, the White House reiterated that Bush wanted to extend a law banning certain assault weapons, a 2000 campaign promise he made on an issue polls show is important to many swing voters. DeLay — a fervent supporter of gun-owner rights — threw cold water on the idea, saying the extension could not pass the House.

And although Bush came to Washington hailing his bipartisan dealings with the Texas Legislature while he was governor, DeLay recently helped unleash bare-knuckle partisanship in Austin. He championed a plan to redraw the state`s congressional districts that critics said was a naked GOP power grab.

Earl Black, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, said DeLay`s efforts tend to "revive the image of the Republican Party as the party of Newt Gingrich," the former House speaker from Georgia whose policies Bush seemed to repudiate with his notion of "compassionate conservatism."

"DeLay really has the potential to create problems for the White House, because he gets in the way of the leadership style Bush is using," Black said.

Bush allies inside and outside the White House say, however, that DeLay will prove an important contributor to Bush`s reelection bid by helping the administration deliver a full plate of legislative achievements.

"There`s always going to be some give-and-take," said one White House official who asked not to be named. But the aide added that any disagreements with DeLay ultimately are less important than "a long list of accomplishments."

DeLay acknowledged in an interview that he "may have some detractors at the White House who may not appreciate my style."

But he said he has much in common with the president — their roots in Texas, their age (both are 56), their families (they both have daughters), and their political and legislative agendas. He sees no conflict between Bush`s attempts to expand the party`s appeal and his own approach.

"I`ve always thought of myself as a compassionate person," DeLay said. "I`ve always felt that conservative philosophy was much more compassionate than liberal philosophy."

Still, DeLay comes to his politics from a different place than Bush.

While government service is practically a family business for the president, DeLay is a former pest control executive whose first race for the House was sparked partly out of frustration with government rules affecting his small business. He is an advocate of free markets with a deep skepticism about government`s ability to be a constructive force in solving domestic problems. He led the charge, after Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, to roll back environmental regulation of business. His critique was so harsh — he called the Environmental Protection Agency the "Gestapo of government" — that even some in his own party recoiled.

Like Bush, DeLay is also a strong ally of the party`s social conservatives. But DeLay is a more outspoken advocate of many of their causes, such as opposing abortion rights. He gave an emotional speech on the House floor recently as lawmakers neared passage of a bill to ban a procedure its critics term "partial birth" abortion. "We have a chance today to make the world a little less cruel for the defenseless," DeLay said.

Bush issued only a spare written statement praising the bill`s passage.

As majority leader, DeLay is second only to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) in the House`s hierarchy. And with his new post has come greater visibility. In his previous job of majority whip, DeLay operated mostly inside the House: He counted noses before key roll calls, cajoling members to vote the party line. But the majority leader traditionally has been a public spokesman for the party.

In making the transition, DeLay has made a few gestures toward smoothing his rough edges. "He recognizes he`s been the lightning rod" for many Democratic attacks on the GOP, said Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the House Commerce Committee.

Gone is the plastered-back hairstyle of yore, replaced by a softer, blow-dried look. He made public appearances with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) — wife of the man DeLay tried to bring down through impeachment — to promote foster parenting. Despite an aversion to dealing with the news media, he now holds weekly news briefings (though he still shuns guest spots on the Sunday television talk shows that most politicians covet).

DeLay said he has tried to be more cautious in his public comments. But even he acknowledged he does not always succeed.

"I can`t help but be a cocky Texan," he said.

That`s how he seemed to many when he spearheaded this year`s bid to change the boundaries for House seats in Texas to favor the GOP — an unusual effort, given that the lines already had been redrawn following the 2000 census.

In a response that captured nationwide attention, outraged Democrats boycotted the state Legislature and fled Texas until the deadline for approving the plan passed.

Democrats in Washington cite the episode as typical of DeLay`s hard-nosed political tactics. But they have had a difficult time turning him into a national political whipping boy, as they were able to do with Gingrich. That`s in part because, despite his vast power, DeLay remains an unknown quantity to most Americans, polls indicate.

"Thank goodness," DeLay said. "I don`t think it is necessary to doing my job to be a celebrity."

But among House Republicans, DeLay is the go-to guy — for legislative influence and political money. His fund-raising prowess is legendary, and stands only to increase with his promotion.

He raised $1.35 million for his reelection in 2002; his political action committee raised $3.3 million to contribute to other Republicans. According to federal election data analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics, a group that studies fund-raising trends, he gave more to other GOP candidates in the 2002 election than any other House Republican — including Hastert. DeLay has also helped raise millions more through the National Republican Congressional Committee, as well as a network of other political organizations that his supporters call "DeLay Inc."

What`s more, DeLay has the clout to channel money to candidates by leaning on other donors, especially those seeking his favor for their legislative agendas. Nor has he hesitated to try to change the way business lobbying groups deal with Capitol Hill, calling on them to stop their practice of hedging their bets by giving to both parties. He also has urged them to hire Republicans for key jobs.

In 1998, his hand got too heavy: The House ethics committee formally rebuked DeLay for pressuring the Electronics Industry Assn. not to hire a former Democratic congressman as its chief.

DeLay`s fund-raising skills helped him, as whip, to build a loyal following among the rank and file. He and a team of almost 70 deputies also relied on other techniques to solidify support, such as making sure lawmakers received federal funding for pet projects.

As majority leader, he is building bridges to a new constituency — the House`s powerful committee chairmen — whose legislative work he now is charged with coordinating.

He has had strained relations with moderate Republicans. They were furious to learn that a political action committee affiliated with DeLay in 2002 contributed to the Club for Growth, a conservative group that backs primary challengers against GOP incumbents it considers too liberal.

But of late, DeLay has offered olive branches. During debate on the "partial birth" abortion bill, he agreed to allow Greenwood and other abortion-rights advocates to offer an alternative. It lost, but it won DeLay some goodwill.

"He`s learned that sometimes his personal ideological bent has to yield to moderates if the team is going to work together," Greenwood said.

DeLay`s solid base within the House gives him an ability to deliver votes for the White House that is matched by few, if any, other lawmakers. Still, the majority leader has not always been on the same page as Bush, as shown most often by disputes on tax policy.

During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush and DeLay openly feuded over a House GOP proposal to cut costs by stretching out payments of tax refunds to the working poor. Bush denounced it as an effort to "balance their budget on the backs of the poor." DeLay shot back: "He obviously doesn`t understand how Congress works."

That episode has been echoed by the current flap over aid to the working poor. Stung by criticism that the new tax cuts did not include provisions for lower-income people to benefit from an increase in the tax credit for children, Senate Republicans moved quickly to pass a $10.5-billion bill to provide the aid.

Early last week, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush`s "advice" to the House was to quickly pass the Senate bill. That infuriated many House Republicans, who want to provide the low-income aid only if they can also enact more tax cuts for affluent taxpayers. DeLay had a typically tart reply to the suggestion that the House rubber-stamp the Senate bill: "Ain`t gonna happen."

White House officials backpedaled and said the administration was not wedded to the Senate bill. The House on Thursday passed a $82-billion bill that links the low-income aid to the broader tax cuts. That sends the issue into potentially protracted negotiations with the Senate — to the dismay of those Republicans who don`t want to spend more time fighting an image that they don`t care about the working poor.

A liberal activist group sought to underscore the perception problem by organizing a band of women with children in strollers to descend on DeLay`s office Wednesday to protest the House`s stance on the tax cut issue.

At the same time, others see possible political advantages for Bush and DeLay when they periodically disagree. DeLay`s standing among House Republicans generally is enhanced when he shows a willingness to take on the White House. And it becomes easier for Bush to position himself toward the political center when DeLay highlights a difference with him from the right.

"It`s a good cop, bad cop thing," said a senior House GOP aide.

Bush himself has joked about DeLay`s reputation. At a Washington press club dinner, he said he was once asked whether DeLay ever smiled. Bush said he replied, "I don`t know. I`ve only known him nine years."

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Tom DeLay

Position: House majority leader

Born: April 8, 1947

Home: Sugar Land, Texas

Religion: Baptist

Education: B.S. in biology, University of Houston, 1970

Career: Owner, Albo Pest Control, 1973-84; member of Texas House of Representatives, 1979-84; U.S. representative, 1984-present

Family: Married, one daughter

Sources: The Almanac of American Politics 2002; DeLay`s official biography; Who`s Who in America


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[wolaufensie]

...ist das hier der Autisten-Thread...?...

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ehrlich…
COMMENTARY
a d v e r t i s e m e n t




Expectations of Economic Deflation Are Highly Inflated
The folks worried about falling prices are helping to spur growth.
By Everett Ehrlich

June 16, 2003

Every so often some economists decide that everything they ever learned was wrong and, from that moment on, everything is going to be completely different.

Twenty years ago it was the idea that cutting taxes radically would pay for itself. Predictably, the nation`s largest peacetime deficits resulted. Five years ago it was the idea that the Internet made companies valuable even if they produced no profit and very little product. Unsurprisingly, the stock market nose-dived soon thereafter.

Now, the idea is deflation — that prices are going to fall steadily just as they`ve risen steadily for all of our lives.

Want to bet how this turns out?

Everyone agrees that sustained deflation would be a very bad thing. If people expect prices to fall every year, then why buy anything now, why invest in anything now and why not keep your money stuffed in a mattress as it continually grows in value?

But the fact that deflation is bad doesn`t mean it is imminent.

The proponents of impending deflation have their reasons. The first is that Iraqi oil supplies will trigger a global glut. Another is that productivity is so strong throughout the economy. And then there`s the global deflationary monster, China, whose 1.3 billion people work for beans and will soon make all the world`s cars, computers and cat litter.

How can global prices do anything but fall in the face of these unrelenting pressures?

Hold on. Let`s say oil prices fall from their current level of about $27 to, say, $5 a barrel. Fine — what do they do next year, fall another 20 bucks? Lower oil prices aren`t sustained deflation; they`re a one-shot deal. And dollars to doughnuts you`ll take the money you saved at the gas pump and buy something else, and the price of whatever it is will go up.

But what about productivity? Doesn`t it force prices to fall? Sure, productivity allows firms to sell for less, but if higher productivity led to deflation, prices would have fallen for all of human history. Productivity growth isn`t a problem — it`s a miracle. If it weren`t for productivity growth, we`d all have the standard of living of mule drivers and wood cutters.

A more productive worker earns more in the marketplace and in turn spends more. And spending more keeps prices stable, if not rising.

Which leaves the idea that China will export its own poverty to us through lower prices for everything.

China has certainly been a prodigious exporter, but most of its success has come at the expense of low-wage Asian and Latin American nations that make similar products. So China`s products are not lowering world prices so much as out-competing the products of other low-wage producers. The stuff China makes is already cheap. Moreover, at some point, China won`t be a low-wage producer. China`s currency is officially pegged to the dollar, but the pressure to allow it to appreciate is substantial. When it inevitably does, China`s products will become less cheap. It`s all part of the Chinese economy growing up.

Today, deflation is the economy`s biggest worry. Even Alan Greenspan acknowledges that it would be a bear. But the best argument against deflation is that the U.S. economy is about to grow, and, ironically, the deflationists have all but assured that growth.

In response to their worries, the Fed has made money cheap, because everyone knows that`s the way to fight deflation. So now financial markets, caught in the thrall of the deflationary and "slow growth" crowd, are confident that the Fed is going to keep money cheap to fight deflation not only this quarter and this year but this entire decade.

Already, the rate of return on 10-year Treasury bonds is 3.11% — 3.11%, that`s all you get. Somebody must think that`s an acceptable interest rate, because somebody is lending the government their money at that rate.

But I`ll tell you who thinks that`s cheap — everybody who`s refinancing his or her house, often for the second time. People are running to borrow at these rates. And the corporations refinancing their debts think it`s cheap too.

Those very low interest rates mean that households and corporations will have low borrowing costs for years to come, setting the stage for more rapid — non-deflationary — growth. The deflationists who lent their money to them at these interest rates will prove the losers when rates rise again after the economy starts to grow, the way it always does.

The strength of the deflationists` conviction will save the economy from the danger they foresee. It`s an irony only an economist could love.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everett Ehrlich, a former undersecretary of Commerce in the Clinton administration, is senior vice president and director of research of the Committee for Economic Development, a nonpartisan, business-based economic policy think tank.



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-etzioni…
COMMENTARY



Don`t Separate Mosque and State
U.S. should stop trying to export its secular system to Iraq
By Amitai Etzioni

June 16, 2003

The United States should cease promoting a secular civil society as the only alternative to a Taliban-like theocracy in Iraq. We cannot quell the religious yearnings of millions of Iraqis merely by fostering democracy and capitalism.

The most effective way to counter a theocracy is to promote moderate, liberal religious institutions.

The 1st Amendment`s separation of church and state is not a foreign policy tool; it`s a peculiar American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the U.S. does not mean that it cannot promote it as part of a civil society in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I know a bit about how receptive Shiites (and arguably also Sunnis) are to moderate Islam because they laid out their position during a three-day meeting in Iran that I attended a year ago. It was organized by reformers, but hard-liners also participated. The main point, repeatedly stressed during the meeting, was that both camps want to live in an Islamic society. The hard-liners are committed to enforcing the religious code by the use of moral squads, secret police and jails, while the reformers favor encouraging people to be devout. "If you do not force people to come, they will want to come," they said.

Liberal Islam is spiritual and social rather than political. Indeed, it differs from the rigid authoritarian version much as liberal Protestants differ from Southern Baptists, and Reform Jews differ from ultra-Orthodox ones, although by a higher order of magnitude.

What would a pro-Islam policy look like in Iraq?

Instead of demanding that the current madrasas be replaced by wholly secular schools, as Sen. Joseph Biden has suggested, we might favor the inclusion of religious electives in public schools (as long as the teachers are qualified, which entails tolerance for a diversity of viewpoints). We could allow the funding of social services through religious organizations, as long as the funds are used for social and not political or religious purposes (call them faith-based institutions). And we could allow the state to pay the salaries of clergy and for the maintenance of places of worship, as do most democracies (other than the U.S. and France).

One may ask, "What about Christians and those who do not wish to adhere to any religion?" A religious society, as opposed to a religious state, can tolerate nonbelievers. It is the difference between enforcing adherence to a religious code and merely supporting it as one alternative. If this sounds abstract, consider that in the U.S. you can be legally married by religious authorities or government authorities, despite our insistence on the separation of church and state.

Favoring liberal Islam as an antidote to fundamentalist Islam is not to be confused with a related but different issue, whether Islam is compatible with democracy. I take it for granted that Iraq can and should have a democratic form of government. However, it should not treat religion as a threat but, potentially, as one mainstay. The current U.S. position ignores that potential.

The 13 points released by U.S. Central Command — that the rule of law be paramount, for instance, or that the role of women be respected — are fine, but they all speak only to secular issues. Whether deliberately or unwittingly, they reflect the concept of the "end of history" — that all ideologies are on their last legs as the world embraces the American version of democracy, human rights and the free market.

This idea, in turn, is an extension of the Enlightenment conceit that modernity is based on rational thinking. Irrational religion, then, belongs to history, and secularism — reason and science — will govern the future.

However, as we are learning all over the world, people have spiritual needs that cannot be addressed, let alone satisfied, by Enlightenment ideas. We see the explosive growth of Christianity in East Asia and Africa, a resurgence of religion in Russia and other former communist nations in Eastern Europe and a rise in Islam even in countries that had extensive secular, modern periods — most tellingly, in Turkey. People ask: Why are we cast into this world? Why are we born to die? What do we owe our children, our elderly parents and our friends and community?

Neither democracy nor capitalism speaks to these issues. Hence for the many millions of people there is religion, hard-line or moderate. Which one we should favor is clear, as long as we can get off our Enlightenment horse.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and professor at George Washington University, is the author of "My Brother`s Keeper: A Memoir" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com
Giving good war
Tom Engelhardt
Sunday, June 15, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


For almost 30 years, the Pentagon has worked its tail off organizing the media to give us good war, the sort of "good war" the "greatest generation" gave us on-screen year after year, film after film; the sort of good war American-style that George W. Bush and Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and I once, in our distant childhoods, sat in the dark and thrilled to, as American children had long thrilled to American images of triumph and victory. It`s funny, back then on-screen it seemed so easy. It seemed like it would never go away.

Sometime in the early 1990s, I took my son, then perhaps 7, to see "The Charge at Feather River," a 3-D cowboy-and-Indian (and cavalry) film I had first seen, dodging the arrows that zipped off screen, in 1953.

"Charge" turned out to be retro even for 1953: The Indians were especially evil, and the plot was based on the oldest pop hook in our cultural pantheon, the capture of white women by savages and their subsequent rescue.

If it worked for Mary Rowlandson, who in 1682 published what became one of the first American best-sellers based on her own captivity experience, then why shouldn`t it still work almost three centuries later?

And indeed, with the help of dime novels, medicine shows, theatricals, Wild West shows, and then, of course, the movies, there had developed over those centuries a glorious war story, a tale of American armed triumphalism that, by my childhood, put you thrillingly, behind the sights of a gun staring out from the dark of a movie theater seat at the horizon.

Sooner or later, you always knew that "they" -- incomprehensible, fanatic savages somewhere on that untamed frontier -- would launch an unprovoked attack and be mowed down.


THE WAR OUR DADS FOUGHT
It was from this perspective, too, that kids like me learned about the war our dads -- as silent on the subject as those tight-lipped screen giants John Wayne and Gary Cooper -- fought and won. This was the real history we learned, not the one in school textbooks, and it all made sense to us. Like any living mythology, it was a belief system that satisfied. It`s not fashionable to admit to this anymore, but it`s important to understand it: War on screen, in the parks, and with toy soldiers on the floor was, for many in my childhood years, the sunniest part of growing up.

Anyway, sitting in that dark movie theater a decade or so ago, once again dodging arrows, I had more or less forgotten about my son, perched beside me in silence, until, that is, he tugged on my sleeve. "Dad," he said in a stage whisper that filled the theater, "I`m confused. I thought the Indians were the good guys."

So there we were, just post-Gulf War I, way post-"Star Wars" and "Rambo" and "Platoon," post-"Dances with Wolves," the Transformers and He-Man, post early versions of Dungeons and Dragons, and I realized that the most essential,

most American story of my childhood was gone. It was the story that sent chills up my spine when the cavalry bugle sounded or the Marine Hymn welled up as our soldiers advanced, the one that explained (without even seeming to) why they lost and we won, why they fell by their scores and we didn`t. My son played on his floor with Ninja Turtles and Skeletor, but not cowboys or Apache chiefs or green plastic World War II units ready to land on Okinawa. In the aftermath of Vietnam, a style of American storytelling had evaporated. For my son, watching "The Charge at Feather River" was like me catching a Samurai soap opera in a Tokyo hotel room. Lots of action, but who knew what was happening.


TRADITION BITES THE DUST
To ask why the Indians were the bad guys was to suggest only one thing -- that an American triumphalist tradition had bitten the dust. Sayonara, John Wayne.

Now, post Gulf War II, we`re in the midst of another American triumphalist moment, and here`s the strange thing, this time I feel like my disbelieving son in that movie theater. I`ve been thinking about his decade-old comment ever since our president hit that carrier deck for his global photo-op/victory lap and the Jessica Lynch movie -- oops, story -- was aired in something close to real time -- that same old American tale of a captured white woman rescued from the savages.

I`ve been thinking about it ever since I realized that a classic movie scene of my childhood -- the settlers at screen center inside their circle of wagons, high-tech weapons at the ready, awaiting an assault by unknown fanatics -- was the very perspective the "embedded" TV reporters offered us day after day in something close to real time during our brief war.

During World War II it took weeks for newsreels to make it from the battlefield to the movie theater and a year or more for government-sanitized Hollywood films to appear. Even during Vietnam, that "living room war" (in New Yorker reporter Michael Arlen`s felicitous phrase), virtually all news footage aired at least 24 hours after it was shot. But the gap between war and war-on- screen has since been erased.


GOVERNMENTAL SPIN
Governmental war propaganda and government-sponsored war imagery have a long history, and the Pentagon has also long had a dominant hand in the making and shaping of war films. But the recent planning for both the shooting and the "shooting" represents, I believe, something new. The Pentagon has managed to conflate war, American-style, and the mythification of war, American-style, and is now intent on making war and "war" at one and the same moment.

Its officials want to create images that, like global domination, are forever. But our new colonial wars and the stories being told about them seem to have remarkably brief half-lives; while in progress, both feel triumphant and triumphalist, yet neither proves satisfying for very long.

War as entertainment seems to have lost its staying power -- and let`s thank the gods for small post-Vietnam favors. Instead, appropriately enough given the Bush administration, war has been plunged into the culture`s jostling free market of entertainment along with the X-Men and the survivors of "Survivor," Stephen King and Laci Peterson, the latest terrorist attacks, the NBA finals and Seinfeld reruns.

As a cultural creation, war has become a strangely fragile creature cobbled together on the fly by the Pentagon and the media, and, despite all the planning, by the seat of everyone`s pants.


LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION
Utterly confident of victory over Saddam Hussein`s punchless military, the Pentagon this time decided to take a chance and create a flow of images in real time. A thrilling action film for viewers at home. Movie-making and war- making would be intertwined. The director would be the Pentagon, and we would see our troops advance in triumph.

Perhaps the height of such instant movie-making was the rescue of Jessica Lynch by U.S. Special Forces who arrived at the hospital where she was being held armed with night-vision cameras, shot film of the rescue, and transmitted it in real time to Centcom headquarters in Doha, where it was edited and released.

The result was a dreamy media frenzy of patriotism back home, complete with a wave of Jessica T-shirts and other paraphernalia and an NBC movie of the week, evidently already in production. And yet Jessica Lynch`s story, like the story of that toppled statue in Baghdad, like the story of Hussein`s vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, may not make it to the summer in anything but tatters. Already the BBC has investigated and offered a distinctly unheroic version of the rescue -- no gun or knife wounds, no mistreatment, no Iraqi defenders from whom to be rescued.


PROBLEMS OF INSTANT MYTHOLOGY
But if Jessica Lynch`s story may not make it in full glory much past tomorrow, unlike Mary Rowlandson`s which lasted through lifetimes of reprints (and still can be purchased), it`s only an example of the problems involved in creating mythology on the fly, however high-tech your cameras or dramatic your sets.

These days, we enter the darkness of the movie theater to escape history. When we watch "battles," it`s Sauron`s Uruk-Hai facing off against the Rohan at the edge of Mordor, or Neo doing Jackie Chan in quintuple time somewhere in the Matrix.

Given a system that eats itself for breakfast, the second coming of America`s victory culture may prove ephemeral. I wouldn`t bet that a year from now, no less in a decade, kids anywhere in America will be playing GIs and Iraqis, or Delta Force and Afghans in their backyards. And maybe we should all thank our lucky stars for that.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page D - 1

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq2003/126840_iraq16.html[(/…

P-I In Iraq: Dance of fear is new beat in Iraq
Monday, June 16, 2003

By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR

BAGHDAD -- This is the U.S.-Baghdad boogaloo. It is a dance of fear, and if not loathing, certainly a growing dislike. The United States plays the music, but to many Iraqis it is discordant, lacking a director. Iraqis are dancing, all across the country, to twitchy rhythms of crime and violence, joblessness and poverty, malnutrition and disease.

The driving backbeat to it all is fear.

People don`t feel safe on the streets, at work or in their homes. Crime and violence are rampant. Everyone says they want more police on the streets. They say they can`t understand why the U.S. military isn`t stepping in to halt the crime and violence.

In a nation of 25 million people, perhaps 80 percent of the work force has no work. Most of those who are working haven`t received pay for the past three months.

By U.S. decree, the Iraqi army has been disbanded, putting a million more men out of work, which is a crisis for some 7 million people since the average Iraqi family consists of about seven people.

Crippling economic sanctions, in effect since 1990, had already devastated the economy, virtually wiped out the middle class and fueled a major health crisis that had been killing thousands of Iraqis, mostly children.

Now Western aid workers, as well as Iraqi health officials, say conditions are worse than they have ever been, with increasing reports of cholera, black fever and infant diarrhea.

There is a pervasive aimlessness. No one seems to know what is going to happen. People talk of feeling hopeless, with no one to turn to for help or to tell them what the future may bring.

And Iraqi fears go much deeper than any immediate threat of physical harm. Even though they want what they call the invasion force to provide more security, they are also afraid that the invasion means the days of Iraq as an independent, wealthy nation are over.

While some people welcome the end of Saddam`s rule, there is much talk of how Iraq may become a major debtor nation like Argentina, so heavily in hock to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that it will never be able to rebuild its once-thriving middle class or use its oil wealth to create a prosperous modern society.

Throughout it all, despite the overwhelming problems, many Iraqis remain friendly toward visitors from the United States -- wary of America, but warm to Americans.

And if the Iraqi people can be likened to dancers on a shattered dance floor, many still seem to have the right moves.

Meet some of them:


The school superintendent

Kadik Al-Koburk, the superintendent of schools in Kut, has been meeting with other school administrators in his dusty office. But he interrupted the discussion to welcome visitors from the United States.

The office is dark; there is no electricity. It`s 110 degrees outside.

"Our schools are in need of many things: desks, textbooks, blackboards," Al-Koburk said.

But he said the schools are, at least, in operation, thanks, he said, to local U.S. Marines who helped them right after the war. He also credited Mercy Corps for arranging transportation for teachers who had been reluctant to return to school because of violence in the streets.

Al-Koburk described how, according to U.S. decree, all reference to Saddam Hussein and the old regime has been removed from the curriculum.

In passing, he mentioned that U.S. forces had bombed some schools during the war, but he blamed Saddam`s military for that since they had used some of the schools as quarters for the soldiers.

At one of the schools under his jurisdiction, the new headmistress, Iman Abdul Saadah, echoed Al-Koburk`s description of the schools as in need of everything.

"Many were looted," said Saadah, who replaced the previous Baath Party headmistress only a few days earlier.

She said the other woman was now working as an ordinary teacher.

"We are all still friends," Saadah said. "She had to be a party member."

Security, she said, was the biggest concern for all of the teachers. "We fear for our children in the classrooms, and we are even afraid in our homes."


The medical school dean

"This is the right time for active support to help prevent the catastrophic effects of the bombing," said Dr. Alim Yacoub, who was spending his last day as dean of the Al Mustansiriya Medical School in Baghdad packing up his office before moving to the Department of Community Medicine.

"It is the right time for our U.S. friends to alleviate the consequences of depleted uranium and dirty weapons," he said. Yacoub is the foremost Iraqi authority on the effects of DU.

He has tracked the rise of cancer in Iraq for years, and places the blame squarely on DU, which is used on some U.S. armaments because of its armor-piercing qualities.

"For the past 12 years we have only been able to watch what`s going on in this country, now it is time for a comprehensive health plan for cleaning up DU and for treating cancer," he said. He has carefully preserved his studies and is eager to present them to other researchers.


The sheik

Sheik Rabia Muhamad`s home in Baghdad`s Mansur district is just two houses down and across the street from the house bombed in an apparently errant attack against Saddam. The explosion demolished its target and damaged several other nearby houses. The windows were blown out of the sheik`s home.

The windows had been repaired when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer team visited. The lot where the targeted house had been was clear of debris. The ground had been leveled and dirt compacted. The U.S. military had carted everything away in an effort to turn up DNA from Saddam.

The sheik wanted to talk about politics and the future of Iraq. He said he had been working day and night, meeting with leaders of other tribes throughout the country in an effort to organize a new political party. He called it the Iraqi Social Party.

"This is a new political environment," said Muhamad, at 72 still robust and energetic and the leader of a tribe that had members all over the Middle East.

"Democracy is much in demand," he said in perfect English.

Muhamad said it was time for a party that represents even the poorest people.

"Everyone should have a right to a share of every barrel of oil that is sold in Iraq," he said. "As it is right now, with the stealing and kidnapping, the people have nothing."

The Iraqi Social Party is a party for all the people, including Shia and Christian; Arabs and Kurds, Muhamad said.

He said he would tell the religious leaders that, "The aim of any religion is the good of the people, not to fight each other, killing each other like they are doing in Algeria, for example."

But Muhamad said, the Iraqi people need a government soon, so people can go to work and feel that they have meaning in their lives and a future. He worried that more violence was possible if that didn`t happen soon.

"Already some people are starting to follow the radical elements," Muhamad said.

The Iraqi people need a strong leader who is willing to work for the benefit of the country and who puts the needs of the people first.

Muhamad said he wants the Americans to stay in Iraq and help build Iraq into the leading nation in the Middle East.

And how long should they stay?

"As long as they are helping the Iraqi people, they are welcome," he said.


The matriarch

In 1999, a P-I reporter and photographer visited Sabehna Jasim in her three-bedroom apartment overlooking a busy marketplace in eastern Baghdad.

Jasim and the other seven members of her extended family living in the apartment had welcomed us warmly, even though Jasim`s first-born son had died fighting Americans in the Persian Gulf War.

She was a strong woman, holding her family together, keeping younger ones in school despite hardships of U.N. sanctions.

A second P-I team sent to Iraq in October 2002 was unable to find Jasim and her family despite the help of government minders, who assisted visiting journalists. It was one of the biggest disappointments of the trip.

This time around, the P-I found the apartment overlooking the marketplace.

One of Jasim`s grandsons, Muhanid, answered the door. The oldest daughter, Aman, led the way upstairs into the dark apartment. Electricity was out in the neighborhood. Jasim and her husband weren`t there, but the rest of the family was, looking exactly the same -- and were as warm and welcoming -- as in 1999.

"My mother died in 2001," Aman said. "My father died in 2002."

Aman said Jasim remembered the earlier visit fondly, and had hoped that the P-I team would return.

Aman said her mother had always liked Saddam and would be sad and angry that he was gone. "She wasn`t political," Aman said. "She liked Saddam only because he would not bow down to the United States."

The family repeated the often-heard fears about safety. They said there was shooting in the neighborhood every night and that no one went out after dark.

They were happy to get copies of the 1999 special report on Iraq that mentioned Jasim, and one young woman kissed Jasim`s photo in the paper.

One of Jasim`s granddaughters asked if the visitors were from England, and appeared shocked to learn they were from the United States. For a while, she refused to pose with the rest of the family in any photos, and stared at the guests angrily.

But after a while she apparently decided that just because the guests were Americans didn`t necessarily make them invaders, and by the time the team left, she was smiling and posing for photos again.

"It`s very important that the U.S. government helps us start our own government," Aman said. "They must put an end to the crime and violence and turn the government over to Iraqis -- if they don`t, everyone will rise up against them."

It could have been Sabehna Jasim talking." target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq2003/126840_iraq16.html[(/…

P-I In Iraq: Dance of fear is new beat in Iraq
Monday, June 16, 2003

By LARRY JOHNSON
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER FOREIGN DESK EDITOR

BAGHDAD -- This is the U.S.-Baghdad boogaloo. It is a dance of fear, and if not loathing, certainly a growing dislike. The United States plays the music, but to many Iraqis it is discordant, lacking a director. Iraqis are dancing, all across the country, to twitchy rhythms of crime and violence, joblessness and poverty, malnutrition and disease.

The driving backbeat to it all is fear.

People don`t feel safe on the streets, at work or in their homes. Crime and violence are rampant. Everyone says they want more police on the streets. They say they can`t understand why the U.S. military isn`t stepping in to halt the crime and violence.

In a nation of 25 million people, perhaps 80 percent of the work force has no work. Most of those who are working haven`t received pay for the past three months.

By U.S. decree, the Iraqi army has been disbanded, putting a million more men out of work, which is a crisis for some 7 million people since the average Iraqi family consists of about seven people.

Crippling economic sanctions, in effect since 1990, had already devastated the economy, virtually wiped out the middle class and fueled a major health crisis that had been killing thousands of Iraqis, mostly children.

Now Western aid workers, as well as Iraqi health officials, say conditions are worse than they have ever been, with increasing reports of cholera, black fever and infant diarrhea.

There is a pervasive aimlessness. No one seems to know what is going to happen. People talk of feeling hopeless, with no one to turn to for help or to tell them what the future may bring.

And Iraqi fears go much deeper than any immediate threat of physical harm. Even though they want what they call the invasion force to provide more security, they are also afraid that the invasion means the days of Iraq as an independent, wealthy nation are over.

While some people welcome the end of Saddam`s rule, there is much talk of how Iraq may become a major debtor nation like Argentina, so heavily in hock to the U.S.-dominated World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that it will never be able to rebuild its once-thriving middle class or use its oil wealth to create a prosperous modern society.

Throughout it all, despite the overwhelming problems, many Iraqis remain friendly toward visitors from the United States -- wary of America, but warm to Americans.

And if the Iraqi people can be likened to dancers on a shattered dance floor, many still seem to have the right moves.

Meet some of them:


The school superintendent

Kadik Al-Koburk, the superintendent of schools in Kut, has been meeting with other school administrators in his dusty office. But he interrupted the discussion to welcome visitors from the United States.

The office is dark; there is no electricity. It`s 110 degrees outside.

"Our schools are in need of many things: desks, textbooks, blackboards," Al-Koburk said.

But he said the schools are, at least, in operation, thanks, he said, to local U.S. Marines who helped them right after the war. He also credited Mercy Corps for arranging transportation for teachers who had been reluctant to return to school because of violence in the streets.

Al-Koburk described how, according to U.S. decree, all reference to Saddam Hussein and the old regime has been removed from the curriculum.

In passing, he mentioned that U.S. forces had bombed some schools during the war, but he blamed Saddam`s military for that since they had used some of the schools as quarters for the soldiers.

At one of the schools under his jurisdiction, the new headmistress, Iman Abdul Saadah, echoed Al-Koburk`s description of the schools as in need of everything.

"Many were looted," said Saadah, who replaced the previous Baath Party headmistress only a few days earlier.

She said the other woman was now working as an ordinary teacher.

"We are all still friends," Saadah said. "She had to be a party member."

Security, she said, was the biggest concern for all of the teachers. "We fear for our children in the classrooms, and we are even afraid in our homes."


The medical school dean

"This is the right time for active support to help prevent the catastrophic effects of the bombing," said Dr. Alim Yacoub, who was spending his last day as dean of the Al Mustansiriya Medical School in Baghdad packing up his office before moving to the Department of Community Medicine.

"It is the right time for our U.S. friends to alleviate the consequences of depleted uranium and dirty weapons," he said. Yacoub is the foremost Iraqi authority on the effects of DU.

He has tracked the rise of cancer in Iraq for years, and places the blame squarely on DU, which is used on some U.S. armaments because of its armor-piercing qualities.

"For the past 12 years we have only been able to watch what`s going on in this country, now it is time for a comprehensive health plan for cleaning up DU and for treating cancer," he said. He has carefully preserved his studies and is eager to present them to other researchers.


The sheik

Sheik Rabia Muhamad`s home in Baghdad`s Mansur district is just two houses down and across the street from the house bombed in an apparently errant attack against Saddam. The explosion demolished its target and damaged several other nearby houses. The windows were blown out of the sheik`s home.

The windows had been repaired when the Seattle Post-Intelligencer team visited. The lot where the targeted house had been was clear of debris. The ground had been leveled and dirt compacted. The U.S. military had carted everything away in an effort to turn up DNA from Saddam.

The sheik wanted to talk about politics and the future of Iraq. He said he had been working day and night, meeting with leaders of other tribes throughout the country in an effort to organize a new political party. He called it the Iraqi Social Party.

"This is a new political environment," said Muhamad, at 72 still robust and energetic and the leader of a tribe that had members all over the Middle East.

"Democracy is much in demand," he said in perfect English.

Muhamad said it was time for a party that represents even the poorest people.

"Everyone should have a right to a share of every barrel of oil that is sold in Iraq," he said. "As it is right now, with the stealing and kidnapping, the people have nothing."

The Iraqi Social Party is a party for all the people, including Shia and Christian; Arabs and Kurds, Muhamad said.

He said he would tell the religious leaders that, "The aim of any religion is the good of the people, not to fight each other, killing each other like they are doing in Algeria, for example."

But Muhamad said, the Iraqi people need a government soon, so people can go to work and feel that they have meaning in their lives and a future. He worried that more violence was possible if that didn`t happen soon.

"Already some people are starting to follow the radical elements," Muhamad said.

The Iraqi people need a strong leader who is willing to work for the benefit of the country and who puts the needs of the people first.

Muhamad said he wants the Americans to stay in Iraq and help build Iraq into the leading nation in the Middle East.

And how long should they stay?

"As long as they are helping the Iraqi people, they are welcome," he said.


The matriarch

In 1999, a P-I reporter and photographer visited Sabehna Jasim in her three-bedroom apartment overlooking a busy marketplace in eastern Baghdad.

Jasim and the other seven members of her extended family living in the apartment had welcomed us warmly, even though Jasim`s first-born son had died fighting Americans in the Persian Gulf War.

She was a strong woman, holding her family together, keeping younger ones in school despite hardships of U.N. sanctions.

A second P-I team sent to Iraq in October 2002 was unable to find Jasim and her family despite the help of government minders, who assisted visiting journalists. It was one of the biggest disappointments of the trip.

This time around, the P-I found the apartment overlooking the marketplace.

One of Jasim`s grandsons, Muhanid, answered the door. The oldest daughter, Aman, led the way upstairs into the dark apartment. Electricity was out in the neighborhood. Jasim and her husband weren`t there, but the rest of the family was, looking exactly the same -- and were as warm and welcoming -- as in 1999.

"My mother died in 2001," Aman said. "My father died in 2002."

Aman said Jasim remembered the earlier visit fondly, and had hoped that the P-I team would return.

Aman said her mother had always liked Saddam and would be sad and angry that he was gone. "She wasn`t political," Aman said. "She liked Saddam only because he would not bow down to the United States."

The family repeated the often-heard fears about safety. They said there was shooting in the neighborhood every night and that no one went out after dark.

They were happy to get copies of the 1999 special report on Iraq that mentioned Jasim, and one young woman kissed Jasim`s photo in the paper.

One of Jasim`s granddaughters asked if the visitors were from England, and appeared shocked to learn they were from the United States. For a while, she refused to pose with the rest of the family in any photos, and stared at the guests angrily.

But after a while she apparently decided that just because the guests were Americans didn`t necessarily make them invaders, and by the time the team left, she was smiling and posing for photos again.

"It`s very important that the U.S. government helps us start our own government," Aman said. "They must put an end to the crime and violence and turn the government over to Iraqis -- if they don`t, everyone will rise up against them."

It could have been Sabehna Jasim talking.

[Joerver]

Iraq occupation has deadly toll for US
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/167/nation/Iraq_occupation…
By Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff and Amber Mobley, Globe Correspondent, 6/16/2003

WASHINGTON - Since April 14, when Pentagon officials declared major combat finished in Iraq, more US military personnel have died while occupying Iraq than in a year of occupying Afghanistan, according to Department of Defense figures compiled by the Globe.

Fifty-six US troops have died in Iraq since the fall of Tikrit nearly nine weeks ago, and the majority of those deaths have come in the past six weeks - after President Bush`s May 1 speech declaring that invasion operations had ended. Since then, 46 deaths have been reported among US forces, including 11 from combat wounds.

The numbers reflect the ongoing danger facing US troops in Iraq, where coalition forces have in recent days stepped up efforts to root out loyalists of deposed dictator Saddam Hussein, using task force tactics strikingly similar to those used in the last year to hunt down Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in Afghanistan. The figures also reflect the crucial difference between the US goals, presence, and activities in Iraq and those in Afghanistan.

By comparison, since the end of major operations in Operation Anaconda in mid-March 2002 - which was the biggest battle of the Afghan war and which was said to have finished the last major concentration of Al Qaeda and Taliban - 27 US troops have been killed, seven as a result of hostilities. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not declare an end to major combat operations in Afghanistan until the start of May this year. Lower-level combat operations continue in that country.

``We`re actually trying to stabilize all of Iraq, and our ambitions aren`t as great in Afghanistan,`` said Michael O`Hanlon, a defense expert with the progressive Brookings Institution.

One reason for the higher death rate in Iraq is that many more US military personnel are stationed in that nation than in Afghanistan.

``It`s awfully hard for people to kill American soldiers if there aren`t any on the ground,`` said Loren Thompson, a defense expert with the Lexington Institute, a libertarian-leaning research group. ``The US waged the Afghan war with a minimal ground presence, and even now the number of US troops in Afghanistan is less than 10 percent of the Iraqi presence. So part of the explanation is there are fewer targets for Taliban sympathizers to shoot.``

About 8,500 US troops are in Afghanistan, compared with 140,000 US and coalition troops in Iraq, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based think tank. Overall, about 220,000 US troops are in the Persian Gulf region.

The US strategy for the Afghan war focused on a relatively small US force augmented by local troops.

``Much of our fighting was actually done through indigenous warlords and ethnic forces,`` Thompson said. ``Within particular sectors of the country, there`s not much reason for people to want to shoot us, whereas from one end of Iraq to the other there are displaced Ba`ath Party sympathizers that hate us.``

Following the conflict, military specialists said, US strategy has likewise relied on local indigenous authorities - warlords - to keep day-to-day order while focusing on support for the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai.

``All we`re trying to do in Afghanistan is keep Karzai as mayor of Kabul and give American forces freedom of movement around the rest of the country,`` said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org. ``Whereas in Iraq we`re attempting to actually govern the country. We`re attempting to assert a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Not to raise the dreaded `quagmire` word, [but] what we`re trying to do in Iraq is much closer to what the Soviets were doing in Afghanistan or what we were trying to do in Vietnam. We have intentionally avoided that in Afghanistan.``

The ongoing US mission in Afghanistan also has been less reactive, with the US troops that are there predominantly focused on hunting down Al Qaeda and Taliban, said Owen Cote, associate director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

``It`s harder to find the persons, but when there is a fight it`s usually on our terms,`` Cote said. By contrast, US troops in Iraq are engaged in a broader variety of missions that make them easier targets and leave them in a more reactive posture.

And the opposition is larger in Iraq - the Iraqi armed forces were far larger at the start of the Iraq war than the Taliban were at the start of the Afghan war.

The greatest risk for US troops occupying both Afghanistan and Iraq remains noncombat injuries, ranging from traffic accidents and unexploded ord nance to inadvertent weapon discharges.

Rumsfeld announced last month an initiative challenging the defense community to reduce the number of accidents overall by 50 percent over the next two years. ``World-class organizations do not tolerate preventable accidents,`` Rumsfeld said in a May 19 memo.

But in terms of intended harm against US forces, specialists agreed that the coming weeks will be crucial in determining whether ``the last month was the last gasp, or whether the last month is the way things are going to be for a while, or the last month was just coming attractions,`` Pike said.

Retired one-star general John Reppert, executive director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University`s Kennedy School of Government, compared the attitude of most Iraqis to that of voters before an election. ``The basic argument is how we go through national elections - are you better off than you were four years ago, or in this case are you better off than you were four months ago? The legitimate answer for much of the Iraqi population is they are not better off.``

But Jack Spencer, a military analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, cautioned against quick judg ments. ``Six months from now, we`ll have a better handle on how well we`re doing.``

Robert Schlesinger can be reached at [e-mail].



This story ran on page A2 of the Boston Globe on 6/16/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Joerver]

The War Built On A Lie
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, June 16, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farc…



Why mince words? These are the facts:

1) President George W. Bush is a liar.

2) Secretary of State Colin Powell is a liar.

3) Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a liar.

4) National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice is a liar.

To the above facts we might add these: There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, none were there when our war against Iraq began, and none will be found unless we plant them there.

These are the conclusions one could reasonably reach after reading California Congressman Henry Waxman`s web site, the section about forged documents used as a justification for war.

One might also conclude that Waxman has found the smoking gun that could -- and should -- bring down the corrupt Bush Administration.

But, observing the events in Congress last Wednesday, one might conclude further that the Republicans in Congress, by blocking the call for a decent investigation, intend to do their best to see that the Bush Gang is never brought to account for its lying ways.

The sordid truth is that the Bush team lied through its teeth to justify its desire to go to war against Iraq.

This does not surprise me. As long as a year before we started the war, I e-mailed a friend: "Sooner or later Bush will conclude that Saddam has done something horrible, or is about to do something horrible, and the American public will be led to believe we have no choice but to destroy Iraq."

I am not a seer. I have no magical powers that allow me to see the future. But obvious is obvious, and it was obvious long before the war began that Bush would not be satisfied until he could send our young people off to avenge Saddam`s attempt to assassinate his father.

The term "weapons of mass destruction" is used these days to cover a multitude of sins. Personally, I believe one "bunker buster" bomb qualifies as such a weapon, or one fighter bomber. But in Bushspeak, a WMD seems to be limited to nuclear devices, biological weapons or chemical weapons.

Before the war, the Bush people sought to provide future cover for their lies by inventing mobile weapons labs. By asserting ahead of time that Saddam`s chemical and biological weapons were mobile, the Bushies would have an excuse for not finding them later. They could have been driven off anyway, perhaps to our next target country, Syria or Iran.

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, cannot be created and then made to disappear so handily, so the Bushies satisfied themselves by "proving" the Iraqis had sought to buy the materials necessary to make nuclear devices.

That "proof" came from our co-conspirators in the war, the British, who said breathlessly that they had uncovered documents that proved the Iraqis had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

So there it was: "proof"! Bush cited this startling "fact" in his 2003 State of the Union address. His merry crew later repeated it and congressmen who believed their president voted in favor of military action against Iraq.

One small problem, however: it was a lie. There was no proof that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. The documents that "proved" it were forgeries, and not very good forgeries at that. (For instance, they were printed on stationery of a previous Niger regime, and "signed" in part by a guy who had been out of government for more than 10 years. They were so poorly done, Rep. Waxman says, that a simple Google search would have exposed their lack of authenticity.)

That particular Bush lie became public knowledge a few months ago. Now that it`s well known, the Bush people are blaming their intelligence agencies. They`re throwing up their hands in dismay. Tain`t our fault, they say, it`s that danged old CIA.

Yeah. Right.

Congressman Waxman, a Democrat who`s been in the House since 1974, is focusing his search for truth on one small issue: Why did the president, when he knew it to be untrue, cite the phony uranium-from-Niger fact in his State of the Union Address? So far, after months of trying, Waxman hasn¹t been able to get any satisfactory answers to his question.

Bush`s reference to the non-existent uranium deal was a classic of presidential duplicity. What he actually said was, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That was technically true, as was, "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

Folks, I know we expect politicians to lie to us. There`s the old joke: "How can you tell when a politician is lying? … When his lips are moving."

So we expect a little gilding of the lily or shading the truth in an effort to squirm out of an embarrassing situation.

But should we sit back complacently and let politicians lie to us about something as important as going to war? We did that with Lyndon Johnson, and his lies about North Vietnamese attacks on American ships in 1964, and it led to our massive involvement in the Vietnam War with more than 50,000 Americans killed.

It is easy to argue that the war against Iraq was a "good war" because it rid the world of a horrible dictator. In that sense it was a good war, but that doesn¹t justify the lies that led us into that war.

We not only got rid of Saddam with that war, but we destroyed a country and left it in chaos, at a cost of American lives in the hundreds and still rising. Our military is overextended, our reservists are being used as permanent regular troops, and, in a shaky economy, we`re putting the cost on credit and hoping our children can some day find a way to pay for it.

Even if you assume all that is good, should we tolerate being lied to on such major issues?



Congressman Waxman is on to something. He`s caught the Bushies in baldfaced lies. But even though he`s a powerful congressman, he`s just one man, and he can be shunted aside.

What we need, I believe, is a hue and cry in this country to match the hue and cry that went up went Bill Clinton lied about sex. We shouldn`t leave Waxman dangling out there all by himself. He needs our support.

For the sake of our country`s future, we should expose the White House liars for what they are.


What we need, I believe, is a hue and cry in this country to match the hue and cry that went up went Bill Clinton lied about sex. We shouldn`t leave Waxman dangling out there all by himself. He needs our support.

For the sake of our country`s future, we should expose the White House liars for what they are.


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

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

[schmeissfliege]

Wer solche Bilder macht ist doch ein Dreckfink !!!!

[Joerver]

William S. Lind: The Men Who Would Not Be King
http://www.military.com/NewContent?file=Lind_060303
June 3, 2003

Normally, the position of Chief of Staff of the Army is the ultimate brass ring an Army officer can hope to grab. There is no higher Army job, and merely holding it guarantees a man at least a small place in the history books -- though not necessarily a favorable one. In fact, the last Army Chief of Staff to merit Clio`s praise was General "Shy" Meyer, who held the post twenty years ago. Since he left, the Army has been stuck in a Brezhnevite "era of stagnation."

It is therefore surprising that at present, no one seems willing to take the job, nor the position of Vice Chief. Both current incumbents leave this summer, and instead of the usual line of hopefuls standing hat in hand, the eligibles have headed for the hills. Rumor has it they may have to recruit the hall porter and the charwoman.

The interesting question is why. Part of the answer is Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. To put it plainly, Rumsfeld treats people like crap. Working for him is like working for Leona Helmsley, except that Leona is less self-centered. Unless you are one of his sycophants, equipped with a good set of knee-pads and plenty of lip balm, you can expect to be booted down the stairs on a regular basis.

Truth be told, some senior officers deserve to be treated that way, because that is how they always treated their subordinates. But Rummy does not discriminate between perfumed princes and the real thinkers and leaders. He has driven more than one of the latter to hang up his hat in disgust, to his service`s and the nation`s loss.

But that is not the whole story. Part of the reason no one wants the Army`s top job are two fundamental contradictions in the Administration`s policy toward the Army. Unless they are resolved, any Army Chief of Staff will find himself in a difficult position.

The first contradiction is that the Administration puts the Army last in line among the services at the same time that it is getting us into wars only the Army can fight. We are already fighting one Fourth Generation war in Afghanistan, we are becoming enmired up to our necks in another Fourth Generation war in Iraq, and we are sticking our noses into still more in the Philippines, maybe Indonesia, and possibly Iran.

Only the Army can fight Fourth Generation war, to the degree anyone can (and no one really knows how). The Navy is irrelevant, the Air Force almost irrelevant, and the Marines want to get in and get out, fast, while Fourth Generation war plays itself out with agonizing slowness. Volens nolens, the Army is left holding the bag.

Logically, that should make the Army the Administration`s focus, its Schwerpunkt. Instead, OSD is in love with the Air Force, to the point where it wants to make the Army into a second Air Force, waging the high-tech, video-game warfare that exists only in the minds of children and Pentagon planners.

That leads to the second contradiction. The Army needs and has long needed genuine military reform. Reform means such basic changes as adopting Third Generation, maneuver warfare doctrine and the culture of decentralization and initiative that goes with it; instituting a radically different personnel system that creates cohesive units, eliminates the bloat in the officer corps above the company grades and suppresses rather than mandates careerism; making free play training the norm rather than a rare exception; and getting rid of dual standards for men and women.

Secretary Rumsfeld also preaches reform, but what he means by reform is just more of the high-tech illusion. Again, the Air Force is the model: the more a system costs and the more complex it is, the better it must be. The result is absurdities such as the Stryker, where Light Armored Vehicles, which are wonderful for operational maneuver, are instead to be used for urban combat where they will be instant coffins for their crews, and the Future Combat System, a conglomeration of robots, tanks, drones and kitchen sinks that surpasses anything envisioned by Rube Goldberg. Meanwhile, the real reforms so badly needed go unaddressed.

In the face of all this, becoming Chief of Staff of the Army is somewhat less enticing than becoming mayor of Baghdad. But at the same time, it leaves the troops desperately in need of not just a Chief of Staff, but of a highly talented and morally courageous Chief of Staff, someone who can defend his men against the follies emanating from the civilian side of the Pentagon. Those who know him believe the current Vice Chief, General John M. "Jack" Keane, is such a man. Some think he could be the Army`s Al Gray, the reforming Commandant of the Marine Corps of the early 1990s who left an enduring and powerful legacy. So far, General Keane is refusing the job, on the legitimate grounds of his wife`s health problems. Many are praying he will reconsider. If the job goes instead to one of Rummy`s lickspittles, God help our soldiers.

William S. Lind is Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation. © 2003 William S. Lind. All opinions expressed in this article are the author`s and do not necessarily reflect those of Military.com.

[Joerver]

Bush`s Lies And His Apologists

When Bush and his administration are caught red-handed in a lie, we usually get Ari or an official flunky attempt to explain it away, then the talk shows move on to something more important to the nation, like which celebrity lied on her income tax return while having sex. But the Bush lies surrounding our reasons for going to war with Iraq will not go away, despite the spin being placed upon them by major players in the Bush administration, like Rice and Rumsfeld. Despite, even, the administration`s attempt to blame their lies on our intelligence community. Even some credible mainstream pundits, such as John Dean, have uttered the "i" word..."impeachment." Why, things are serious enough that our Republican Congress has been forced to launch a closed hearing to obfuscate the truth in order to get Bush off the hook. This allows pressured Bush apologists in the media to focus on the workings of Congress, rather than the manipulations of the administration, and eventually the air goes out of the balloon. They hope.

Politics are local, and no more so than in D.C. One can only imagine the pressure from the White House upon the Washington Post on a daily basis. Little indications pop up from time to time. Some months ago, the Post ran an online editorial commenting upon the Bush administration`s legislative posture on an ongoing fight in Congress, stressing the sins of the Repubs over those of the Dems. The editorial was pulled, and the next day is was reposted with a new title and an additional paragraph, blasting the Dems.

Did more of the same take place during the writing of David Wise`s Washington Post story in Sunday`s edition? The title of the story,If Bush Is Lying, He`s Not The First, appears to be covering Bush lies about WMD in Iraq by declaring, Hey, all the presidents do it ! Wise provides an interesting chronology of the Bush administration`s lies over the course of a year. On the other hand, while he notes that Bush "fuzzed up" (you mean, "lied," Mr. Wise?) reality in the Polish interview, he adds a bit of confusion on his own: "Bush was referring to two mobile units that the CIA had concluded were designed to manufacture biological substances." According to the State Department`s summary of the CIA report in question, "a new Central Intelligence Agency report says the three mobile laboratory facilities uncovered by coalition forces in Iraq provide `the strongest evidence to date` that Iraq had a biological warfare program." There`s a difference between "biological substances," which might include, say, processed gardening dung, and agents of "biological warfare." There`s also a difference between, say, incontrovertible evidence and "strongest evidence to date," a relative term. Finally, there`s a difference between two trailers and three trailers, but let`s keep our eye on the trailers Bush and Wise are talking about.

"An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist." --Observer 06.15.03

The last third of the Wise story provides a modern-day history of presidential lies, from CIA lies during the Truman administration through Clinton`s sexual lies, but skipping Bush the father and Bush the son, even though both have been tied to administration lies that have led to wars and the loss of American lives. Naturally, the Clinton lie is given a paragraph of its own, although the differences between what Clinton lied about and what the Bushes lied about is painfully obvious. It`s doubtful that the credibility of U.S. presidents was damaged by the big Clinton lie. Most Europans don`t take such things very seriously. Been there, done that. The Bush lies, however, have had serious effects on their lives, and such lies do weaken the credibility of the presidency abroad. Wise fails to make such an obvious distinction.

Another egregious failing in the Wise story is his inability to write about what he introduces as being important to the story of Bush lies:
"For President Bush, the problem centers on the furor over whether he misled the nation and the world by asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Osama bin Laden`s al Qaeda terrorist network. Since the twin allegations were the primary premise for going to war against Saddam Hussein`s regime, pressure has been building on the White House to prove its claims."
Given the Bush administration`s lies about an al Qaeda-Saddam connection, and given Wise`s assertion that these lies were just as crucial to Bush`s decision to go to war as his WMD lies, it`s puzzling that Wise fails to expand upon his assertion later in the story.

As it stands, the story looks heavily edited by Wise or someone out to provide a biased slant on important ongoing events of the day through confusion, chop-logic, and deletion. In this story, the credibility of the Post is almost as much in question as the credibility of Bush. This is neither Bush`s shining hour nor the Washington Post`s. --Jerry Politex, 06.16.03, Bush Watch

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

We can seize the day
The task is not to overthrow globalisation but to use it for a democratic revolution

George Monbiot
Tuesday June 17, 2003
The Guardian

Last week Jack Straw illuminated the depths of his political cowardice by shining upon them the full and feeble beam of his political courage. He proposed to alter the constitution of the UN security council. He would like to double its permanent membership, though without granting the new members the privileges accorded to the five existing ones. He must know that this scheme will be rejected by the proposed new entrants, yet he fears to tread more firmly upon the toes of the incumbents.

But Straw is desperate to save this undemocratic instrument of global governance. He wants to save it because it provides a semblance of legitimacy for a global system otherwise crudely governed by Britain`s principal ally. By tearing down the security council to go to war with Iraq, George Bush has ripped the veil off his own intentions. The ambitions of his project now stand before us, naked and undeniable. Straw, like a frantic tailor, is seeking to restore his client`s modesty. He knows that a naked emperor cannot govern unopposed for long.

Straw`s scheme is a response to two colliding realities. The first is that the principal instruments of political globalisation are in trouble. The security council, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, having already lost the support of the world`s people, are now losing the support of their principal sponsor. Other nations are beginning to face a stark choice: they must either accept direct global rule from Washington, or bypass the superpower and design a new, multilateral system of global governance.

The second is that economic globalisation, driven by corporate and financial integration, sweeps all before it. It destroys, but it also creates. It is extending to the world`s people unprecedented opportunities for mobilisation. It is establishing a single, planetary class interest, as the same forces and the same institutions threaten the welfare of the people of all nations. It is ripping down the cultural and linguistic barriers that divide us. By breaking the social bonds which sustained local communities, it destroys our geographical loyalties. It forces us to become a global political community, whether we like it or not.

Simultaneously, it has placed within our hands the weapons we need to attack the existing means of global governance. By forcing governments to operate in the interests of business, it has manufactured the disenchantment upon which all new politics must feed. By expanding its own empire through new communication and transport networks, it has granted the world`s people the means by which they can gather and coordinate their challenge.

We may, in other words, be approaching a revolutionary moment. Economic globalisation has made us stronger than ever before, just as the existing instruments of global control have become weaker than ever before. But the global justice movement, vast and determined as it is, is in no position to seize it. The reason is simple: we do not possess a political programme. Without a programme, we can only oppose. Without a programme, we permit our opponents to select the field of battle.

We hesitate to develop one for two reasons. The first is that hundreds of disparate factions have buried their differences within this movement to fight their common enemies. Those differences will re-emerge as we seek to coalesce around a common set of solutions.

The second is that many of us have mistaken the context for the problem. We have tended to reject not only the undemocratic global governance which prevails today, but also global governance itself. As a result, we remove ourselves from the determination of precisely those issues - such as war, climate change, international debt and trade between nations - which most concern us, for these issues can be addressed only at the global level. Global governance will take place whether we participate in it or not. Indeed, it must take place if these issues are not to be resolved by the brute force of the powerful. Our task is not to overthrow globalisation, but to capture it, and to use it as a vehicle for humanity`s first global democratic revolution.

But, despite the fact that many people understand these issues, we still hang back. We leave the rest of the world with a question, repeatedly asked but seldom answered: we know what they don`t want, but what do they want?

I have sought to provide an answer, with a series of proposals for a system of global governance run by, and for, the world`s people. I don`t regard them as final or definitive: on the contrary, I hope that other people will refine, transform and, if necessary, overthrow them in favour of better ones. But until we have a programme to reject, we will never develop a programme we can accept.

I have suggested the scrapping of the World Bank and the IMF, and their replacement with a body rather like the one designed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s, whose purpose was to prevent excessive trade surpluses and deficits from forming, and therefore international debt from accumulating. I have proposed a transformation of the global trade rules. Poor nations should be permitted, if they wish, to follow the route to development taken by the rich nations: protecting their infant industries from foreign competition until they are strong enough to fend for themselves, and seizing other countries` intellectual property rights. Companies operating between nations should be subject to mandatory fair trade rules, losing their licence to trade if they break them.

The UN security council should be scrapped, and its powers vested in a reformulated UN general assembly. This would be democratised by means of weighted voting: nations` votes would increase according to both the size of their populations and their positions on a global democracy index. Perhaps most importantly, the people of the world would elect representatives to a global parliament, whose purpose would be to hold the other international bodies to account.

I have also suggested some cruel and unusual means by which these proposals might be implemented. Poor nations, for example, now owe so much that they own, in effect, the world`s financial systems. The threat of a sudden collective default on their debts unless they get what they want would concentrate the minds of even the most obdurate global powers.

You might regard this agenda as either excessive or insufficient, wildly optimistic or boringly unambitious. But it is not enough simply to reject it. Do so by all means, but only once you have first proposed a better one of your own. For until we have a programme behind which we can unite, we will neither present a viable threat to the current rulers of the world, nor seize the revolutionary moment which their miscalculation affords us. We cannot destroy the existing world order until we have a better one with which to replace it.

· George Monbiot will be launching his book The Age of Consent: a Manifesto for a New World Order at 7pm on Wednesday at the Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1. Tickets from Blackwell`s, on 020-7292 5100 or [e-mail].


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

They should be ashamed
William Shawcross
Tuesday June 17, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair`s enemies have behaved in a shocking manner over the liberation of Iraq and its elusive weapons of mass destruction. Opponents of the war predicted all manner of disasters - millions of refugees, famine, thousands of deaths in battle, and revolution on "the Arab street" throughout the region. None of these horrors happened. Instead, it is obvious that the coalition has indeed freed Iraqis from a monster and created a new reality in the Middle East - one which just might offer the region hope.

All that is unbearable to those who preferred the Saddam status quo. So they have used the missing weapons to turn on Mr Blair with self-righteous fury. They declare that the war was "a monumental blunder" (Robin Cook) and that we have been "duped" (Clare Short). This is opportunistic, irresponsible and self-serving rubbish.

Such weapons in the hands of rogue states or terrorists are one of the greatest threats to the world. Throughout the 1990s the UN weapons inspectors showed that Saddam Hussein was constantly trying to create and conceal such weapons. And over 12 years he mocked the UN, while he tyrannised and impoverished his own people. Before September 11 the threat of his covert and illegal programmes was judged bearable. Not so after 9/11.

Last November the entire UN security council voted unanimously that Saddam now be given a "final opportunity" to cooperate fully with the UN and surrender his illegal weapons. Were all the council members, including Russia, China and France "duped" by the CIA and British intelligence? Of course not.

In December Saddam submitted a 12,000-page report on his weapons which was a tissue of old lies. It was quite clear that he was not taking his "final opportunity" to cooperate fully with the UN.

Was this a man to whom we should indefinitely have given the benefit of the doubt on such a dangerous matter? He had already invaded two neighbours, killed more than a million Muslims in his war with Iran, used chemical weapons against his own people, the Kurds of Halabja, and tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands more.

Slobodan Milosevic was a Sunday school teacher compared with Saddam Hussein. But we did not give him the benefit of the doubt over Kosovo, which we also invaded without a UN resolution - with the support of Mr Cook and Ms Short.

I am surprised that we have not yet found his WMD. But remember that they were always well hidden in the 1990s. And for Saddam, survival at any cost was always the priority. After resolution 1441, he may well have destroyed weapons in the hope that the inspectors would give him a clean bill of health, UN sanctions would be lifted (as his friends in Paris, Moscow and elsewhere had urged) and he could start again.

There are other huge issues which Mr Cook, Ms Short et al shamefully gloss over. The first is that Iraq has been liberated. Why do Blair`s critics in the press and parliament not look at the mass graves that are uncovered day by day, and say: "If only we had done this before, thousands of these dead people might still be alive today"?

Iraq`s political and social reconstruction is clearly difficult and dangerous. But, despite the predictions, the US-led invasion has not created massive humanitarian, refugee, health or food crises. What it has created is a chance. Iraq never had any chance under Saddam.

Furthermore, the coalition has removed a cancer from the heart of the Middle East. Israel no longer has to fear an attack by Saddam with unconventional weapons. The world no longer has to fear that Israel might respond to such an attack with its own nuclear weapons. Without the removal of Saddam, there would not even have been a glance at the road map.

As last week`s violence in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza shows, the chances of the road map working are still pitifully slim. But without Saddam`s removal the entire Middle East would have been frozen in its horror.

Sadly, Mr Cook and Ms Short are unable to forgive Mr Blair for seeing through the hypocrisy of the left and for allying himself on this occasion with Saddam`s only effective enemy, the United States, the great satan of the left, as well as of Islamist terrorists.

I believe that the record and subsequent investigations will show that the government and the intelligence agencies acted properly in the face of a deadly, if unquantifiable, threat from Saddam. The record will also show that Mr Cook and Ms Short have behaved in a manner which should shame even them.

· William Shawcross is writing a book on the allies and Iraq.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

British official warns of chaos in Iraq
By Danielle Demetriou
17 June 2003


British military sources last night voiced growing concerns over the efficiency of the American-led reconstruction operation in Iraq.

In the face of growing hostility from pro-Saddam Hussein militias, one defence source told The Times that the 17,000-strong force of British soldiers in Iraq may have to stay in place for as long as four years.

Major-General Freddy Viggers, the British commander appointed to serve at the US military headquarters in Baghdad, warned that Allied troops would face a long-running struggle unless Saddam Hussein was killed or captured. Unless his Baathist regime was brought to a definitive end, the operation threatened to follow in the footsteps of the Balkans operation, where around 1,600 British troops remain in Bosnia after 11 years, according to General Viggers.

Meanwhile, there were further claims that the American post-war effort was being seriously undermined by incompetence, mismanagement and a shortage of staff. Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, had "fewer than 600" staff to run the country in which civil infrastructure was on the brink of collapse, a senior British official in Baghdad told The Daily Telegraph.

"This is the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for," he said. "The operation is chronically under-resourced and suffers from an almost complete absence of strategic direction."

In a move that indicated escalating concerns about the post-war efforts in Iraq, Tony Blair yesterday appointed one of the Foreign Office`s most senior diplomats to work alongside the Americans in Baghdad. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who has been Britain`s UN ambassador for the past five years, vowed to help restore the Iraqi people`s control over their country and improve their quality of life. He also urged the Security Council to start discussing how the international community can help bring to justice those responsible for genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity "under a system that works under the control of the Iraqi people".

He said: "This should start with the people of Iraq and what they want by way of justice for their own victimisation by the previous regime."

Sir Jeremy, a fluent Arabic speaker, will serve under Mr Bremer from next September.
17 June 2003 09:18

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 17, 2003
Tales of Despair From Guantánamo
By CARLOTTA GALL with NEIL A. LEWIS


KABUL, Afghanistan, June 16 — Afghans and Pakistanis who were detained for many months by the American military at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba before being released without charges are describing the conditions as so desperate that some captives tried to kill themselves.

According to accounts in the last three months from some of the 32 Afghans and three Pakistanis in the weeks since their release, it was above all the uncertainty of their fate, combined with confinement in very small cells, sometimes only with Arabic speakers, that caused inmates to attempt suicide. One Pakistani interviewed this month said he tried to kill himself four times in 18 months.

An Afghan prisoner who spent 14 months at the camp, at the American naval base at Guantánamo, described in April what he called the uncertainty and fear. "Some were saying this is a prison for 150 years," said Suleiman Shah, 30, a former Taliban fighter from Kandahar Province in southern Afghanistan.

None of those interviewed complained of physical mistreatment. But the men said that for the first few months, they were kept in small wire-mesh cells, about 6 1/2 feet by 8 feet , in blocks of 10 or 20. The cells were covered by a wooden roof, but open at the sides to the elements.

"We slept, ate, prayed and went to the toilet in that small space," Mr. Shah said. Each man had two blankets and a prayer mat and slept and ate on the ground, he said.

The prisoners were taken out only once a week for a one-minute shower. "After four and a half months we complained and people stopped eating, so they said we could shower for five minutes and exercise once a week," Mr. Shah said. After that, he said, prisoners got to exercise for 10 minutes a week, walking around the inside of a cage 30 feet long.

In interviews at their homes, weeks after being released, he and the freed Pakistani detainee talked of what they said was the overwhelming feeling of injustice among the approximately 680 men detained indefinitely at Guantánamo Bay.

"I was trying to kill myself," said Shah Muhammad, 20, a Pakistani who was captured in northern Afghanistan in November 2001, handed over to American soldiers and flown to Guantánamo in January 2002. "I tried four times, because I was disgusted with my life.

"It is against Islam to commit suicide," he continued, "but it was very difficult to live there. A lot of people did it. They treated me as guilty, but I was innocent."

In the 18 months since the detention camp opened, there have been 28 suicide attempts by 18 individuals, with most of those attempts made this year, Capt. Warren Neary, a spokesman at the detention camp, said today. None of the prisoners have killed themselves, but one man has suffered severe brain damage, according to his lawyer.

The prisoners come from more than 40 countries, and include more than 50 Pakistanis, about 150 Saudis and three teenagers under 16, a majority of them captured in Afghanistan, said Dr. Najeef bin Mohamad Ahmed al-Nauimi, a former justice minister in Qatar, who is representing nearly 100 of the detainees.

Dr. Nauimi represents many of the Saudis, and American lawyers represent about 14 prisoners from Kuwait. There are also 83 Yemenis, he said, and a sprinkling of others, including Canadians, Britons, Algerians and Australians, and one Swede.

Since January 2002, at least 32 Afghan prisoners and three Pakistanis have been released from Guantánamo Bay. Five Saudis were recently handed over to the Saudi authorities. Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi, was moved from the camp to a military brig in Norfolk, Va., in April 2002. Captain Neary said 41 people had been released in all, but he could not give a more exact description.

At the same time, the military is preparing to place about 10 of the prisoners before a military tribunal soon, officials said this month.

Mr. Muhammad, who spent 18 months in Cuba before his release, said that "when they first took us there they would not let us talk, or stand or walk around the cell.

"At the beginning it was very hard to bear," he added. "There was no call to prayer, and there was no shade. In the afternoon the sun came in from the side."

Under the current routine, a majority of the prisoners remain in their cells but for two 15-minute periods a week, in which they walk around the cage and take a shower. In addition, the call to prayer is played over the prison`s loudspeakers five times a day, according to Capt. Youseff Yee, the Muslim chaplain who oversees the religious needs of the Guantánamo prisoners.

Conditions improved after the first few months, and prisoners were moved to newly built cells with running water and a bed, Mr. Shah said. Interrogation was sporadic and it varied in length and intensity. Sometimes they were questioned after 10 days, or 20 days, and then not for several months, prisoners said.

But it was the uncertainty and fear that they would be there forever that drove many of them to despair, prisoners said.

"All of the people were worried about how long we would be there for," Mr. Shah said. "People were becoming mad because they were saying: `When will they release us? They should take us to the high court.` Many stopped eating."

One Taliban fighter from the southern province of Helmand, who only uses one name, Rustam, said in May that he was driven to trying to hang himself because he was in a block of Arabs and Uzbeks he described as "crazy."

"There were some very strange people, they were hitting their heads on the wall, insulting the soldiers, and that is why I hated it," said Rustam, who is 22, in an interview in an Afghan prison in Kabul. "I think they were really crazy people, and that`s why I kept asking to be taken out for questioning."

When he tried to hang himself, Rustam said, the guards found him quickly. "They untied me and said `Don`t do this,` " he said. "They gave me medicine, but it was no good. They put me under supervision and moved me to another place."

Mr. Muhammad, one of three Pakistani prisoners to be released at the end of April, said he first tried to hang himself because for months on end he was surrounded by Arabs and could not speak their language.

"It was difficult not talking to anyone for so long," he said. "It was because of the jail. They put me in a block full of Arabs, they were only letting us out for a very short time, and it was very difficult. I could feel myself going down."

After 11 months in the prison camp, he tied his bedsheet to a ceiling wire and hanged himself from it at 4 o`clock one afternoon. "I don`t know what happened," he said. "They took me to the hospital. I was unconscious for two days."

Only after that suicide attempt, Mr. Muhammad said, did his American keepers tell him that he was only being held for questioning, and that one day he would go home. Tranquilizers were prescribed, he said, but he stopped taking the tablets after a while and attempted suicide again.

Then the doctors gave Mr. Muhammad a powerful injection that he said left him unable to control his head or his mouth or eat properly for weeks. Although he refused to have the injection, the military medical personnel gave it to him by force, he said. He made two further attempts to kill himself that he said were more protest actions at the conditions.

"We needed more blankets, but they would not listen," he said. "And I kept asking them to take me to the Afghan and Pakistani side. All the time I was with Arabs. I did not speak my own language for months." Mr. Muhammad also threatened to kill himself again if he was given another injection. He remained on tablets until his release, he said.

American officials have confirmed that one prisoner who tried to commit suicide remains in the prison hospital with severe brain damage. Dr. Nauimi said the prisoner was Mish al-Hahrbi, a Saudi schoolteacher. He said that the teacher became desperate over not knowing what his future held and that he tried to hang himself. The teacher was resuscitated but is unlikely to recover from a severe hemorrhage, the lawyer said.

Back home with time to ponder their ordeal, the former prisoners now want to demand compensation.

"The Americans said if anyone is innocent, they will get compensation," Mr. Muhammad said. "They held me for 18 months, and so they should give me compensation. They told me I was innocent, but they did not apologize."

Human rights organizations have raised concerns about the conditions at Guantánamo Bay and the unclear legal status of the detainees. The American military has refused to consider them prisoners of war, even though a majority were captured on the battlefield, and does not allow them access to lawyers. No charges have yet been brought against any of the detainees, some of whom have been there for 18 months.

Concerned about their prolonged detention without trial or clear legal status, the head of the International Red Cross, which visits the detainees, urged the Bush administration last month to start legal proceedings for the hundreds of detainees and to institute a number of changes in conditions at the camp.

Cmdr. Brian Grady, the staff psychiatrist at the camp`s medical facility, said in a recent interview that most prisoners suffering from depression brought their symptoms with them to Cuba.

"I don`t know what the effects of this particular confinement are," he said. "I`d be hesitant to comment." Officials at Guantánamo have generally dismissed the notion that the confinement and uncertainty about the future are specifically to blame.

"I would not particularly say these circumstances are a factor," Commander Grady said.

But Jamie Fellner, director of the United States program for Human Rights Watch, said in an interview that that was highly implausible.

"These conditions of confinement by themselves over a prolonged period are enormously psychologically stressful," she said. "Added to that is the uncertainty as to the future."

Ms. Fellner added that her group had not found any credible reports of physical abuse and that it had investigated several accounts of beatings and such that turned out to be unfounded.

Hospital officials said that about 5 percent of the inmates were suffering from depression and that they were being treated with antidepressants, typically Zoloft.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Der tägliche militärisch Lagebericht.

June 17, 2003
Nine U.S. Soldiers Are Wounded Battling Pockets of Iraqi Resistance
By NEELA BANERJEE


USHAHEDA, Iraq, June 16 — Days after the United States military said it had completed a successful operation to quell an insurgency in a region north of Baghdad, at least nine American soldiers were wounded in two separate incidents near the same area on Sunday afternoon, a military spokesman said today.

The military played down the severity of the fighting, but the number of wounded is among the highest for a single day since the official end to the major combat, on May 1. The attacks underscore the difficulty American forces face in rooting out the persistent Iraqi resistance that over the last few weeks has killed 10 American soldiers.

Trucks and armored vehicles with the 3-7 Cavalry, assigned to the Fourth Brigade of the Army`s Third Infantry Division, came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades in this village, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, as the group traveled on the main highway. Two soldiers were seriously wounded, though their injuries were not life-threatening, and six others received minor injuries, the American military spokesman in Baghdad said.

Another unit of American soldiers also met grenade fire in the village of Dujayl, about 18 miles north of here, and at least one soldier was wounded. The extent of his injuries remains unknown, said Capt. John Morgan, the military spokesman, who was unable to identify the unit.

"It is serious," he said. "But it is amazing that no one was killed, which is because of their training and equipment."

Only 12 hours earlier, the military had denied that the attacks occurred at all. Petty Officer Anthony Dallas, a spokesman for Central Command in Tampa, Fla., said Sunday night after a Reuters report of the skirmishes that "there was no attack. It did not happen." A charred truck on the highway "caught fire due to mechanical failure," he said. "No Americans were injured."

Details of the attacks remain sketchy, especially from the American side, except that the attack here happened around 4:30 p.m. Sunday, which Iraqi bystanders confirmed. The attack in Dujayl took place just after 5 p.m.

"We don`t believe the attacks were related or coordinated," Captain Morgan said. "But we will use our intelligence to find out who did this and take action."

Iraqis in Dujayl said they knew nothing of the assault there. But shopkeepers and others along the highway here in Mushaheda paint a picture of an ambush that touched off what they say was indiscriminate fire by the fleeing Americans.

Owners and patrons of a strip of auto parts stores here said variously that they heard an explosion and shooting coming from the general direction of the village mosque a few hundred yards to the south on the highway. When the Americans shot back as they sped down the road, shopkeepers said, they struck stores along the strip, many of whose walls are now pocked with bullet holes.

Sabaa Khalifa Makhmoud, 26, had finished cleaning his blue and white bus on the opposite side of the road from the American convoy and had just stepped out of the vehicle when the soldiers began shooting in response to the attack. One of his daughters, a toddler, was outside with him, and he scooped her up and ran inside their house. The shooting blasted out two windows in his bus and left a ragged hole in one of the bus curtains.

The convoy moved about five miles north on the highway, where the Americans abandoned a trailer and a truck damaged by the firefight and hustled away their wounded. About an hour later, the truck went up in flames, bystanders said. Captain Morgan said the fire might have been due to the damage from the attack, though that, too, remains unclear. Today, a maintenance crew from the 3-7 Cavalry unit, guarded by several tanks, cleared away the wreckage of the badly burned truck, its wheels still smoldering.

Mr. Makhmoud, like many in Mushaheda, adamantly denied that the village was a hotbed of resistance. "No one here loved Saddam Hussein, because he destroyed us," he said. "They shouldn`t have shot at us so randomly. There are so many innocent bystanders here."

After weeks of daily attacks, including a considerable number against the Third Infantry Division, American soldiers are clearly on edge. And according to Captain Morgan, they had "a right to defend themselves and fired back."

The attacks on Sunday followed a campaign held a week ago about 15 miles north of the villages on a peninsula of the Tigris River around the town of Balad. The military sent 4,000 men to round up insurgents, which resulted in 400 arrests, though most detainees were later released.

The Associated Press reported American raids today in Ramadi and nearby Khaldiya. The Pentagon said it could neither confirm nor deny the report, explaining that that level of "operational detail" was not available tonight.

Though the military has said the armed sweeps will improve security for Iraqis, some in Mushaheda and Dujayl now fear that their homes will be raided by Americans looking for the attackers, whom villagers believe were outsiders trying to stir up trouble on a main travel route.

"They should calm the situation down, rather than alarming the whole area," said Hussein Ali, 30, the owner of a small business, as he stood in the parking lot of the auto parts shopping strip. "Rather than breaking into people`s houses in raids, they should intensify patrols."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 17, 2003
Cheers to Jeers
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


QURNA, Iraq

I came to Iraq to see if I could help the coalition forces find those pesky weapons of mass destruction. It would make a great column if I could bring back my own nuke.

No luck so far. But I did find something just as elusive: paradise.

That`s right. This city of Qurna, nestled where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers come together, claims to be the ancient site of the Garden of Eden.

Qurna residents even venerate an ancient tree that they call Adam`s Tree, and some say it is the very tree that grew the fruit that got humanity evicted from Eden. But even this spot, as close to paradise as one can find in Iraq, is a mess, and people are getting angrier about that all the time.

The people of Qurna were mostly thrilled when American and British troops rolled through town this spring to oust Saddam. But nearly three months later, the cheers are turning to jeers, for very practical reasons: electricity and water services still haven`t fully resumed, factories and schools remain closed, banditry rules, and people are even hungrier than before.

"We became angry that there is no government, there are no jobs, and life is worse than before," said Jabbar Sabeeh, a 68-year-old security guard. "Electricity goes out for two days at a time now." Unless life improves or the Americans leave, he warned, anti-American violence will erupt across Iraq.

The mood in Iraq has gotten uglier since I was last here during the war and its immediate aftermath. My fear is that having won the war, we may now be blowing the peace. Many ordinary Iraqis are enraged at the collapse of security, and we need to act much more quickly and decisively to establish order — or Iraq could slip through our fingers and fragment.

"The Americans are useless," exclaimed Ahmed, a taxi driver in Basra who wouldn`t give his last name because he`s afraid that the occupation is falling apart and Saddam will return. He showed me a wound in his hand where bandits had stabbed him and added, "Some of my passengers say that although they hated Saddam, now they wish he would come back, because at least under him we had security."

That`s a minority view, and there is also exhilaration at the democratic freedoms: thriving new newspapers, political demonstrations, ubiquitous banners erected by political parties. But insecurity casts a huge shadow over all of Iraq.

Few people dare go out at night, and even in the day there are carjackings and armed robberies. On the highways, bandits sometimes rake cars with automatic weapons so that they can plunder them. On my first night back in Iraq, I sat outside my little hotel in Basra, trying to make my satellite phone work and listening to gunfire erupting around the city.

At Basra General Hospital, Dr. Abdul Wahhab frets that the medical situation is worse than before the war. There is no functioning health ministry to procure drugs, water shortages have led to cholera as families drink from rivers that are also sewers, and Unicef calculates that 7.7 percent of Iraqi children under 5, almost twice the rate before the war, now suffer from acute malnutrition.

On top of all that, Dr. Wahhab really got fed up last week when a gang of bandits attacked the hospital`s infectious diseases unit, firing automatic weapons and hurling grenades as doctors and patients scattered. The bandits were after the air-conditioners.

The insecurity is wrenching even small cities like Qurna or, further north, Al Kut.

"In Al Kut, homes of former Baath Party members are blown up on a nightly basis, and there is gunfire on the streets every night," said Cassandra Nelson, an American aid worker based there for Mercy Corps. "The most important task now is to restore law and order in Iraq and to demonstrate to the people that . . . the U.S. is committed not only to defeating regimes it sees as threats, but to providing security and good governance."

So it will take tremendous concentration and effort — including thousands more ground troops — for us to rescue the Iraqi peace and turn places like Qurna back into anything approaching Eden. Oh, in any case, even if this was the Garden of Eden, I doubt that Adam`s Tree really produced the fruit that tempted Adam. The problem is, it appears to be a cedar.

I goofed. In my last column, I referred to comments by Condoleezza Rice on a Sunday television show but misstated the show. It was "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Mea culpa.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 17, 2003
Dereliction of Duty
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Last Thursday a House subcommittee met to finalize next year`s homeland security appropriation. The ranking Democrat announced that he would introduce an amendment adding roughly $1 billion for areas like port security and border security that, according to just about every expert, have been severely neglected since Sept. 11. He proposed to pay for the additions by slightly scaling back tax cuts for people making more than $1 million per year.

The subcommittee`s chairman promptly closed the meeting to the public, citing national security — though no classified material was under discussion. And the bill that emerged from the closed meeting did not contain the extra funding.

It was a perfect symbol of the reality of the Bush administration`s "war on terror." Behind the rhetoric — and behind the veil of secrecy, invoked in the name of national security but actually used to prevent public scrutiny — lies a pattern of neglect, of refusal to take crucial actions to protect us from terrorists. Actual counterterrorism, it seems, doesn`t fit the administration`s agenda.

Yesterday The Washington Post printed an interview with Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser who resigned in March. "They`re making us less secure, not more secure," he said of the Bush administration. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren`t being done." Among the problem areas he cited were homeland security, where he says the administration has "only a rhetorical policy"; failure to press Saudi Arabia (the home of most of the Sept. 11 terrorists) to take action; and, of course, the way we allowed Afghanistan to relapse into chaos.

Some of this pattern of neglect involves penny-pinching. Back in February, even George W. Bush in effect admitted that not enough money had been allocated to domestic security — though (to the fury of Republican legislators) he blamed Congress. Yet according to Fred Kaplan in Slate, the administration`s latest budget proposal for homeland security actually contains less money than was spent last year. Meanwhile, urgent priorities remain unmet. For example, port security, identified as a top concern from the very beginning, has so far received only one-tenth as much money as the Coast Guard says is needed.

But it`s not just a matter of money. For one thing, it`s hard to claim now that the Bush administration is trying to hold down domestic spending to make room for tax cuts. With the budget deficit projected at more than $400 billion this year, a few billion more for homeland security wouldn`t make much difference to the tax-cutting agenda. Moreover, Congress isn`t pinching pennies across the board: last week the Senate voted to provide $15 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of nuclear power plants.

Furthermore, even on the military front the administration has been weirdly reluctant to come to grips with terrorism. It refused to provide Afghanistan`s new government with an adequate security umbrella, with the predictable result that warlords are running rampant and the Taliban are making a comeback. The squandered victory in Afghanistan was one reason people like myself had a bad feeling about the invasion of Iraq — and sure enough, the administration was bizarrely lackadaisical about providing postwar security. Even nuclear waste dumps were left unguarded for weeks.

So what`s the explanation? The answer, one suspects, is that key figures — above all, Donald Rumsfeld — just didn`t feel like dealing with the real problem. Real counterterrorism mainly involves police work and precautionary measures; it doesn`t look impressive on TV, and it doesn`t provide many occasions for victory celebrations.

A conventional war, on the other hand, is a lot more fun: you get stirring pictures of tanks rolling across the desert, and you get to do a victory landing on an aircraft carrier. And more and more it seems that that was what the war was all about. After all, the supposed reasons for fighting that war have turned out to be false — there were no links to Al Qaeda, there wasn`t a big arsenal of W.M.D.`s.

But never mind — we won, didn`t we? Maybe not. About half of the U.S. Army`s combat strength is now tied down in Iraq, facing what looks increasingly like a guerrilla war — and like a perfect recruiting device for Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, the real war on terror has been neglected, and we`ve antagonized the allies we need to fight that war. One of these days we`ll end up paying the price.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Beide Teile zusammengefasst

KRIEGSGRUND-AFFÄRE
Blairs Big Bluff

Von Michael Sontheimer, London

Während US-Sonderkommandos im Irak vergeblich nach Saddam Husseins schrecklichen Massenvernichtungswaffen suchen, wird in London immer deutlicher: Tony Blair hat die Briten mit dubiosen und manipulierten Geheimdienstinformationen in den Irak-Krieg getrieben.

London - Es ist wie verhext. 230 verdächtige Lokalitäten im gesamten Irak haben die amerikanischen Spezialkommandos zur Aufspürung von Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen mittlerweile abgesucht. Jedem Hinweis ihrer Geheimdienste sind sie nachgegangen.
Die Waffenexperten haben bei ihrer Suche nach Giftgaslagern unter anderem einen Kinderspielplatz umgegraben, ein Schwimmbad entdeckt und eine Schnapsbrennerei ausgehoben. Was sie dummerweise nicht gefunden haben, sind Anlagen zum Bau von Atombomben, Scud-Raketen, Gefechtsköpfe mit B- und C-Kampfstoffen oder Giftgas. Inzwischen sind den Suchkommandos die Ziele ausgegangen, nur ein kleiner Teil der zeitweise bis 2000 Mann starken Truppe sucht weiter nach Saddams verborgenen Arsenalen.

Zwei Tage bevor die ersten Cruise Missiles in Bagdad einschlugen, am 18. März, hatte Premierminister Tony Blair im Londoner Unterhaus erklärt, der Verbleib von "10.000 Litern Anthrax, mindestens 80 Tonnen Senfgas, möglicherweise zehnmal mehr" sei ungeklärt. Außerdem treibe Saddam Hussein ein "Scud Missiles Programm" voran. US-Präsident George W. Bush hatte sich einen Tag zuvor auf Geheimdiensterkenntnisse berufen, "die keinen Zweifel daran lassen, dass das Regime des Irak weiterhin die tödlichsten jemals erfundenen Waffen besitzt und verbirgt".

"Unser Premier hat uns betrogen"

Doch - mehr als zwei Monate nach dem Sturz Saddams und der Besetzung des Irak - fehlt noch immer jede Spur von diesen schrecklichen Waffen. Damit gerät die politische Rechtfertigung und juristische Begründung des weltweit umstrittenen Krieges, der die Vereinten Nationen, die Nato und die EU gespalten hat, immer heftiger ins Wanken.

Gleichzeitig können sich die Kriegskritiker in ihren Vermutungen bestätigt sehen: Die Führer der Koalition der Willigen haben offensichtlich die Weltöffentlichkeit mit Propagandalügen zu manipulieren versucht.

Immerhin war es ein hochrangiger britischer Agent, der anonym die BBC unterrichtete, dass seine Regierung an vertraulichen Informationen "herumgedoktort" und sie "aufgesext" habe. Die wegen der britischen Irakpolitik zurückgetretene Ex-Ministerin Clare Short sagt: "Unser Premier hat uns betrogen."

Wie frühzeitig Blair bereits die Invasion des Irak vorbereiten ließ, stellte sich jetzt - eher nebenbei - in einer Sitzung des Verteidigungsausschusses des Unterhauses heraus, als Luftmarschall Brian Burridge dem Gremium eine Analyse des Waffengangs vorlegte. Schon im Sommer 2002, erklärte Burridge, hätten amerikanische und britische Kommandeure damit begonnen, den Angriff auf Saddam Hussein zu planen. "Idealerweise" sollte die Invasion dann - wie auch gesehen - im Frühjahr 2003 gestartet werden.

Aufgebauschte Propaganda

Dies passt zu der Annahme Shorts, nach der Blair sich spätestens Anfang September vergangenen Jahres mit dem US-Präsidenten bei einem Treffen in Camp David auf den Regimewechsel verständigt habe. Als Invasionstermin, so Short, hätten die beiden Mitte Februar 2003 festgelegt. "Blair stimmte einem Datum für militärische Aktion zu", so die Kritik der Ex-Ministerin, "was den Abschluss des Blix-Prozesses und eine anständige zweite UN-Resolution unmöglich machte."

Beständig kommen auch in London neue Details ans Tageslicht, wie ausdauernd und massiv Tony Blair und seine Regierung die Geheimdienste Ihrer Majestät unter Druck gesetzt haben, um von ihnen die politisch gewünschten Informationen zu bekommen. Blair hatte nach dem schnellen Sieg im Irak auf einen Popularitätsschub gesetzt, wie ihn Maggie Thatcher nach dem Falkland-Krieg erfahren hatte. Doch das genaue Gegenteil ist eingetreten: Nach einer Umfrage des "New Statesman" haben 43 der Prozent der Briten heute eine schlechtere Meinung von ihrem Premier als vor einem Jahr, nur 13 Prozent eine bessere.

"Größer als Watergate"

"Größer als Watergate" nannte ein Labour-Abgeordneter die Kriegsgrund-Affäre kürzlich. Die unter Völkerrechtlern umstrittene juristische Rechtfertigung der Invasion stützte sich auf die Uno-Resolution 1441, deren Ziel es war, Saddams Massenvernichtungswaffen zu zerstören. Blair selbst hat im Unterhaus beteuert, dass es ihm um die Durchsetzung dieser Resolution gehe, nicht darum, Saddam Hussein zu stürzen. Deshalb kann der Premier derzeit auch nicht viel mehr tun, als beständig seine "absolute Zuversicht" darin beschwören, dass doch noch Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden werden.

Auf Blair und Bush schlägt ein Problem zurück, das sie schon bei der gut ein Jahr währenden politischen und propagandistischen Vorbereitung des Krieges beständig plagte. Ihre Geheimdienste lieferten einfach keine brauchbaren Informationen über das weltbedrohende irakische Waffenarsenal und erst recht keine Beweise für die Existenz von Verbindungen zwischen Saddam Hussein und der al-Qaida.

Seit dem Abzug der Uno-Waffeninspektoren 1998 verfügten die westlichen Dienste über keinerlei Informanten im Irak. Die einzigen menschlichen Quellen waren Überläufer, die zumeist der vom Pentagon finanzierte Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabis den US-Diensten zuführte. "Die haben natürlich alles erzählt", so der britische Irakexperte Toby Dodge, "um sich eine gute Startposition zu verschaffen und den Sturz Saddams zu befördern."

Schon der Uno-Chef-Waffeninspekteur Hans Blix war, als er und seine Kontrolleure noch im Irak arbeiten konnten, über die Zuverlässigkeit der Informationen, die er von britischen und amerikanischen Diensten über angebliche Waffenverstecke bekam, "ein wenig erschüttert." In keinem einzigen Fall fand sich etwas. "O Gott", dachte sich Blix, "wenn das ihre besten Informationen sind, wie sieht dann der Rest aus?"
Mit allen Tricks frisierte die britische Regierung Geheimdienstmaterial, um einen Krieg gegen den Irak zu rechtfertigen. In einer peinlichen Serie von Enthüllungen kam der Betrug ans Licht - und bringt den britischen Premier Tony Blair in immer ärgere Bedrängnis.

Die schüttere Beweislage hielt die Protagonisten der Kriegskoalition nicht davon ab, Saddams schreckliche Waffenarsenale zum entscheidenden Kriegsgrund zu stilisieren. Als US-Außenminister Colin Powell am 5. Februar in der historischen Sitzung des Uno-Sicherheitsrates seine fulminante Anklage gegen Saddam Hussein vortrug ("Fakten aus soliden Quellen"), berief er sich dabei auch auf das "feine Papier" der britischen Regierung, das "in exquisiten Details die irakischen Täuschungsaktionen" enthülle.
Inzwischen ist das feine Papier als denkbar plumpe Fälschung entlarvt, und sein Urheber, Tony Blairs Chef der Abteilung Kommunikation und Strategie, Alastair Campbell, sieht sich mit Rücktrittsforderungen konfrontiert. Der einstige Boulevardjournalist musste sich bei Sir Richard Dearlove, dem Chef des Auslandsgeheimdienstes MI 6, für das "Dodgy ("Speckige") Dossier" entschuldigen und versichern, dass so etwas nicht mehr vorkommen werde.

"Das ist rundum Betrug", hatte sich schon bald nach der Veröffentlichung Ende Januar der im Irak geborene US-Akademiker Ibrahim al-Marashi empört. "Wie kann die britische Öffentlichkeit einer Regierung trauen, die mit solchen Tricks arbeitet?"

Ein Kollege aus Cambridge hatte den Irak-Experten darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass die Dossier-Autoren gleich seitenweise wörtlich aus einem Aufsatz al-Marashis abgeschrieben hatten, der auf einer zwölf Jahre alten Arbeit beruhte - Druckfehler inbegriffen.

Auch der Journalist Sean Boyne, der für die Londoner "Jane`s Intelligence Weekly" arbeitet, entdeckte Passagen aus Artikeln von sich aus dem Jahr 1997 in dem unter Campbells Aufsicht kompilierten Machwerk - und ärgerte sich besonders darüber, dass sie zur Begründung eines Krieges dienen sollten, den er selbst ablehnte.

Hinter den Kulissen Druck auf Blix

Da der größte Teil der Quellen bekannt sind, offenbart das "Dodgy Dossier" auch die Arbeitsweise von Blairs Propaganda-Abteilung. So wurden Mannschaftsstärken irakischer Militäreinheiten nach oben aufgerundet, oder aus angeblicher irakischer Unterstützung für "oppositionelle Gruppen" in anderen Ländern wurden "terroristische Gruppen".

Dies sei "ein weiteres Beispiel dafür", konstatierte die Oscar-Preisträgerin und Labour-Abgeordnete Glenda Jackson schon im Februar, "wie die Regierung versucht, das Parlament und das Land in die Irre zu führen." Noch am Wochenende war das diskreditierte "Dodgy Dossier" auf der Website von Downing Street zu finden.

Inzwischen ist auch klar, dass die Falken in Washington, allen voran Paul Wolfowitz und das "Office for Special Plans" im Pentagon, Colin Powell zweifelhafte Informationen über die Gefährlichkeit des Irak untergejubelt haben. Zudem haben sie auch hinter den Kulissen Druck auf Blix ausgeübt.

Von "meinen Verleumdern in Washington" sprach der sonst so diplomatische Blix: "Es gibt Bastarde, die hässliche Dinge in den Medien platzierten." Der Schwede, der Ende des Monats in den Ruhestand tritt, offenbarte auch, dass die Bush-Administration "uns gegen Ende unter Druck setzte", bei den Berichten an den Uno-Sicherheitsrat eine stärker verurteilende Sprache zu verwenden.

Blair passten die Geheimdienst-Analysen nicht ins Konzept

Welchem politischen Druck die Geheimdienste in London ausgesetzt waren, zeigt die Entstehungsgeschichte des ersten Irak-Dossiers. Im März vergangenen Jahres hatte Alastair Campbell in einem Hintergrundgespräch mit handverlesenen US-Journalisten angekündigt, die britische Regierung werde innerhalb von vierzehn Tagen brisante Geheimdiensterkenntnisse über die Massenvernichtungswaffen Saddam Husseins vorlegen.

Mittlerweile ist klar, warum es statt zwei Wochen ganze sechs Monate dauerte, bis das mit Spannung erwartete Dossier veröffentlicht wurde: Blair und seinen Beratern, die verzweifelt nach Argumenten suchten, um die skeptischen Briten in den Krieg zu treiben, passten die Analysen der Geheimdienste nicht ins Konzept. Nach der Einschätzung des Auslandsgeheimdienstes MI 6, der rund zwei Drittel seiner Informationen von US-Diensten bezieht, stellten die Massenvernichtungswaffen des Irak keinerlei Bedrohung für Großbritannien dar. Der Irak sei, so die ursprüngliche MI 6-Analyse, nicht gefährlicher als nach dem ersten Golfkrieg 1991.

Den ersten Sechs-Seiten-Entwurf der Geheimagenten Ihrer Majestät schickte Blairs Stab postwendend als unbrauchbar zurück, schließlich hatte der Briten-Premier sich bereits entschlossen, "Schulter an Schulter" mit George W. Bush notfalls in den Krieg zu ziehen. Insgesamt sechs Mal mussten die Geheimdienstler ihre Vorlage umschreiben, bevor Blair das Dossier Ende September veröffentlichen ließ.

Die Agenten freilich fertigten - von Hause aus misstrauisch - Vermerke über die heftige politische Einflussnahme an, deren Bekanntwerden die Blair-Regierung umso mehr fürchten muss, seit ein Minister "schurkischen Elemente" beim Geheimdienst die Schuld für die brisante Affäre zuschob.

Horrorszenario im Unterhaus

In dem Dossier war dann gleich vier Mal nachzulesen, dass Saddam Hussein über B- und C-Waffen verfüge, die "innerhalb von 45 Minuten nach dem Befehl, sie zu nutzen, einsatzbereit sind." Dieses Horrorszenario malte Blair zudem im Unterhaus aus. Jetzt allerdings musste ein Staatssekretär einräumen, dass es sich dabei um eine unbestätigte Information aus einer einzigen Quelle handelte.

Als auf gefälschten Dokumenten basierend hat sich die in dem Dossier aufgestellte Behauptung entpuppt, der Irak habe versucht, "signifikante Mengen Uran aus Afrika" zu bekommen. Nicht nur CIA-Chef George Tenent und Powell, sondern auch Bush hatten dies als Beweis dafür präsentiert, dass Saddam nach wie vor an einer Atombombe baue. Bushs Redenschreiber waren allerdings so schlau, ein "laut der britischen Regierung" hinzuzufügen.

Dass britische Geheimdienstler darauf bestehen, die von einem afrikanischen Diplomaten in Rom gefälschten und an italienische Schlapphüte verkauften Dokumente seien nie in ihrem Besitz gewesen, deutet daraufhin, dass die Agenten beiderseits des Atlantiks jetzt versuchen, sich die peinliche Panne gegenseitig in die Schuhe zu schrieben.

Blair sagt nicht vor dem Ausschuss aus

Der Strafverteidiger Tony Blair geht ohnehin nach der alten Anwaltsdevise vor, erst einmal alles zu dementieren, und erklärte zu dem angeblichen irakischen Atomwaffenprogramm: "Wir bleiben bei unserer Einschätzung."


Noch bevor die beiden Parlamentsausschüsse, die jetzt in London die Manipulationsvorwürfe aufklären sollen, überhaupt ihre Arbeit aufgenommen haben, hat der Premier auch schon deutlich gemacht, dass er die Wahrheitsfindung nicht unbedingt befördern will. Sowohl er als auch sein Kommunikationschef Alastair Campbell, erklärte Blair im Unterhaus, werden vor dem Auswärtigen Ausschuss nicht aussagen.

Gleichzeitig ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass der Premier die Kriegsgrund-Affäre einfach aussitzen kann. Und selbst wenn im Irak noch ein paar verrottete Kanister Giftgas gefunden werden sollten, so dürfte es sich dabei höchstens um Altbestände von Kampfstoffen handeln, die in den achtziger Jahren produziert wurden - mit britischer und amerikanischer Unterstützung.

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
As U.S. Retreats, Iran Puts Its Money Into Afghan Province
Herat Gets Electricity Supply and Funds for Schools and Roads

By April Witt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A10


HERAT, Afghanistan -- Schoolboys in crisp khaki uniforms stood at attention, chanting "God is great," at the dedication of Afghanistan`s newest public school, which has marble-lined walls, computers, a microscope and powerful friends. It was built and furnished entirely with donations from Iranians.

"After the resistance of Afghans -- heroic people -- we are now in the process of reconstructing Afghanistan by the powerful hand of our Muslim brothers in coordination with our neighboring Muslim countries," Gov. Ismail Khan said late last month in an assembly at the Amir Ali Shir Nawyi School. The governor, a savvy politician, didn`t mention the United States, even though the U.S. government has built at least 21 schools in Herat province since the Taliban fell and has more under construction.

In the battle for Afghan hearts and minds, Iran appears to be gaining influence in this western province ruled by one of the nation`s most powerful and independent regional leaders. While the United States has distanced itself from Khan recently in an effort to show unambiguous support for Afghanistan`s central government, Iran`s relationship with Herat has grown closer. Some in Herat find this alarming, because they are eager to see Western-style democracy and women`s rights prevail over Iran`s brand of Islamic rule.

Two months ago, Iran began supplying electricity to streets, government offices and the hospital in the city of Herat, a boon in a country where the vast majority of people have no regular access to electric power. The Iranian government spent $15 million to extend power lines to Herat and is selling the electricity at a loss, according to Iranians and Afghans familiar with the project.

Construction on a 76-mile road that Iran is building from the Iranian border town of Dugharun to Herat -- at a cost of $38 million thus far -- has accelerated recently. A few months ago it took four hours to drive from Herat to Iran. Now it takes two.

Iran built a railway line to its border with Herat last year and is awaiting permission from the Afghan government to extend rail service into Afghanistan.

The Iranian government has pledged to spend $560 million over five years to help rebuild Afghanistan.

Khan, who visited Tehran, the Iranian capital, in March, returned predicting that Iran would help transform Herat into a major business center and international freight hub. Iranian officials, he said, promised far-reaching new aid -- from equipping farms to building factories, supplying schools and admitting Afghan students to Tehran University.

"They really did take an interest," Khan said in a March interview on Herat TV. "I had talks . . . on ties between the two countries and on political matters. As Iran supported the mujaheddin in the past, we asked them to continue support for them now."

In Kabul, however, central government officials said they were determined that Afghanistan would no longer be a game board on which regional and international players maneuvered to fulfill their own ambitions. If President Hamid Karzai has his way, they will have to tailor their moves to the central government`s plans for roads and railways designed to benefit all Afghans.

"That`s how the new game is being played," said a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Omar Samad.

Ties That Bind
A renowned leader of Islamic resistance forces during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Khan has had complex and shifting relations with Iran and the United States.

When the Taliban seized Herat in 1995 during its rise to power, Khan was imprisoned, but escaped three years later and fled to Iran. When the U.S. military led the campaign to topple the Taliban in late 2001, it helped return Khan to power in Herat.

Soon after, both Washington and Tehran appeared to vie for Khan`s allegiance, and he subtly played the powers against each other to win support from both. Some of the first U.S. soldiers based in Herat lived in Khan`s governmental guest residence, Jihad House. At the same time, some of the troops in Khan`s private militia were spotted toting weapons marked "Iran Ministry of Defense."

Today, relations between Khan and the Americans are cordial, but cooler. The United States has distanced itself from Khan in an effort to show that its priority is supporting the central government, which Khan has sometimes defied.

"We`re all fairly distant now," one Western observer said. "We don`t have the frequency of meetings we had last year. Times have changed."

Herat`s ties to Iran are centuries-old and extend into every aspect of life. Heratis speak their own language rather than Dari, which is common in other parts of Afghanistan. Though both languages are derivatives of Farsi, the Herati language is truer to its Persian roots. Shops in the province are stocked with Iranian products. People are more likely to seek medical care or work in Iran`s major cities than in Afghanistan`s. Women drape themselves in long, black prayer scarves in the Iranian fashion. New homes, some of them mansions by Afghan standards, are being built all over Herat in an ornate style popular in Iran.

"I don`t feel like a foreigner in Herat," said Mansur Zadeh, 34, an Iranian physician who arrived recently to run the Iran Clinic, which provides free medical care, is funded through a Tehran nongovernment organization and is monitored by the Iranian government. "I feel like this is part of Iran."

The Taliban, a radical Sunni Muslim movement, tried to eradicate Shiite Iran`s religious influence on Herat, burning Shiite mosques and religious schools Today, however, more than a quarter of Herat`s population is Shiite, and their numbers are growing, Shiite leaders said. Shiites run the largest religious school in the province, Sadeqya, which has more than 500 students.

The school`s administrator, Said Jawad Hassan Zada, an Afghan, said he is eager for Afghanistan to adopt a new constitution making his religious beliefs the law of the land. "Anything in the constitution must be according to Islamic law -- and nothing other than Islamic law," he said.

The Iranian government did not respond officially to written questions about its reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, submitted through its consulate in Herat.

Former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, speaking in Tehran last month, said it was "an absolute necessity" to combat the "new crusaders" and "imperialists" from the United States, which he accused of entrapping Afghanistan, not helping its people rebuild.

"They were telling them lies," he said in a speech broadcast live by Iranian radio. "It said that it wanted to reconstruct Afghanistan. However, a long time has passed since then, and they have not done anything important for Afghanistan."

But one Iranian observer in Afghanistan said that both reformers and hard-liners in Tehran realize it is not in Iran`s interest to destabilize Afghanistan by interfering politically and undercutting the central government. Iran`s reconstruction spending, he said, is intended to stabilize all Afghanistan, which will ultimately make Iran safer.

"We are not going to give individual support to Ismail Khan or anybody else," he said. "It`s very clear: If we want to see peace and security, we have to support the central government. There is no other alternative for us.

"Maybe people aren`t going to put out red carpet for the Americans. . . . But it`s not possible to have a puppet here. That time has passed."

But those in Herat who are organizing underground political parties to promote democracy and women`s rights say Iran`s clout is a source of concern.

"The influence of Iran in Herat will have a bad outcome for the next generation of Afghans -- their ideas and activities," one organizer said. "They are fostering an anti-American, anti-Western attitude. It`s important that we achieve what we want, not what Iran wants. If Iran controls us, we will not have democracy."

For most people in Herat, reconstruction is less a matter of playing global politics than easing daily desperation.

Students at Amir Ali Shir Nawyi School were constantly sick from studying under tents that were too hot in summer and too cold in winter until Iranian filmmaker Makhmal Baaf donated money to build several new classrooms in cooperation with the Iranian government, Principal Khalil Ahmad Tawana said.

The overcrowded Herat Hospital has no burn unit. Critically burned patients are grouped on gurneys at the end of one hallway, where they suffer beneath tents fashioned from blankets, a crude attempt at infection control.

In the pediatric ward, two or three seriously ill children often are crammed into a single bed. Recently, so many children with meningitis shared one room that its seven beds overflowed and an infant lay on a blanket on the floor.

The U.S. is trying to get funding to build an $80,000 modern operating theater for the hospital. But Herat`s director of public health said he has higher hopes: a $20 million donation from the Iranian government to help build a 500-bed hospital. An official familiar with Iran`s reconstruction plans, however, said Iran was highly unlikely to approve the project.

For all their differences, Iranians and Americans are learning the same lesson about Afghanistan: The impoverished nation`s needs are so great that, no matter what is done , it`s not enough.

"Afghanistan is like a sponge," said Mujtaba Darrudi, 30, an Iranian engineer overseeing construction of a new building that Iran is donating to a high school in Herat. "It`s such a parched piece of land that as much water as we pour on it, it will be absorbed. You start to feel as if you haven`t poured any water on it at all."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Talking Revolution




Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A20


HOW DO YOU KNOW when the revolution has really begun? That`s the question Iran`s leaders must be asking themselves. For the past week, anti-regime protests have rocked Tehran and other cities, including Isfahan and Shiraz. Students are leading the demonstrations, but others -- nobody really knows how many -- are also participating. Clashes between protesters and armed vigilantes -- claiming to be acting in the name of the Islamic revolution -- have led to many injuries, some critical. Already the specter of 1999 looms. That year, vigilantes beat and arrested hundreds, possibly thousands, after demonstrations and riots spread to 22 cities. Some fear the regime will observe the fourth anniversary of that event by repeating it.

But this time there are signs that the regime is less confident than before, or at least less certain of the right response. After a few days of riots, it announced its intention to arrest vigilantes suspected of fomenting bloodshed -- perhaps because the Iranian leadership knows that the attacks on protesters only anger people further. Other evidence, however, suggests that the regime is merely frustrated by the vigilantes` failure to stop the rebellion and has begun sending in real soldiers.

Because Western journalists are kept away from demonstrations and out of provincial cities, it is difficult for outsiders to gauge the significance of what is going on in Iran. But whether this is a real revolution or another round of riots, doomed to end in another round of prison sentences, the U.S. reaction should not be in doubt. Indeed, although they have been denounced in Tehran, the reactions of President Bush and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher have been right on the mark. "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran," the president said. Mr. Boucher, meanwhile, has now said openly what many in Washington have long said privately: "We`ve reached the conclusion that Iran is actively working to develop nuclear weapons capability."

The "reformers" within the regime have proven powerless to prevent the "hard-liners" from arresting democratic activists and shutting down publications. The "reformers" also have collaborated in what appears to be active pursuit of nuclear weapons and the continued sponsorship of terrorist groups. Scattered, disorganized and still powerless though they may be, the student demonstrators and those brave enough to join them represent the best hope for change in Iran. They deserve supportive words from the United States.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
In Europe, Mending Fences . . .


By David Ignatius

Tuesday, June 17, 2003; Page A21


BERLIN -- A group of curious Europeans had a chance over the weekend to observe the man many suspect is a secret architect of Bush administration foreign policy, the neoconservative guru Richard Perle.

The Prince of Darkness looked oddly like a cafe intellectual: baggy blue suit, deep circles under his eyes, a mop of curly white hair combed over his bald spot. That`s an irony of Europe`s demonization of Perle -- he is that rare Washington policymaker who actually owns a country house in Provence.

Perle truly is a contrarian, and what was surprising about his appearance here was that his tone was relatively restrained: Rather than pushing to open new fault lines with the Europeans, he seemed to be seeking ways to put things back together -- on American terms, to be sure. Perle was speaking at a gathering sponsored by Deutsche Bank on the theme "Desperately Seeking Europe." That dire message was printed on the wrappings of chocolates handed out to conference participants. Perle observed that Europe itself was like the confections: It was beautifully packaged and enticing, but it would make you fat and prove unsafe in the long run.

It was lines such as that one that led a European leftist to call Perle`s remarks "possibly the most dangerous speech I have ever heard." But I`m not sure she got his message.

The underlying topic of the conference was the collapse of the transatlantic alliance. The breakup was mentioned by so many different speakers that it seemed almost to assume the force of fact. One of the few who seemed unconvinced was Perle himself.

He said Europeans needed to understand that after 9/11, Americans felt themselves facing an existential threat. Just as America had stood by Europe during the long crisis of the Cold War, Europe now needed to "wake up" and come to America`s help.

When pressed, Perle conceded that the Bush administration could do a better job of maintaining dialogue with European leaders, as America had during the Cold War. And when asked to critique America`s Iraq policy, Perle said he wished the Bush administration could have been successful in gathering more international support before going to war. As for what will come next after Iraq, Perle made some hawkish statements without recommending hawkish policies. His line seemed similar to that of a fellow neoconservative, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who has suggested that America needs to finish its war in Iraq before attacking Damascus or Tehran.

Perle denounced Syria for alleged possession of chemical weapons, and he applauded the Iranian demonstrators who have been marching in the streets this week against the regime. But when asked whether the United States was ready to support the Iranian rebels with military assistance, Perle was cautious. He said the United States must not repeat its mistake of 1991, when it urged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein`s regime but then left them hanging.

Sharing the stage with Perle was Sergei Karaganov, a top foreign-policy adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Like Perle, he seemed to be in a conciliatory mood. Russia wanted to be friends with both Europe and America, he said. For example, he indicated that Russia might work with the United States (and Europe) to contain Iran`s nuclear program if Washington offers an attractive enough deal.

As to the enduring mystery of why Putin sided with Europe against Washington over Iraq, sources here suggested that it was a matter of bad intelligence. The Russians were convinced that the Iraq war would drag on for several months; Putin hoped he could be the peacemaker in such a stalemate.

Perle loves to play the provocateur. In the 1980s he dared to question whether the Soviet Union was a permanent fact of life and urged the West to challenge Moscow more aggressively. Less than a decade later, the Berlin Wall was gone. He played a similar role in the Iraq debate.

But Perle isn`t a crazy man, any more than was his mentor, Sen. Henry M. Jackson. I recall interviewing Jackson in 1980, at a time when America was in trouble in Iran and Afghanistan and many in Washington were recommending rash policy moves. "Cool it" was Jackson`s message back then.

I doubt Perle would ever suggest anything so bland as "cool it." But I did have the sense that the Prince of Darkness is in a mood to mend some of the broken heirlooms in the Euro-American cupboard, rather than to smash more china. America is powerful, but not omnipotent, and Perle seems to understand that Washington still needs friends.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Solange Fox im Fernsehen die Meinungsführerschaft wird sich in der Meinung der Amerikaner auch nicht viel ändern (s. heutige Gallup Poll)

Published on Monday, June 16, 2003 by the Miami Herald
Iraq Posed an Unclear and Dubious Danger
by Ray McGovern

FOX News asked me to present my views on June 8 on the ongoing quest for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the first thing the anchor asked was why I should care about that when the vast majority of Americans don`t.

I responded, somewhat indecorously, that this was largely the fault of FOX News and other media that have kept Americans malnourished on issues such as why our country launched a preemptive war. I was dyspeptic earlier that day after watching Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell blow still more smoke at these key issues and disparage those with legitimate questions.

Powell said that it was ``nonsense`` to brand as ``bogus`` the intelligence adduced to justify making war on Iraq. But, sadly, ``bogus`` is precisely the correct word to apply to the key piece of ``evidence`` used to deceive our representatives and senators into voting to give President Bush permission to launch an unprovoked war on Iraq.

However strong a word, ``bogus`` pales in comparison with the F-word to which Powell and Rice showed themselves allergic: F for forgery. Yes, forgery. Had FOX and other news outlets adequately reported on what both Powell and Rice had already conceded was a forgery, the American people might have a better appreciation as to why they should care.

I refer to the bogus story that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons. Those who followed developments at the United Nations have known since February that that story was based on a crude forgery. What is little known is that the Bush administration knew it was bogus a full year earlier. (The United Nations now has the forged documents.)

Early last year Vice President Dick Cheney sent to Niger a former U.S. ambassador in Africa to investigate the story. The latter brought back word that the documents were not authentic. But this did not prevent senior administration officials from using them in the critical run-up to Congress vote to give Bush the authority to make war.

Indeed, Bush included the forged ``evidence`` in his State of the Union Message on Jan. 28 -- something that Rice, when asked about it by George Stephanopoulos on national television on June 8, was at a loss to explain satisfactorily. Now ``senior administration officials`` are telling gullible reporters that Cheney and other senior officials were never informed of the outcome of the investigation.

Recent press reports of a Defense Intelligence Agency study of September 2002 that found ``no definitive, reliable information`` that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical or biological weapons has helped me connect the dots, so to speak. Last falls full-court press to get Congress to vote for war required proof that Iraq posed a clear and present danger. As Bush`s strategists reviewed the bidding, it became painfully clear that allegations of a confirmed chemical and biological threat would run too great a risk of being undermined by uncooperative analysts in the DIA.

A `MUSHROOM CLOUD`

At that point the White House decided to present evidence raising the specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein and play up the danger of a ``mushroom cloud.`` Former U.N. nuclear inspector David Albright said recently that he was ``deeply troubled by the selective use of information to basically scare people. People are scared by nuclear weapons. And its a button.``

But where was the evidence? It is now clear that the only thing available at that time was the so-called argument about aluminum tubes. There had been reports of Iraq`s trying to procure them from abroad, and those eager to please the White House offered instant analysis that the tubes were for Iraq`s nuclear program. Thus, Rice on Sept. 8, 2002, told CNN`s Wolf Blitzer that ``Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments into Iraq of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to nuclear weapons programs.``

But when the engineers and scientists at U.S. nuclear labs were consulted, their conclusion was that the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear application. So that line of argument turned out to be as weak as the chemical and biological weapons evidence about which DIA analysts were so suspicious.

BOGUS EVIDENCE

What was left? Someone remembered the forged correspondence between Iraq and Niger, decided that it could be used to win the vote in Congress and then, after winning the war in Iraq and in the afterglow of victory, no one would care that the evidence was bogus. It worked.

Small wonder that U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., in a March 17 letter to Bush, expressed outrage at having been deceived into voting for war, since ``the evidence cited regarding Iraq`s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons is a hoax.``

Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Copyright 2003 Knight Ridder
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0616-04.htm

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Seit Ende des Krieges sind ungefähr die Hälfte der Soldaten umgekommen wie im Krieg.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/ats-ap_in…
Sniper Kills U.S. Soldier in Baghdad
By CHRIS TOMLINSON
Associated Press Writer

1:57 AM PDT, June 17, 2003

KHALDIYAH, Iraq -- A sniper killed a U.S. soldier on patrol in Baghdad with a single shot, the military said Tuesday, while Iraqi officials in nearby towns were targeted by drive-by shootings likely designed to intimidate them against cooperating with Americans.

The violence came as U.S. military officials announced that American troops had detained 371 people in three days of sweeps in Baghdad and northern Iraq meant to "isolate and defeat remaining pockets of resistance that are seeking to delay the transition to a peaceful and stable Iraq."

During the attack on the U.S. soldier Monday night, the sniper escaped as the soldier collapsed on the ground. He was hustled into a military vehicle and evacuated to a first aid station, but died shortly afterward, said Maj. Sean Gibson, a U.S. military spokesman.

The identity of the soldier, from the 1st Armored Division, was withheld pending notification of relatives.

Gibson said the soldier was shot in the chest, even though he was protected by body armor. The other troops on the patrol did not see the gunman, and it was not clear if they returned fire, Gibson said.

On Sunday, insurgents ambushed two U.S. military convoys north of Baghdad, wounding 10 soldiers and an unknown number of Iraqi civilians traveling on a bus that was passing one of the convoys.

About 50 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq since major combat operations were declared over on May 1, either by hostile fire or operational accidents.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

A Ba`athist Rebirth?
Iraqi Ba`athists seem, at least according to recent reports, to be putting up more of a fight now than when American troops first rolled into Baghdad, more than two months ago.

Over the weekend, US forces launched a series of new search-and-destroy operations -- the biggest since George W. Bush`s aircraft carrier photo-op victory speech last month -- in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" surrounding Baghdad. The reasons for the new sweeps are obvious: American troops have been coming under increasingly heavy, well-organized fire in the last few weeks, and convoys are now being ambushed and soldiers shot with alarming regularity ( appears to have little doubt. Desert Scorpion, its latest operation, is "designed to identify and defeat selected Ba`ath party loyalists, terrorist organizations and criminal elements," according to Central Command in Doha. And to be sure, some Sunnis do pine for the ancien regime. " Hell with Saddam is better than paradise with the Americans," reads a freshly painted slogan on a burnt-out tank in the central town of Baquba, the London Independent`s Patrick Cockburn reports.

But to label all resistance "Ba`athist" is a gross oversimplification, many observers say -- especially because American heavy-handedness seems to be creating more enemies by the day. In a particularly egregious example last month, US soldiers shot and killed four teenagers in Samarra, a town north of Baghdad. Their crime? Firing guns during a wedding parade. It was just a terrible mistake on the Americans` part, of course, a mistake borne of cultural disconnect and nervous trigger fingers, but a mistake with potentially serious consequences. The tactics of the new anti-Ba`athist sweeps -- round-ups carried out by US soldiers, shouting in English and guided by score-settling informers -- have also provoked outrage, the London Guardian`s Richard Norton-Taylor and Rory McCarthy note. Ultimately, these new iron-fist operations might achieve the exact opposite of their intent, and further harden Iraqi sentiment against the US occupation.


"Hostile residents are not shy of threatening more attacks, insisting they are not Saddam loyalists but angry at the US military occupation. Aggressive house searches and the killing by US troops of 18 protesters in a demonstration last month have provoked fury. Soldiers on the ground say the attacks they are facing, mostly from rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, are disciplined and skilled, not the random shootings of angry civilians. American generals admit that though the attacks may be locally organised there is no evidence yet of a reformed Ba`ath party centrally coordinating the assaults.
...

The US and Britain said they came to liberate Iraq and protect its people. The failure to understand how Iraqis would respond may be rooted in arrogance. It is also a colossal failure in intelligence which may prove to be at least as important as the inability to find any of Iraq`s banned weapons. The commander of British forces in the war, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, admitted as much in remarkably frank evidence to MPs this week. Asked about the problems of `policing` Iraq, and the number of forces needed to do the job, he replied: `I`m not sure we understand yet.`"

In fact, three months in, US forces still seem to have precious little understanding of the country they occupy. "Hearts and Minds" operations are greeted with Iraqi derision and, as the Washington Post`s Anthony Shadid reports, even the distribution of food aid has sparked anger throughout the Sunni heartland.


"U.S. soldiers tossed military meals and bottles of water to the crowd. `They treated us like monkeys -- who`s the first one who can jump up and catch the food,` said Mohammed, who was captured by Iran in the Iran-Iraq war and kept as a prisoner for 11 years."
While most of the organized resistance is coming from the Sunni strongholds of central Iraq, that may change. The Shi`ites, too, are increasingly angry over the occupation, as the London Telegraph`s Peter Foster reports. In the southern city of Basra over the weekend, 10,000 protesters rained stones on a British convoy while chanting, " Answer our demands or you will regret it."

Well, it is a military occupation, after all. No one ever promised it would be all sweetness and light. Right?

Oh, wait. Dick Cheney did. So did Paul Wolfowitz. And George W. Bush ...



Helping the Hardliners
After six days of protests in Iran, students and their pro-democracy supporters continue to withstand an onslaught of arrests and beatings from the Ayatollah Khameini`s police. President Bush, on a break from his Maine vacation, tried to be helpful by making comments in support of the demonstrations. Bush announced Sunday: "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves toward a free Iran which I think is positive." (Interesting that the president didn`t have the same insight in March when millions of people across the globe were protesting a potential war on Iraq. Nor has this been his take on anti-occupation demonstrations in Iraq.)

Given the political reality on the ground in Tehran, President Bush`s comments, however heartfelt, may only hinder the progress of the Iranian-led democracy movement. Iran`s Foreign Ministry Spokesman, Hamid Rezi Asefi, pointed to Bush`s statements as evidence that Americans in Washington were orchestrating these "hooligans`" demonstrations. Bush`s pro-democracy comments also drew sharp criticism from the nation`s state-controlled newspaper, the Tehran Times. The editors there griped about Bush`s interference in Iran`s domestic concerns:


"George Bush`s interfering remarks about Iran are nothing new. The Iranian people have experienced much interference and witnessed numerous hostile measures by the United States over the past two decades. In fact this type of rhetoric, based on a misconception of U.S. interests and the White House`s interventionist policy, has become routine."

The Tehran Times is far from an expression of popular feeling in Iran. But its comments do illustrate that an occupying power might not be in the best position to fend off accusations of interference.
Regardless of Bush, the student protesters are evidence of important shifts in Iran, and their position may be gaining some ground. The protesters are the most vocal tip of a demographic iceberg in Iran, where 70 percent of the population is under 30. This younger generation did not participate in the clerics` revolution, and seems fed up. Some have even mustered the gumption to call for Khameini`s execution -- under a regime where any criticism of the Ayatollah can land you behind bars. In May over 120 lawmakers published an open letter calling on Khamenei to accept the reform the students are pushing before, "the whole establishment and the country`s independence and territorial integrity are jeopardised." Student actions are being met with strong support from thousands of ordinary Iranians. Demonstrations have spread to several smaller cities outside Tehran.

So the demonstrations do represent an important indication of popular feeling. But Monday`s editorial in the Christian Science Monitor notes that although the demonstrations have once again brought Iranian students into the international spotlight, the students are not about to initiate drastic reform:


"These latest protests, like those in 1999, which also turned violent, reveal more about the weakness of the reform movement than its strength. They are confined largely to universities, and incited mainly by Persian-language satellite broadcasts sent by exiles in Los Angeles. And the spark this time was a move to privatize universities, hardly the stuff to drive a revolution.
Rebellion in Iran may be years away, yet the US needs action soon. Iran might have a nuclear device within a few years. For now, the best course is direct diplomacy and urging other nations to push Iran for more democracy and an end to support for terrorists."

It`s unclear what course Bush is setting. According to Hooman Peimani of Asia Times, Bush`s recent statements may fit in with a larger, menacing pattern:


American allegations on Tehran`s pursuit of a nuclear weapons program are not something new. In fact they have been around since the early 1980s. Nor are the accusations of Tehran backing terrorists. What is new about them is Washington`s trying so hard to create an unfounded sense of urgency to justify its regime change in Iran, just as it did in the months preceding its March attack on Iraq. This is notwithstanding the fact that factors such as Iran`s social, economic and political developments as well as its strong military force benefiting from a home-grown military industry make any foreign-orchestrated plan for regime change unrealistic.
...

There is not yet any strong evidence to suggest that this wave of protests - which have run for six days - could lead to a popular pro-democracy movement capable of replacing the existing theocracy with a democracy.

Against a background of two years of anti-Iranian propaganda and a few months of talks of a regime change in Iran, Washington`s clear expression of support for the Iranian students has only provided grounds for Tehran`s suppression of their protests under the pretext of neutralizing an American plan to destabilize Iran.

Despite what the American government claims, its policy towards Iran has not and will not likely help foster democracy in that country. However, as an external factor, it will certainly damage the Iranian people`s bid for democracy and for a domestically-planned regime change."

In dem Text sind viele Links:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2003/25/we_434_02.…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/126877_thomas17.html

Ronald Reagan never confused the job with the man he was
Tuesday, June 17, 2003

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- Former President Reagan wrote a poignant farewell letter to the American people in 1994 after he was diagnosed with Alzheimer`s disease.

"I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life," he said. "I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead."

So it is left to others to tell us what the nation`s 40th president was really like, on and off stage. For an intimate look at Reagan`s character, persona and political talents, Michael K. Deaver`s book "A Different Drummer" with the subtitle "My Thirty Years With Ronald Reagan" fills that bill.

Deaver was a campaign staffer during Reagan`s successful run for governor and was deputy chief of staff at the White House until 1985.

The insights and the nuggets that Deaver reveals add to the realization that Reagan was a very shy and private man. Deaver was called the "image maker" but he clearly makes you understand that Reagan was his own man.

Nancy Reagan, who wrote the foreword to Deaver`s book, said "there are few people better suited to write about him."

Her husband, Reagan said, was "not a complicated man" and from 1967 to 1985 he (Deaver) was by "Ronnie`s side for all the good times and of course, many of the tough times too."

It is "sad beyond expression" that Reagan cannot enjoy "this glorious denouement" to his public life, Deaver wrote.

Instead, the former president "lives in a state of confusion, victimized by an illness that robs him of any coherent memory," as Deaver put it.

Reagan never used poll numbers to make up his mind, Deaver said. Whenever staffers gave Reagan statistics showing that the majority opposed his views, he told them they had to work harder to convince people that he was right, Deaver added.

Reporters covering the Reagan White House had no doubt that the president was a deeply committed conservative. And he did indeed turn the country to the right.

President Bush seems to be trying to emulate him, more than following in the footsteps of his own father, former President George H.W. Bush, who was much more moderate in his political views.

Reagan used humor "as a weapon in his campaigns" and he came up with his own zingers. He said Reagan`s repetitious taunt of "there you go again" in the 1980 presidential debate with former President Carter made Reagan more human to the public and turned the campaign around.

During that same campaign, Reagan irked environmentalists when he said trees contributed to air pollution. But Deaver said that even Reagan joined in the laughter when on the campaign trail in California they noticed a large sign hammered into a eucalyptus tree that read:

"Cut me down before I kill again."

Deaver surprised me when he wrote that Reagan did not like to have his picture taken. I recall the many Reagan photo ops I had covered at the White House. He was usually smiling. When Deaver asked him to explain his reluctance to have his picture taken, the former movie star replied: "You can never recover from a still shot."

He also repeated the well-known axiom: "The camera never lies."

Deaver reminded the reader that former Democratic Sen. Eugene McCarthy endorsed Reagan`s presidential candidacy in 1980 against Carter, the Democratic incumbent. It was an astonishing event at the time because McCarthy had led the revolt against President Lyndon B. Johnson`s bid for re-election because of the Vietnam War and had been viewed as a liberal Democrat.

Deaver said that McCarthy asked for a meeting with Reagan, which he arranged.

After "some small talk" Reagan expressed his appreciation for McCarthy`s support. Later, Deaver walked McCarthy to his car and told him: "I don`t get it ... what`s the real reason you`re endorsing Ronald Reagan?"

Deaver said McCarthy looked him directly in the eye and said: "I`ll tell you why. It`s because he is the only man since Harry Truman who won`t confuse the job with the man."

Deaver said McCarthy knew Reagan understood "the enormity of the office he sought, that it was bigger than one man.

"McCarthy saw something in the former actor that millions of Americans would see on Election Day as they happily handed him the keys to the White House," Deaver wrote.

To Deaver, Reagan epitomized "the American life through and through. A promise that the system works; that any kid can grow up to be president."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: [e-mail]. Copyright 2003 Hearst Newspapers.

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

Anti-Terrorkampf

Guantánamo - Bucht der Verzweifelten

Monate der Unsicherheit haben sie hoffnungslos gemacht. Den einzigen Ausweg aus ihrem Schicksal sahen manche der in Guantánamo Bay inhaftierten Taliban-Kämpfer und mutmaßlichen al-Qaida-Terroristen nur noch im Selbstmord - andere leiden unter schweren Depressionen.

Kabul - Einige der 32 Afghanen und drei Pakistaner, die in den vergangenen drei Monaten aus dem Lager auf Kuba freigelassen wurden, beklagen neben menschenunwürdigen Verhältnissen, dass sie nie darüber informiert wurden, weshalb sie sich überhaupt in Gefangenschaft der Amerikaner befanden. Geschweige denn, dass sie jemals eine Anklage zu Gesicht bekamen.

Die psychologisch belastende Situation eines ungewissen Schicksals, die ständigen Verhöre und die Sprachbarrieren zwischen den Gefangenen aus 40 Ländern ließen manchen den Freitod süßer erscheinen, als ihr Dasein zeitlich unbestimmt in den vier Quadratmeter kleinen Zellen zu fristen.

Menschenrechtsorganisationen kritisieren seit langen die Situation in den Gefängnissen auf dem Militärsstützpunkt. Doch ihre Handhabe ist minimal: Die USA gestehen den Häftlingen nicht den Status von Kriegsgefangenen zu, sondern halten sie als "ungesetzliche Kombattanten" rechtlich vogelfrei.

Es machten Gerüchte die Runde, dass dies ein Gefängnis sei, das für 150 Jahre angelegt ist, sagt Suleiman Schah. Der Taliban-Kämpfer aus dem Süden Afghanistans brachte 14 Monate in dem Lager zu. Offensichtlich unschuldige Gefangene wollten die Amerikaner für ihren Zwangsaufenthalt in der Karibik finanziell entschädigen. Doch davon hat bis heute keiner der entlassenen "Fußsoldaten" etwas gesehen.

Am Rande des Wahnsinns

Journalisten der "New York Times" (NYT), die jetzt mehrere der Freigelassenen in ihrer Heimat interviewten, fanden zwar keine Berichte von körperlichen Misshandlungen vor. Aber allein die Enge der Zellen trieb einige an den Rand des Wahnsinns, andere in Depressionen. Zudem verfügten ihre Zellen zwar über ein Holzdach, aber von den Seiten waren ihre Gefängnisse schutzlos der Umwelt ausgesetzt.

"In dieser Enge schliefen, aßen, beteten wir und benutzten die Toilette", klagt Schah. Jeder verfügte über zwei Decken und einen Gebetsteppich. "Wir schliefen und aßen auf dem Boden", sagt er. Lediglich einmal in der Woche durften die Gefangenen ein Duschbad von einer Minute nehmen. Nach viereinhalb Monaten hätten sie sich ernsthaft über die Verhältnisse beschwert und die Nahrung verweigert. So konnten die zeitweise 680 Gefangenen pro Woche wenigstens eine Fünf-Minuten-Dusche und zehn Minuten Bewegung in einer neun Meter langen Zelle durchsetzen.

"Ich habe versucht, mich umzubringen", sagt der 20 Jahre alte Schah Muhammad, ein Pakistaner, der im November 2001 im Norden Afghanistans festgenommen, an die Amerikaner ausgeliefert und im Januar vergangenen Jahres nach Guantánamo Bay geflogen wurde. "Ich habe es vier Mal versucht, weil ich meines Lebens so überdrüssig war."

Dabei verstoße es gegen den Islam, den Freitod zu wählen, fügt er hinzu. Aber das Leben sei dort so unerträglich gewesen, dass es viele der Mitgefangenen versucht hätten. "Sie haben mich als Schuldigen behandelt, dabei war ich doch unschuldig", sagte Schah Muhammad der NYT.

28 Selbstmordversuche

In den 18 Monaten seit Eröffnung des Lagers gab es laut offiziellen Angaben 28 Selbstmordversuche von 18 Gefangenen - die meisten in diesem Jahr, sagt der Sprecher des Lagers, Oberst Warren Neary. Keiner habe sich wirklich umbringen können, doch ein ehemaliger Lehrer hat nach Angaben seines Anwaltes bei einem Suizidversuch ernsthafte Hirnschädigungen erlitten.

Unter den Gefangenen sind neben vielen Afghanen mehr als 50 Pakistaner, etwa 150 Saudi-Araber und drei Jugendliche unter 16 Jahren. Die meisten von ihnen wurden in Afghanistan gefangen genommen, sagt Najeef Bin Mohammed Ahmed al-Nauimi. Al-Nauimi war frührer Justizminister des Golfstaates Qartar und vertritt heute fast 100 der Gefangenen.

Seine Klienten sind überwiegend Saudis, aber auch 14 Häftlinge aus Kuweit. Zudem befinden sich in dem Lager auf dem US-Militärstützpunkt auf Kuba noch 83 Jemeniten und vereinzelte Gefangenen aus Kanada, Großbritannien, Algerien, Australien und ein Mann mit schwedischer Staatsbürgerschaft.

Nach Angaben von Lagersprecher Neary wurden bislang insgesamt 41 Personen entlassen. In Kürze sollen die ersten zehn Gefangenen vor ein Militärgericht gestellt werden, kündigten US-Regierungsvertreter diesen Monat an.

Islamisches Gebet ertönt fünfmal am Tag

Mittlerweile haben sich die Lebensbedingungen für die Gefangenen etwas verbessert. Am Anfang gab es in den Zellen keinen Schutz vor der Sonne, nun ist das behoben und es gibt dort auch fließendes Wasser und ein Bett. Auch wurde in den ersten fünf Monaten auf einen islamischen Gebetsruf verzichtet. Jetzt wird über die Lautsprecher des Gefängnisses fünf Mal am Tag zum obligatorischen Gebet gerufen. Außerdem dürfen die Gefangenen mittlerweile ihre Zellen zweimal in der Woche für 15 Minuten verlassen. Zudem erfolgen die früher regelmäßigen und langen Verhöre nur noch sporadisch.

Rustam, ein Taliban-Kämpfer aus dem Süden Afghanistans sagt den Reportern der NYT, auch er habe mehrmals versucht, sich aufzuhängen. Er sei in einem Block mit Arabern und Usbeken eingesperrt gewesen, die der 22-Jährige als "verrückt" bezeichnet. Sie hätten andauernd ihre Köpfe an die Wände geschlagen und die US-Soldaten beleidigt. Das habe er nicht mitmachen wollen - doch verlegt wurde er erst nach einem Selbstmordversuch.

Obwohl US-Militärs offiziell nicht eingestehen wollen, dass diese Verhältnisse zu Depressionen führen können, bemängelt auch Jamie Fellner die langen Inhaftierungszeiten ohne Anklage. Die Direktorin der Menschenrechtskommission der Uno bestätigt, dass sich die lange andauernde Unsicherheit für die Gefangenen "psychologisch ernorm stressvoll" auswirke.

Der Pakistaner Schah Muhammad beklagt sich darüber, dass er nur von Arabern umgeben war, deren Sprache er nicht verstand. Der 20-Jährige litt unter seiner Isolation so sehr, dass er sich mit einem Betttuch erhängen wollte. Erst als er zwei Tage später wieder in der Krankenstation aufwachte, wurde ihm gesagt, dass er nur zur Befragung festgehalten wird. Und erst dort versprach ihm ein Amerikaner, dass er eines Tages auch wieder nach Hause kommen werde.


© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scheer1…
COMMENTARY

High Crimes, Misdemeanors
If Bush lied about Iraq he`s `cooked,` Watergate veteran John Dean says.
Robert Scheer

June 17, 2003

What did the president know and when did he know it?

The answer to that question forced the resignation of Richard Nixon as he was about to be impeached.

Now, with President Bush facing that same question, congressional Republicans have circled the wagons to prevent a public hearing on whether intelligence was distorted by the White House to convince us of the need for war. Why? Because public hearings could lead to public demands for impeachment. Sound far-fetched? Not when you consider the gravity of the charge.

"To put it bluntly," former Nixon White House counsel John Dean wrote on the legal Web site FindLaw (www.find law.com) on June 6, "if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be `a high crime` under the Constitution`s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony `to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.` "

Of course, intelligence data is often open to interpretation, and some political distortion is probably inevitable. Consider, however, just one of the recent revelations about how Iraq weapons intelligence was handled by the Bush administration and you`ll start to see a disturbing pattern of cynical mendacity.

Call it the "Case of the Phantom Uranium." It starts with a document, later exposed by United Nations inspectors as a crude forgery, that was sold by an African diplomat to Italian intelligence, which passed it to the British. It seemed to implicate Saddam Hussein in an attempt to buy uranium from Africa. This apparently proved too juicy a tidbit for the hawks in the Bush administration to resist. They knew that the specter of Iraqi nukes — which U.N. inspectors would establish as baseless — would scare Americans much more than talk of mustard gas, and scaring Americans is this administration`s M.O.

Thus in his 2003 State of the Union address, the president intoned that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa." Scary stuff. Problem was, the document was signed by an official who had given up his post a decade earlier, and the CIA had told the White House the story did not check out.

On Friday, the Knight Ridder newspaper chain reported that, according to a senior CIA official, on March 9, 2002, a full 10 months before the speech, the White House was duly informed that an investigation, including an agent traveling to Africa to verify the story, had found no basis for the document. Three senior administration officials told the Knight Ridder reporter that Vice President Dick Cheney and officials on the National Security Council staff and at the Pentagon ignored the CIA`s reservations and argued that the allegation should be included in the case against Hussein.

This is just one example of the administration`s manipulation of intelligence in justifying a war that already has killed thousands of people and continues to take the lives of several Americans each week. It is exceedingly odd that the same congressional Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton for dissembling in a sexual scandal find none of this worthy of a full public hearing. To pacify a growing number of critics, they have instead scheduled a secret and limited inquiry.

Perhaps the Republicans think they can stall until fragments of evidence of weapons of mass destruction are found, which would clear Bush`s name. However, that won`t do the trick. The president persistently claimed that the war was necessitated by the imminent threat of deployed weapons — "a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles," as the president put it, capable of dispersing a huge existing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, including "missions targeting the United States."

Instead, almost three months after we invaded Iraq, the United States and Britain have yet to find anything of the sort.

"Frankly, we expected to find large warehouses full of chemical or biological weapons, or delivery systems," Army Col. John Connell, who heads the hunt for those AWOL weapons in Iraq, said in Sunday`s Los Angeles Times. "At this point, we`re getting fairly sure we`re not going to find a full-up production facility. We`re going to find little pieces."

We now know that the threat of deployed WMD was a blatant falsehood. What has not been established is whether the president was in on the lie. If he was, he should be impeached.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

America`s rebuilding of Iraq is in chaos, say British
By Peter Foster in Baghdad
(Filed: 17/06/2003)


The American-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is "in chaos" and suffering from "a complete absence of strategic direction", a very senior British official in Baghdad has told The Telegraph.

The comments paint a grim picture of American incompetence and mismanagement as the Coalition Provisional Authority struggles to run post-Saddam Iraq.


Paul Bremer: inter-departmental fighting
"This is the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for," the official said yesterday.

The source revealed that Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, had "fewer than 600" staff under his control to run a country the size of France in which the civil infrastructure was on the point of collapse.

"The operation is chronically under-resourced and suffers from an almost complete absence of strategic direction," he added.

Similar frustrations have been voiced privately in London, where British ministers are said to be fed up with being "taken for granted".

As revealed in The Telegraph yesterday, Tony Blair appointed Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain`s best-known diplomat, as his special envoy in Baghdad in an attempt to put some political muscle into the administration.

Officials said a crippling problem is the fact that the US has transposed Washington`s inter-departmental fighting to Baghdad.

For instance, the payment of salaries has been slowed down by Washington`s inability to decide which currency to use - US dollars, the former regime`s "Saddam dinars" or the so-called "Swiss dinars" used in the Kurdish areas.

In Baghdad the senior British official said the chaos at the heart of the coalition was seriously hampering its ability to deliver vital services to the Iraqi people, such as salaries, electricity and security.

"We are facing an almost complete inability to engage with what needs to be done and to bring to bear sufficient resources to make a difference," he said.

The official added that a dangerous gulf was opening up between the expectations of the Iraqi people and what the coalition was realistically able to deliver. The growing dissatisfaction among ordinary Iraqis - intensified by the temper-fraying heat of a Baghdad summer - is easily discernible on the streets of the capital.

As 10 local builders used shovels and wheelbarrows to repair the Baghdad police station, residents outside demanded to know when they would see more Iraqi police on the streets.

Some April salaries remain unpaid and the electricity supply remains extremely unreliable.

The heavy-handed presence of American soldiers and, perhaps more importantly, the lack of any visible Iraqi partnership in Government is further fuelling resentment.

The official, who was involved in the planning for post-war Iraq from its conception, said Washington had been seriously caught out by the discovery that Iraq was no longer a functioning country.

"The original post-war plan was to solve the humanitarian crisis - should it have arisen, which it did not - and then use the existing Iraqi ministries and officials to get the country running again as quickly as possible."

In the event the coalition arrived in Baghdad to find the ministries looted and destroyed and Iraqi civil servants "unable to make decisions themselves" after years of living in a police state.

"They demand written authority to do the tiniest thing, as a consequence of living under Saddam," he said. Within weeks it became obvious that the operation would take years not months.

Joseph Collins, head of stability operations at the US Defence Department, conceded to Congressmen last week that bringing order to Iraq had proved "tougher and more complex" than had been expected.

The situation was not irretrievable, the British official said, before warning that the coalition could face serious difficulties and even unrest if it was unable to raise its game in the coming months.

"This is a difficult period, particularly with the extreme temperatures," he concluded, "It could be said that we are currently sowing the seeds of a better Iraq, but if we don`t have anything to harvest by the autumn, we could face the consequences."

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%…

[Joerver]

Gwynne Dyer: US faces long, hot summer in deadly tinderbox

17.06.2003 -

When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, American military deaths in Vietnam had just passed 50.

At the present loss rate, US military deaths in Iraq since the war "ended" two months ago will pass that total before the end of this month. Is this the start of an anti-American guerrilla war in Iraq?

Not yet, but it isn`t looking good. In the early days many American soldiers` deaths were the result of vehicle accidents and the like, but recently most US casualties have been caused by Iraqi resistance fighters, and they aren`t just sniping at isolated checkpoints.

They are ambushing US tank patrols with rocket-propelled grenades, making mortar attacks on American command posts - even shooting down an Apache attack helicopter.

American officials shy away from analogies between Iraq now and the Vietnam war almost 40 years ago, but it is getting hard to insist that the right analogy is with the post-1945 occupations of Germany and Japan.

For one thing, the pretext for sending US troops into Iraq - the fabled "weapons of mass destruction" - begins to look as flimsy and fabricated as President Lyndon Johnson`s "Gulf of Tonkin incident" in 1964.

After two months of unhindered investigations and interrogations in post-Saddam Iraq, the only "evidence" for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction coalition forces have turned up are the trailers found in northern Iraq that were allegedly mobile germ warfare labs.

An official British Government investigation recently concluded, however, that the trailers really were mobile facilities for producing hydrogen gas to fill balloons that measure high-altitude winds, part of an artillery system originally sold to Iraq by the British company Marconi Command and Control - just as the Iraqis claimed.

So is Iraq the new Vietnam? Maybe, but one big difference is that so far US casualties are concentrated in the so-called Sunni triangle extending north and west from Baghdad, where Saddam Hussein`s ruling Baath Party had the deepest roots. Sunni Arabs account for only about 20 per cent of Iraq`s population - about 5 million people.

American deaths in this region have been running at five a week recently. Run that average forward for 16 months, and President George W. Bush would have a further 350 American combat deaths to account for when the US presidential election comes around next year.

That would be awkward, but he might get away with it if he could persuade Americans it was all part of the "war on terrorism". The bad news for Bush is that the fighting may well escalate in the Sunni triangle - and the Shia majority may start resisting the occupation, too.

During the next three months Iraq is too hot even for the Iraqis, but in much of the US-occupied zone there are no reliable supplies of water - or other public services.

The US viceroy, Paul Bremer, disbanded the entire Iraqi Army last month with one month`s severance pay, ensuring that many tens of thousands of experienced officers and NCOs will have nothing to do this northern summer but nurse their resentment.

As of last Saturday, the two-week gun amnesty ended and every Iraqi possessing a gun without a permit can be arrested. But all rural Iraqis own guns, and by now, thanks to the rampant insecurity, so do three-quarters of urban Iraqi households.

Add to the mix an occupation force that is still starved of troops by Pentagon policy, and nervous American soldiers who use enormous firepower whenever they feel threatened, and it may be a very long, hot summer.

By the end of it, Sunni Arabs and US troops could be in the sort of escalating confrontation that has no exit - and it is a delusion to imagine that the Shia majority are America`s allies.

They are waiting to see if they can win political power without fighting the US, but if they conclude that the Pentagon is determined to impose its pet Iraqi exiles on the country then they will fight, too.

Iraq is not bound to become America`s second Vietnam, but it is drifting rapidly that way.

This was always possible, given the vast gulf between Washington`s declared motives for the invasion and what most Iraqis think America`s real motives are, but it has been made more likely by the monumental incompetence of the post-conquest administration of Iraq.

The Shia are still holding their fire, but it`s hardly surprising that the Baathists are re-surfacing in the Sunni Arab parts of the country.

Which explains what`s happening now in the Baghdad suburb of Mansour, where American missiles struck a restaurant where US intelligence thought Saddam was eating on the next-to-last night of the war.

From that night until last week, long after the neighbourhood`s families had retrieved the bodies of their dead, the site was not visited or guarded by US troops. Is Saddam dead? Who cares?

But now the site is sealed off and American forensic investigators are digging frantically in the rubble, hoping to find evidence that Saddam is really dead.

As though that would change anything.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storyprint.cfm?storyID=3507732

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Transcript for June 15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GUESTS: Daniel Ayalon, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.; General Wesley Clark (Retired), Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate

Copyrightþ 2003, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PLEASE CREDIT ANY QUOTES OR EXCERPTS FROM THIS NBC TELEVISION PROGRAM TO “NBC NEWS’ MEET THE PRESS.”
NBC News
MEET THE PRESS
Sunday, June 15, 2003
GUESTS: DANIEL AYALON
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.
General WESLEY CLARK (Retired)
Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Potential Democratic Presidential Candidate
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News

This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with
MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS
[phone]
(Sundays: [phone])
MR. TIM RUSSERT: (Joined in progress) ...police. Is there any hope for peace? With us in an exclusive interview, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon.
American soldiers still fighting and dying in Iraq, the debate over weapons of mass destruction intensifies, and these radio ads heard in New Hampshire:
(Videotape):
Announcer: ...why we’re working to draft General Clark to run for president.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: With us, the former NATO supreme allied commander of Europe and possible presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark.
And in our MEET THE PRESS Minute, we remember the incomparable David Brinkley who died this week at age 82:
(Videotape):
MR. DAVID BRINKLEY: Senator, you’ve described for us an almost super human being. Who is your candidate for this office?
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: But first, with us is the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Daniel Ayalon.
Welcome, sir.
AMB. DANIEL AYALON: Thank you. Good morning.
MR. RUSSERT: Is Israel and Hamas at war?
AMB. AYALON: Well, Israel is at war with terrorists. Israel is engaging with self-defense. We have here an al-Qaeda type organization, the Hamas, which is bent on Israel’s destruction. You just have to look at their statements coming just today or yesterday from Rantissi. They see one Palestinian state, Islamic states, not side by side Israel but instead of Israel, and they are attacking us all the time in a relentless way. So the only way we can protect ourselves is by pre-emption. Now, we are doing it very involuntarily, very reluctantly. He would like to see the Palestinians make good on their promises and fight them and this is the only way we can move ahead.
MR. RUSSERT: The deputy Defense minister had this to say on Israeli Army Radio: “As a government responsible for the security of its citizens, we must wage a war to the bitter end [against Hamas] because no one else, at least at this stage, will do it.” So Israel is at war with Hamas.
AMB. AYALON: Well, the deal, Tim, was very simple. We both work together to fulfill the president’s vision. And we are very much supporting the president’s vision and committed to make peace. We have taken concrete steps towards that. We have taken down unauthorized settlements. We have been releasing prisoners. We have been transferring funds to the Palestinian Authority and all they had to do is counter terrorism measures, to fight terror and to end the terror. In the absence of any
action by them, we have no choice by doing that. We cannot let—any country would not let terrorists come and explode buses and kill civilians.
MR. RUSSERT: Tom Rose, the publisher of the Jerusalem Post, said that the Prime Minister Abbas of the Palestinian Authority is powerless. The latest poll of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research says, “His favorable approval rating is 2 percent.” Arafat is 35 percent. Hamas is 17 percent. How can the Israelis expect Abbas to stop terrorism if he doesn’t have the support of his own people?
AMB. AYALON: Well, I’m not sure, Tim, how scientifically accurate are those polls, but this is beside the point. I’ll tell you what we have been doing. We have been transferring moneys straight to Abbas. So he controls the money. You know, he has tens of thousands of people on his payroll. Only in Gaza there are 20,000 people that are being paid Abbas. What does he do with them? He should put them on the streets to fight the terrorists. It’s not going to be easy, but they should start. We took concrete actions. They would need to take concrete actions. They should stop illegal weapons, confiscate illegal weapons, arrest terrorists, even house arrest. We have not seen anything of that type yet. If they would start showing that, if they would start showing results and leadership, I believe the support will follow through.
MR. RUSSERT: Tom Friedman writes in The New York Times today that as difficult as it may be, that when the Israelis say this is in self-defense, that self-defense may, in fact, be self-destruction. Can the Israelis show more caution, more restraint in responding to Hamas attacks so as to give Abbas a chance to get his feet on the ground and get control of the Palestinian Authority?
AMB. AYALON: Yes, Tim, we have been showing restraint. We have been trying to let them take action. We have been waiting, but when you see the results—you know, since the Red Sea summit in Aqaba, until now more than 26 Israelis were killed. The first week after Aqaba, we have seven Israelis die, five soldiers and two civilians, and we were asking the Palestinians to take control. In fact, there were two meetings between Prime Minister Sharon and Prime Minister Abbas where Prime Minister Sharon told him, “We are willing to leave tomorrow any area which you designate based on your ability to take control.” They have not done that yet. So it is not an easy solution. There is no quick fix, and there’s a lot of deliberations whether to do pre-empting or not, but if you have a choice of trying to kill a terrorist or wait for him to come and kill 16, 17 civilians. I don’t think there’s any dilemma here.
MR. RUSSERT: After the five Israelis were killed and Israel responded with an attack on Gaza Strip, President Bush, on Tuesday, said this.
(Videotape, June 10, 2003):
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I am troubled by the recent Israeli helicopter gunship attacks. I regret the loss of innocent life. I’m concerned that the attacks will make it more difficult for the Palestinian leadership to fight off terrorist attacks.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: That led to a headline across the country and around the world like this: “Bush Rebukes Israel for Attack in Gaza. President Bush sharply rebuked Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government after it tried to kill a Palestinian militant leader, asserting that the Israeli action undermined recent Middle East peace efforts.”
AMB. AYALON: Well, we listen to the president very carefully. He’s our best friend and ally. The United States is our best friend and ally. But we are in a very, very difficult situation whereby there are relentless attacks, terrorism, right in our midst. And like the United States, which has every right to hunt down al-Qaeda operatives all over the globe, we should always retain the right to hunt down Hamas operatives, Hamas terrorists. This is a matter of self-defense. Democracies have only one way to defend themselves, is by stopping the terrorist at bay before they come and explode in our midst.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it’s hypocritical of the United States to say that our government’s involved in the war on terrorism and will use pre-emptive strikes but Israel should be more cautious?
AMB. AYALON: No, I don’t think so, and we very much welcome the involvement of the president of the United States. I think they are the only ones who can bring about a peaceful solution in our area. We are very much committed to the vision of the president and also to the steps to be taken and, as I mentioned to you, too, we are taking concrete steps. We would like to see the Palestinians do the same thing.
MR. RUSSERT: You said that you listen to the president. Let me show you what Robin Wright wrote in the Los Angeles Times about what happened last week: “Notified shortly after 7 a.m., Bush ordered an initial round of telephone calls by his senior foreign policy team to convey a strong message: The United States understood Israel’s need to defend itself, but the timing was not appropriate, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.”
“Then, as Palestinians fired six rockets into Israeli in retaliation, Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships launched a second attack on the area where the rockets were fired, killing three Palestinians and wounding more than 30. The follow-up raid left the administration scrambling to figure out why the president’s message had not been heeded.”
“‘We don’t know whether it was the result of someone saying, “Ignore those phone calls,” or whether the phone calls didn’t get to the right people,’ and administration official said. ‘But we do know enough that we think that something other than what happened should have happened,’ he added. ‘We’re disappointed.’”
Why did Israel ignore President Bush’s call heeding them to show restraint and not launch follow-up attacks?
AMB. AYALON: Tim, we will never ignore the president or the United States, I have to say. You have to understand that on a daily basis we have between 50 and 60 warnings, alerts, of terror acts, which are being carried in different stages to be implemented, and the only way to stop it is by pre-emption. Now we ask the Palestinians to do that, and we are ready. Tomorrow morning we are ready to leave any area where the Palestinians will take control. This is the ideal situation for them to take control. By the way, the president also called after the bus bombing for Arab countries and the international community to help in the war against Hamas, denying them funds, which is an essential part of flaming the capabilities of
Hamas, stopping the incitement, which is a very, very crucial element here.
When we talk about peace—you quoted some prose. In Israel, 62 percent of Arabs, Palestinians, who are full citizens of Israel, would like to see a peaceful co-existence. When you take the same poll, only 17 percent on the Arabs. Why is the difference? These are the same Palestinians. The difference is the culture of incitement. So long as the suicide bombers are being glorified by Palestinian TV, in their schools, by their textbooks, it’s very hard to make a progress.
MR. RUSSERT: But people live within Israel, Israeli citizens, according to the Associated Press-and I’ll show you this latest poll: “...a poll in the [Israeli] Yediotb Abronoth daily found 67 percent of Israelis wanted what the survey termed the ‘assassination policy’ to stop, at least temporarily, to give new Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas a chance to grow stronger.”
Two-thirds of Israelis say, “Stop trying to assassinate Hamas leaders.” Will Prime Minister Sharon listen to that sentiment?
AMB. AYALON: Well, Tim, this attests to the desire of most Israelis to arrive at peace, to stop the violence, and this is something which is very important for us. We would like to see the same numbers, hopefully, within the Palestinians, urging their leadership to do more, or to start doing something, against the terrorism. But I am still optimistic. We had some talks last night. Today they will continue with high-level security officers, whereby finally, hopefully, they will take control over some areas where we can leave and let them fight the terrorists, let them fight the Palestinian Hamas and Jihad. I believe they could be much more effective, if they tried.
MR. RUSSERT: A withdrawal of how many Israeli troops?
AMB. AYALON: That would depend on the capabilities of the Palestinians. As much as they want to take control over any area that they would take control over, we will leave.
MR. RUSSERT: The headline that’s now running on Reuters this morning is: “Sharon Vows More Attacks On Militants Despite Talks. Prime Minister Sharon vowed on Sunday that he will continue attacks on militants suspected of planning suicide bombings. ‘Israel will continue to act against targets defined as ticking bombs. If Palestinians will not act against the terrorist infrastructure, Israel will do so.’”
AMB. AYALON: Yes, Tim. This is the only viable option. At the same time, where we take concrete actions to make peace happen, when we withdraw from areas, when we take down unauthorized settlements, we release prisoners, we open curfews and let more Palestinians come and work, at the same time we have to keep protecting ourselves. We would like the Palestinians to do it, but if they’re not willing, or not capable, until they’re capable, somebody has to protect our citizens from blowing up in buses, so this is what we do.
MR. RUSSERT: There’s also a new story moving on Reuters this morning that Jewish settlers have opened five new outposts on the West Bank, not closing down settlements, opening new ones. Will your government, the Sharon government, move to close these new outposts?
AMB. AYALON: Absolutely. This is a commitment we have taken. This is what the prime minister promised the president and he will keep doing it like he has been doing in the last seven days.
MR. RUSSERT: What’s your sense of what’s happening in Iran?
AMB. AYALON: Well, I believe, Tim, what we see is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a growing displeasure there with this ayatollah regime which is very dictatorial, which is very backward. Iran is a country which has a lot of natural resources but it’s bankrupt, and the people have no ways to express themselves, have no way to really fulfill any normal lives. And it is unfortunate that Iran, with the most abundant of natural reserves and energy, is now implementing a most ambitious nuclear program which is very, very dangerous and we call upon the international community to stop it very soon.
MR. RUSSERT: Would Israel consider taking part in an operation to eliminate that nuclear threat from Iran?
AMB. AYALON: No. I don’t think it’s, Tim, for me to discuss anything, but we are very much concerned. A nuclear Iran would destabilize not just the region but beyond, and they’re not working only on a nuclear program but also a delivery system. They already have missiles which can reach 1,000 miles. They’re working on more ambitious missiles that would cover most of Europe and ultimately would reach the United States.
MR. RUSSERT: Any sense where the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq might be?
AMB. AYALON: In Iraq? I have no doubt that they have them. Iraq is a big country. Also, they had enough time, not just to destroy and hide them but also to transfer them over to other places.
MR. RUSSERT: Where?
AMB. AYALON: We know for a fact that there were convoys that were leaving Iraq, crossing the border to Syria just before the war, and that involved very high-level contacts. What was in it I cannot tell you for sure, but this is certainly a warning sign.
MR. RUSSERT: Saddam Hussein: dead or alive?
AMB. AYALON: That’s a fair question. I don’t know.
MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Ambassador, thank you for your views.
AMB. AYALON: My pleasure.
MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, General Wesley Clark on the economic, political and military challenges in Iraq. And is he eyeing the White House? In our MEET THE PRESS Minute, the legendary David Brinkley. He appeared on MEET THE PRESS nearly 50 years ago. All coming up right here on MEETTHE PRESS.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: General Wesley Clark on Iraq, Iran, the Middle East. And is he considering a White House bid? We’ll ask him after this station break.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: And we are back.
General Clark, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.
GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: The Middle East: Should Israel listen to George Bush and show more restraint?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think they can show some restraint. But the problem is when you have hard intelligence that you’re about to be struck, it’s the responsibility of a government to take action against that intelligence and prevent the loss of lives. It’s what any society would expect of its leadership. So there’s a limit to how much restraint can be shown.
MR. RUSSERT: What can the president do now...
GEN. CLARK: I...
MR. RUSSERT: ...to bring about peace?
GEN. CLARK: I think what we’ve got to do is bring more of the neighboring countries’ leadership in more strongly. You know, in the case in Europe when we were dealing with the problems in Yugoslavia, we set up the contact group. The contact group had the United States and it had the European Union; it had Russia. And Russia at the time, frankly, was very supportive of the Serbs. They represented the Serbs’ views in these meetings. And what we need in the Middle East, I believe, is something stronger
than the current informal bilateral relationships that work on the periphery of the struggle. I think you need a Middle East contact group, because I think peace in the region is in the interests of all the countries in the region.
MR. RUSSERT: Who should be involved?
GEN. CLARK: And we need to lead that.
MR. RUSSERT: Which countries?
GEN. CLARK: I think, certainly, it’s Jordan. I think it’s Egypt. I think it’s clearly Saudi Arabia. Now, when you come to Syria and Iran, that’s where you have difficulties, and it’s a question of how you’re going to engage those countries. Can they be engaged or must they be confronted, or is there some combination that’s involved? And I think we’ve got to work our way through that. I think there’s got to be a process put in place to work our way through that.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re a strong proponent of NATO. Would you consider recommending putting NATO troops in the occupied territories to help bring about security and peace?
GEN. CLARK: Well, at some point, yes. At some point, there may be a time to do that, but I think one of the things we’ve seen most clearly in 10 years of experience with this is you have to have a mandate first. You have to have legitimacy first. You have to have a mission first. You have to deal with the political situation first before you put the troops in. The NATO troops are going to be no more effective at stopping terrorist attacks than the Israeli troops are. In fact, they’re going to be less effective. They’re not from the area. They don’t have the experience, they don’t have the intelligence connections.
And so simply putting another presence in there by itself doesn’t solve it. You’ve got to get at the political problems first. So you’ve got to have something that’s more concrete than the road map, something that you can use outside pressure, more details and move this process forward, but at some point, NATO certainly.
MR. RUSSERT: Should the United States position in terms of Iran be regime change?
GEN. CLARK: I think that’s a dangerous position to take right now. I think we’re really between confrontation and engagement on this. And we’ve tried a little bit of both. The policy we followed with respect to Eastern Europe was extraordinarily successful. It was a prolonged period of engagement. And, eventually, the ideas win out. And I think that’s what’s going to happen in Iran, too. The question is: How much engagement can we properly have? And I think we ought to be looking at that and pushing in that direction.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you consider, however, military action to remove the nuclear threat from Iran?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I first would consider a really strong and improved inspection regime that would go in and follow the leads and really work the inspections. I think the problem with military action in all of these cases is that it should be a last resort, because when you take military action, you have a lot of consequences that can’t be foreseen. And if the goal is to go after the weapons, then let’s go after the weapons the most direct way and that’s by inspections and pressure and visibility. You always have the military card behind at the end and that’s very clear but not the first card to be played.
MR. RUSSERT: Take North Korea where they won’t allow inspectors in, and if we wake up six months from now, North Korea has four or five more nuclear bombs, what do we do?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think the red line’s already been crossed in North Korea, to be honest. That red line was crossed while we were engaged with Iraq. And North Koreans have told us, and I don’t have any information that would contradict this, that they’ve begun reprocessing the plutonium and that it’s mostly completed in the reprocessing. This was what we tried to prevent starting in 1994, and we had it frozen for several years. But if they’ve moved it, if it’s reprocessed, if it’s out in the system, then what it mean is that even a pre-emptive strike on that facility won’t necessarily get the nuclear material, and you have to live with the consequences of that.
So that red line looks to me like that’s been crossed while we were engaged in Iraq. Now, the question is, “OK. So they’ve got the nuclear materials. What can you do now?” Well, you’re going to try to contain and isolate the regime. You’re going to increase the inspections of North Korean assets coming into countries like Japan. You’re going to encourage China to get tougher. You’re going to try to toughen up South Korea. You’re going to try to build relationships. You’re going to stop ships at sea. The next move will be up to the North Koreans. But what they’ve shown is that they are not always rational by our standards. They’re a paranoid regime. They do use force. They do take lessons from what we do, and so they’re somewhat unpredictable.
MR. RUSSERT: But we cannot allow them to sell or transport nuclear bombs.
GEN. CLARK: That’s correct. The question is: Can we physically prevent that?
MR. RUSSERT: Can we?
GEN. CLARK: Can we? I don’t know. My guess is it’ll be more difficult than we think.
MR. RUSSERT: And so what happens? We live with the consequences?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think there’s a possibility that the nuclear genie is out and will be out, and that’s why I’ve been so concerned about the North Korean problem for a long time.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. Since the president declared the war had been, in fact, won on May 1, we are still losing more than one American soldier every day. How do you see the situation in Iraq this morning?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think there are three levels to be looked at. The first level is organized resistance. There is organized resistance in some parts of Iraq. And the U.S. forces over there have to deal with that organized resistance. They have got a big operation under way. It will produce some results. It will also make a lot of enemies, and it will make make some mistakes. And that’s the way military operations are. But that organized resistance right now is only regional. It’s localized. It seems to be mostly Ba’athist, and perhaps some foreign fighters, who have come in and worked with them. That might be manageable.
Second level is—superficially things seem to be getting much better. In Baghdad, there’s much less looting. People I talked to there, and who have been over there and are reporting, say, “Look, you’re not getting the right impression from the press. Things are a lot better. I mean, life is going on for the majority of the people.” But that takes me to the third level. Back to my Vietnam experience. For a lot of people in Vietnam, during the war, life pretty much went on. They still had to buy food, they had to buy gasoline, their families—you know, the children grew up and got married and so forth. Life goes on.
The third level is the level that we are not seeing here. It’s what’s really happening inside the Iraqi culture. Where are the Shiites heading? Who is influencing the Shiites? Are the Iranians going to be able to take over this movement and make it an anti-American movement? Is there so much Iraqi nationalism that they are going to come to us and tell us to leave? What about the Kurds? What’s really going on with Saddam Hussein behind the scenes, and the Sunnis and their connections with al-Qaeda, if any? So there are a lot of things at the third level that we should be very concerned about. And that third level is the—it’s the level of which we don’t hear very much in the press.
MR. RUSSERT: Were we properly prepared for the peace, for the reconstruction?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think the answer is obviously—it’s obvious we weren’t. We weren’t.
MR. RUSSERT: Why?
GEN. CLARK: I don’t know. There’s a variety of possible explanations on this. I was concerned from the outset when I talked to people on the inside that they had done a lot of thinking about how to fight a war. They hadn’t done their homework in terms of what happens next. I got various indications. They said, “Look, we got to focus on the war first.” Some people said, “We don’t want to talk about what happens next.” I think there were some assumptions that we would be more warmly welcomed than perhaps we were in some cases. I think there was an inclination to say that if you get overly focused on what happens next, you are going to lose sight of the real problem. The problem is weapons of mass destruction. The problem is keeping the American people’s attention focused so you can do this.
So I think that, for a lot of different reasons, the postwar planning, and the postwar effort, didn’t receive the priority that many of us felt that it should have.
MR. RUSSERT: How long will we be in Iraq?
GEN. CLARK: Several years. But I think the extent of it is uncertain.
MR. RUSSERT: What kind of force level?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think it depends really on what happens down at the third level and how much anti-Americanism there is. At some point, if all of the Iraqi people rise up, and there are hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the streets, saying, “Please leave. Thanks a lot for getting rid of Saddam, but please leave,” I think it will be very hard for the United States to stay. My guess is that the situation will be more ambiguous than that. There’s a power struggle that will emerge inside Iraq between the continuing leadership groups. And we’ll be there. We’ll be trying to sort that out. We’ll have other
reasons to be in the region. Several years, maybe—we’d like to get the numbers down to 75,000 troops or less. It’s not clear if that can be done. Let’s see the results of this operation and of the one afterwards over the summer.
Right now the United States Army is about 70 percent committed between Afghanistan, Iraq, the remnants of that’s in the Balkans. And we’ve got another 10 percent in Korea. So, I mean, there’s not a lot of flex right here for the United States Army. They’re the people on the ground. I know there’s every effort being made to reduce that force. But the simple fact is as long as there’s a threat over there, you can’t reduce the force. So I think we’re going to be there in a substantial number for a long time.
MR. RUSSERT: Can we have true security in Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein stays unknown?
GEN. CLARK: No. No. I was one of those before the war who said, “Don’t focus on Saddam Hussein. Go in there, take over the government and you’ll take care of things.” About halfway through when I saw the strength of the Fedayeen, then I realized that this was personal, and if we didn’t focus on Saddam Hussein, we didn’t eliminate the head of the government, that we wouldn’t create the sense of security that’s necessary to move ahead. So I think getting Saddam Hussein is very important.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think he’s still alive?
GEN. CLARK: Yes, I do.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the weapons of mass destruction and refer you to a column you wrote in the Times of London on April 9th, and I’ll show it to you and our viewers as well. “This is the real intelligence battle and the stakes could not be higher, for failure to find the weapons could prove to be a crushing blow to the proponents of the war [in Iraq], supercharge Arab anger and set back many efforts to end the remarkable diplomatic isolation of the United States and Britain.”
Where are the weapons of mass destruction?
GEN. CLARK: I think there are some mass destruction capabilities that are still inside Iraq. I think there’s some weapons that have been shipped over the border to Syria. But I don’t think we’re going to find that their capabilities provided the imminent threat that many feared in this country. So I think it’s going to be a tough search, but I think there’s stuff there.
MR. RUSSERT: Was there an intelligence failure? Was the intelligence hyped, as Senator Joe Biden said? Was the president misled, or did he mislead the American people?
GEN. CLARK: Well, several things. First of all, all of us in the community who read intelligence believe that Saddam wanted these capabilities and he had some. We struck very hard in December of ’98, did everything we knew, all of his facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem. I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that’s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.
MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I...
MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?
GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.
MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, “You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.” I said, “But—I’m willing to say it but what’s your evidence?” And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had—Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and
didn’t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.
MR. RUSSERT: We now know that—and Condoleezza Rice on this program last week, acknowledged that the president said something in the State of the Union message which was untrue, about uranium being shipped from Africa to Iraq. Something like that found its way into the State of the Union message and delivered to the world by the president of the United States. Should there now be open hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee into this matter?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I don’t know if the hearings ought to be open or not because you’re dealing with classified information. But I do think this. I do think there has to be an accounting for this. I think really it goes back to 9/11. We’ve got a set of hearings that need to be conducted to look at what happened that caused 9/11. That really hasn’t been done yet. You know, a basic principle of military operations is you conduct an after-action review. When the action’s over you bring people together. The commander, the subordinates, the staff members. You ask yourself what happened, why, and how do we fix it the next time? As far as I know, this has never been done about the essential failure at 9/11. Then moving beyond that, it needs to be looked at in terms of the whole intelligence effort and how it’s connected to the policy effort. And these are matters that probably cannot be aired fully in public but I think that the American people and their representatives have to be involved in this. This is essential in terms of the legitimacy and trust in our elected leadership and our way of government.
MR. RUSSERT: The president said that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat based on the intelligence data he had seen. Did the president mislead the country?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think that’s to be determined. And there were many of us who said, “Where is the imminence of the threat?” We never saw the—I got people calling me up and they would say, “Well, now, look, don’t you think the president might know something you don’t know?” And I certainly hoped he did. But it was never revealed what the imminence of the threat was. And I think now that the operation’s over, it’s been successful, I think we do need to go back and look at this issue. But as I say, I’m not sure it can all be done in public.
MR. RUSSERT: Tom DeLay, the Republican leader in the House, has been very critical of you and others, and this is the way he put it in his words: “Blow-dried Napoleons that come on television and in some cases have their own agendas. ...General Clark is one of them that is running for president.”
GEN. CLARK: Well, it’s a funny thing. You know, I mean, one of the greatest charges you can make against someone is, “Don’t listen to him because he has presidential aspirations.” And that’s unfortunate. I think it’s a real mark against where we are in our political culture that if someone is—can be damned by saying that he has some kind of a hidden agenda. The simple truth is on this that I’ve tried to call the military side of it as accurately as I could, based on my own 34 years of experience in the military.
I was involved in preparing the doctrine, the forces. I led one of these operations. So I think I understand it. Furthermore, I have not been a candidate. I have not run. I have not taken any money. I have not been affiliated with a party. I wanted to see what was happening with the war and where the country is going. And so I didn’t do that. I know what Tom DeLay has said. But, you know, the simple truth is that a lot of people have come up to me afterwards; they’ve said, “Thanks a lot for, you know, being on television and saying what you said. I listened to it. It made sense.” And that’s as much as
I could do.
MR. RUSSERT: Would you like to be president?
GEN. CLARK: Well, in many respects, I’d like a chance to help this country. And I don’t know if that means being president or doing something else. But I’ve spent my entire life in public service, except for the last three years. And it’s very hard not to think in terms of the welfare of the country, and when you see the country in trouble, in challenge, yes, you’d like to pitch in and help.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you considering entering the presidential race?
GEN. CLARK: I’m going to have to consider it.
MR. RUSSERT: By when?
GEN. CLARK: Well, sometime over the next couple of months.
MR. RUSSERT: And your time line is by September...
GEN. CLARK: I don’t have a specific time line, Tim. But I do have to consider it.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you two Web sites that have been developed, and I’ll put them on the screen for you. There they are. DraftWesleyClark. And now in New Hampshire, there is this radio ad. Let’s listen:
(Audiotape, radio ad):
Announcer: General Wesley Clark: Vietnam combat veteran, Rhodes scholar, four-star general, business leader, and with your support—the next president of the United States. Paid for by DraftWesleyClark.com.
(End audiotape)
GEN. CLARK: That’s amazing.
MR. RUSSERT: Do up want them to continue those advertisements?
GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, all I’ve—I don’t have anything to do with that group. And I’m enormously impressed by their energy and so forth. I’m going have to give some serious consideration
to this. And I’ve been—I’ve been saying that this is really about ideas and trying to get the ideas out. And I’ve been very grateful for the opportunity to do that. Maybe there’s something more to it.
MR. RUSSERT: You have voted in Arkansas in the Democratic primaries.
GEN. CLARK: I did.
MR. RUSSERT: So if you did run for president, you would run as a Democrat?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t said that. I haven’t made any official moves. But this is a two-party country. There’s no successful third party bids. And, you know, it’s just—that’s the way it is. And I am concerned about many things in the country, not only foreign policy but domestic as well.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would run as a Democrat?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t come out and said that point blank. I mean, I think that’s another step that would have to be taken.
MR. RUSSERT: But you wouldn’t challenge George Bush in the Republican primaries?
GEN. CLARK: I haven’t considered that, no.
MR. RUSSERT: So it would be in the Democratic primary?
GEN. CLARK: You’re leading the witness here. I mean, that’s a step that I’ll have to work through along with everything else. You know, I’ve been non-partisan. I’ve got—I’m a centrist on most of these issues, and I’ve got people after me from both sides of the aisle. That are—a lot of Republicans have talked to me and they’ve said, “Look, we’re very concerned about where the country is. We’re moving into—not only have we done a war that’s essentially an elective war that’s put us in trouble afterwards, in an indefinite commitment”—and by the way I don’t hear—they don’t hear the strong voices out there
about mission creep and exit strategy that dominated the 1990s dialogue. But a lot of Republicans have come to me and said, you know, “What does this mean?” And they’ve said, “On the other hand, we always believed that we should be the party of fiscal responsibility. And where are we going with the tax cuts? What does this mean for the future of the country?” So I’m getting, you know, interest from both sides, really...
MR. RUSSERT: What do you...
GEN. CLARK: ...and just haven’t moved past that.
MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of the Bush tax cuts? Would you have voted for them?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I would not have supported them, no.
MR. RUSSERT: Why not?
GEN. CLARK: Well, first of all, they were not efficient in terms of stimulating the kind of demand we need to move the economy back into a recovery mode, a strong recovery and a recovery that provides jobs. There are more effective ways of using the resources. Secondly, the tax cuts weren’t fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. In other words, it’s not only that the more you make, the more you give, but proportionately more because when you don’t have very much money, you need to spend it on the necessities of life. When you have more money, you have room for the luxuries and you should—one of the luxuries and one of the privileges we enjoy is living in this great country.
So I think that the tax cuts were unfair. And, finally, I mean, you look at the long-run health of the country and the size of the deficit that we’ve incurred and a substantial part of that deficit is result of the tax cuts. You have to ask: “Is this wise, long-run policy?” I think the answer is no.
MR. RUSSERT: As president, would you rescind them?
GEN. CLARK: You have to look at each part of them, but there are—you’ve got to put the country back on a fiscally sound basis, whether that is in suspending parts that haven’t been implemented or rescinding parts, that’d have to be looked at.
MR. RUSSERT: They’d say, “Candidate Clark is for raising taxes.”
GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, I think that what candidate Clark, if there is such a candidate, would be for is he would be for doing the right thing for government. You know, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld put it this way when he was talking about how long to stay in Iraq. He said, “We’re going to get out as soon as possible, but we’re going to stay as long as necessary.” Well, it’s more than a clever formulation. It’s the right formulation. I think it’s the same thing about taxes. Taxes are something that you want to have as little of as possible, but you need as much revenue as necessary to meet people’s needs for services. The American people on the one hand don’t like taxes. None of us do, but on the other hand, we expect the government to do certain things for us.
MR. RUSSERT: The attorney general of the United States, John Ashcroft, wants to expand the Patriot Act which would give him more powers in terms of apprehending terrorists, identifying people who are giving “material support.” Would you support that effort?
GEN. CLARK: Well, not without a thorough review of where we are right now with the current Patriot Act. I think one of the risks you have in this operation is that you’re giving up some of the essentials of what it is in America to have justice, liberty and the rule of law. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you abridge those rights to prosecute the war on terrorists. So I think that needs to be carefully looked at.
MR. RUSSERT: You and other former generals filed an amicus brief in support of the University of Michigan’s affirmative action plan.
GEN. CLARK: Right.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you in part what the University of Michigan plan is. They award points to an applicant. If you get a 3.0-grade-point average you get 60 points. If have alumni or legacy parents, 4 points. A perfect S.A.T., 12 points. Athlete, 20 points. If you’re a minority, just for being black or Hispanic, you get 20 points. Many people say that’s not color blind. That is reverse discrimination. What’s your response?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I’m in favor of the principle of affirmative action. Whether that’s the right plan or not, and whether that should be 10 points, not 20 points, whether it should be, let’s say, an income level cutoff there at which you don’t get the points if you’re above a certain income, you can tool with the plan. But what you can’t have is you can’t have a society in which we’re not acknowledging that there is a problem in this society with racial discrimination. There is, there has been and the reason so many of us filed this brief is we saw the benefits of affirmative action in the United States armed forces. It was essential in restoring the integrity and the effectiveness of the armed forces.
MR. RUSSERT: In the brief you talked about combating discrimination. Many people would point to the military’s policy on gays as being discriminatory. Are you in favor of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military?
GEN. CLARK: I’m not sure that I’d be in favor of that policy. I supported that policy. That was a policy that was given. I don’t think it works. It works better in some circumstances than it does in others. But essentially we’ve got a lot of gay people in the armed forces, always have had, always will have. And I think that, you know, we should welcome people that want to serve. But we also have to maintain consistent standards of discipline; we have to have effective units.
So I think that’s an issue that the leaders in the armed forces are going to have to work with and resolve.
I do think that the sort of temperature of the issue has changed over the decade. People were much more irate about this issue in the early ’90s than I found in the late ’90s, for whatever reason, younger people coming in. It just didn’t seem to be the same emotional hot button issue by ’98, ’99, that it had been in ’92, ’93.
MR. RUSSERT: So you have no problem having openly gay Americans serve in the military as long as they abided by the same code of conduct that heterosexuals abided by?
GEN. CLARK: Well, the British have a system that—they put this in the British system. They call it— they said, “Don’t ask, don’t misbehave.” I think the leaders in the armed forces will look at that some day. But I have to tell you, also, we have got a lot of other issues on the plate for the United States armed forces, and this is one among many. And the men and women charged with those responsibilities need to look at those issues. But this is only one issue.
MR. RUSSERT: But it’s an important one to many Americans. Parameters, which is a journal published by the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, has an article by Professor Aaron Belkan of the University of California. He says that 24 countries now have gays in the military, most of our NATO partners. Would you allow American troops to serve in joint exercises with NATO partners that had gays in the military?
GEN. CLARK: They already are. And they served together in Kosovo and in Bosnia and so forth.
MR. RUSSERT: That being the point, should the United States not allow openly gay people to serve in the military?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I think we need to charge the men and women responsible for the armed forces to come forward with that answer. I think that has to come from them based on what we need for the armed forces, as well as, you know, their concerns about society as a whole.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’d look at changing the policy?
GEN. CLARK: Absolutely.
MR. RUSSERT: When you left your command, there was an article in The Washington Post on—in July of 1999, which I want to talk about and give you a chance to talk about it. And here it is on the screen.
“General Clark to Leave Top Post at NATO. After months of tension with the Pentagon over the conduct of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia, Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark was abruptly informed that his term as the alliance’s top commander will end...the decision to end Clark’s term a few months short of three years was unusual, and some military officials said it may be seen by his congressional supporters and among European allies as an affront to the general who led NATO to victory. ...Informed of the decision less than an hour before a reporter called seeking his response, Clark later issued a statement accepting the change...”
Why were you asked to step down?
GEN. CLARK: Well, the honest answer is I don’t know. And I never really asked. I was given a number of reasons. I don’t know. It’s one of those things when it happens, it happens. You know, you work for the president and the secretary of Defense and when—I was told that was the decision, that was the decision.
MR. RUSSERT: Was it a performance issue?
GEN. CLARK: Not to my knowledge.
MR. RUSSERT: And you’re not the least bit curious?
GEN. CLARK: Yeah, I have been curious, Tim. It hurt. But, you know, you just have to move past things like that in your life. I mean, one of my staff members finally, you know, asked somebody months later, “Why did you do that? Why did do you that?” He asked somebody on somebody else’s staff. And everybody had a little bit different explanation. And I don’t know if you even went to those people today and said, “Why did you do that?,” I don’t know if there’s a reason for it. It was a feeling. I was put in a position—I was working in two chains of command. One was a NATO chain, where I was getting instructions from the State Department and White House through the NATO secretary-general in my duty as NATO commander. Another was through the U.S. military chain. And it was the sort of familiar Pentagon, State Department and White House rivalry.
The Pentagon saw the operation in Kosovo as a secondary issue. It’s, like, you know, we’ve got a lot of problems, we’re preparing for two major regional conflicts, we’re trying to get a supplemental appropriation, we need money, we’re working on this. Don’t bother us with more problems from Europe. I mean, this is something we don’t have to deal with, whereas the White House saw it as, and the State Department saw it as, and NATO saw it as, “This is make or break for the alliance. If the alliance doesn’t grip this successfully, the alliance is discredited. You must successful in Bosnia. And if you allow what’s happening in Kosovo to happen, you’re going to cause the alliance to fail.”
So I was caught in the middle. I had to do what was right. That’s why when you have a title like supreme allied commander, you realize there’s no one else that can quite see it that way. I’d go back to the Pentagon and try to explain it to people. I’d say, “Look, I’ve got the British three star on the ground, I’ve got 10,000 troops there in Serb artillery range, if they attack into Macedonia,” and from the Pentagon I’d get—from top leaders, they’d say, “Really? I mean, we didn’t know this. I mean, we’re not—we’re just worried about, you know, what if Senator Stevens, or the Appropriations Committee doesn’t support our supplemental?” And so I’m not saying that they were negligent, it’s just differences in perspective.
And what you would hope is that the chain of command is strong enough that people are respected enough, as individuals and as leaders, that they can bring their differences in perspective forward, that you can resolve these things without getting them entrapped in personal relationships. For whatever reason, in this case, it didn’t work. And that’s what happened.
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, would you accept the vice presidency if offered?
GEN. CLARK: Well, I haven’t moved into considerations of things like that, Tim.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re...
GEN. CLARK: Right now I’m really happy that I’ve had an opportunity to talk. I speak a lot around the country. I’ve got another book under way called “Winning Modern War.” I’m going to talk about Iraq and terrorism and where we are going, and our foreign policy. I’m enjoying a business career, and I’m going to seriously consider what happens. But you’re asking me too far ahead here.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, if you decide to run for president, I hope you come back and talk about the issues some more.
GEN. CLARK: Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: And we’ll be right back.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: David Brinkley joined NBC in 1943. He appeared on MEET THE PRESS four times, always asking precise questions in his unique staccato style:
(Videotape, November 27, 1960):
Announcer: MEET THE PRESS, America’s press conference of the air and winner of every major award in its field.
Unidentified Man #1: We’ll start the questions with Mr. Brinkley.
MR. DAVID BRINKLEY (NBC News): What is wrong with the country that we need now at this time an official restatement of our goals or our reason for existence?
Unidentified Man #2: Well, really, there’s nothing wrong...
(End videotape)
(Videotape, June 7, 1959):
MR. BRINKLEY: Senator, you’ve described for us an almost superhuman being. Who is your candidate for this office?
Unidentified Man #3: Well, I haven’t selected one.
(End videotape)
(Videotape, December 22, 1957):
MR. BRINKLEY: This question requires a yardstick which I don’t have. But 1,500 miles from, say, Moscow covers how much of the NATO area?
Unidentified Man #4: Well, I would think this 1,500 miles from Moscow will run into the Bay of Biscayne someplace. But there’s considerable flexibility.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: David Brinkley. He reinvented Sunday morning television. He also invented the nightly news with Chet Huntley.
(Videotape):
MR. BRINKLEY: Good night, Chet.
MR. CHET HUNTLEY (NBC News): Good night, David.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: One of a kind. May he rest in peace.
(Announcements)
MR. RUSSERT: That’s all for today. We’ll be back next week. If it’s Sunday, it’s MEET THE PRESS. Happy Father’s Day, especially to Big Russ up in Buffalo. And, Luke, I’m real proud to be your dad.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/927000.asp?0dm=C219V&cp1=1

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

June 16, 2003


A Threat to Democracy
Bush`s Deceptions About Iraq
By REP. JOHN CONYERS

Speech in the House of Representatives, June 10, 2003

Mr. Speaker, my service in this House has often shown me the profound tension between government secrecy and democratic decision-making. Rarely however, has that tension been as starkly posed as in the current revelations of divergence between President Bush`s assertions based on "secret information" about the alleged threat to America posed by Iraq and the actual assessment of that threat by America`s intelligence professionals.

I have seen the American people apparently deceived into supporting invasion of sovereign nation, in violation of UN charter and international law, on the basis of what now appear to be false assurances. The power of the Congress to declare war was usurped. The consent of the governed was obtained by manipulation rather than candid persuasion.

Instead of conducting a sustained all-out war against the genuine terrorists behind 9/11, President Bush chose to terrorize the American people. The President, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld painted lurid nightmares of al Qaeda`s attacking U.S. cities with insidious anthrax or clouds of deadly nerve gas. All of this was portrayed as coming courtesy of Saddam Hussein, unless we destroyed the Iraq regime. They also wielded the ultimate threat that Iraq would imminently endanger America and our closest allies with nuclear weapons. Members of Congress who voiced deep distrust of those claims were privately briefed with even more vivid descriptions of the deadly threats that Saddam posed to American security.

In public speech after speech, the President and his supporting players assured America`s anxious citizens that attacking Iraq was absolutely necessary to prevent the imminent threat of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction from harming them and their loved ones.

In addition, President Bush was determined to convince the public that Saddam was personally behind, or at least intimately involved in 9/11. He and Vice President Cheney repeated that mantra incessantly. No wonder that about half of the country still believes that Saddam was involved, although our intelligence community has emphasized that there is no credible evidence that is true.

The manipulation was massive and malicious. The motive was simple. The Administration wanted to attack Iraq for a variety of ideological and geopolitical reasons. But the President knew that the American people would not willingly risk shedding the blood of thousands of Americans and Iraqis without the immediate threat of deadly attack on the United States. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz recently admitted to an interviewer in an unguarded moment, when the threat of weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the banner to lead a march to war, it was chosen for "bureaucratic reasons," not because the danger was imminent or paramount.

The President and his Cabinet were well aware that these claims either rested on flimsy projections or came from sources that most of our Intelligence Community disdained. The President and his Cabinet knew that in some cases those discredited sources` assertions were flatly contradicted by the professional assessments of the intelligence Community experts at CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department, and were only supported by a rogue special office established under Secretary Rumsfeld precisely to "find" or reinterpret intelligence in order to support the Administration`s determination to invade Iraq.

When war came, our own military field commanders were surprised by the fierce, often deadly, resistance that our troops faced from Saddam`s "militia." We, and our British allies, were surprised when the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere did not rise up to welcome our troops with open arms. Most of all, our military commanders, the Congress and the American people all were surprised when no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found. Now, as each day passes, and no WMD has been found, that surprise has turned to suspicion, to concern and finally to outrage at the deception practiced by the Bush Administration.

In response, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, and their spokespersons have offered one excuse after another. As reporters and whistle-blowers have exposed the flaws in each excuse, the White House has scrambled to create another, with the confusing speed of a kaleidoscope`s changing patterns. Law students are taught to plead in the alternative: "I never borrowed your pot." "Besides, it wasn`t cracked when I returned it." "Anyway, it was not cracked when I borrowed it in the first place." The Bush Administration has learned that lesson well:

The Bush White House assures us that weapons of mass destruction will inevitably be found.

At the same time, the Bush White House argues that they never really said Iraq had such weapons in 2002, only that they had programs to develop those weapons.

Finally, the Bush White House argues that it doesn`t matter whether Iraq did or did not have such weapons posing a threat to the United States, because Saddam was a repressive ruler and its good that the world is rid of him.

They cannot succeed with this shell game because they cannot outrun the truth. There are too many previous contradictory statements, too many reports leaked by outraged veteran intelligence analysts, and too great a record of established facts. The Administration`s arrogantly crafted script is unraveling. President Bush and his courtiers now have learned the wisdom of the Scottish poet Robert Burns, who warned:

"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive."

Now, the Administration`s final refuge is that the public thinks the war was justified even if no weapons are found. Obviously, those poll results reflect the American people`s relief that our military`s losses, and the loss of Iraqi civilians, regrettable as they are, have not been even greater. They reflect understandable revulsion at the horrors of Saddam`s regime. Nevertheless, continued ethnic conflict and violence, ambushes of American soldiers, political disarray, malnutrition and disease mount daily in the aftermath of this "easy war." Also, the Bush White House is forced to acknowledge the re-emergence of al Qaeda`s terrorist threat. So the American people have begun to focus on how badly it appears that they, and their congressional representatives, may have been misled by a president anxious to stampede America into war.

In any event, regardless of the final tally on the war in Iraq, there is a growing awareness that this disturbing presidential conduct raises issues that transcend any particular hostilities in which America might engage. It raises the most profound constitutional questions. How can the separation of powers and checks and balances designed to protect our Republic continue to do, if the Executive can work its will through falsehood, deception and concealment?

Equally pressing is a determination of the appropriate remedy, should the Administration`s assurances to Congress and to the electorate prove to have been as knowingly false [*E1208] as now seems to be the case. In the days ahead, I shall consult with my colleagues, with legal scholars, political scientists and historians, in order to weigh the appropriate actions necessary to prevent this or any future Administration from usurping the power of Congress and the power of the people to decide public policy on the basis of accurate knowledge.

An accurately informed public is the essence of our democracy. It is most essential on the ultimate question of peace or war. To deceive the Congress and the public about the facts underlying that momentous decision is to transgress one of the president`s supreme constitutional responsibilities. I believe the House Committee on the Judiciary should consider whether this situation has reached that dimension.

That question is especially acute at this time because President Bush`s disturbing doctrine of "preventive war" means he plans to persuade the Congress and the electorate that additional "preventive wars" are necessary. Will that advocacy be based on deception and false statements, too? The prospect is frightening.

Finally, I note the provocative analysis on this point recently offered by former Counsel to the President John Dean, who has carefully analyzed the nature and context of the President`s many assertions about the threats allegedly posed by Iraq and the constitutional implications should they prove false upon further examination. It deserves wide dissemination.

http://www.counterpunch.com/conyers06162003.html

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

Short: I was briefed on Blair`s secret war pact
Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Wednesday June 18, 2003
The Guardian

Senior figures in the intelligence community and across Whitehall briefed the former international development secretary Clare Short that Tony Blair had made a secret agreement last summer with George Bush to invade Iraq in February or March, she claimed yesterday.

In damning evidence to the foreign affairs select committee, Ms Short refused to identify the three figures, but she cited their authority for making her claim that Mr Blair had actively deceived the cabinet and the country in persuading them of the need to go to war.

Ms Short told the first day of the committee`s inquiry into the events leading up to the Iraq conflict that Mr Blair had "used a series of half-truths, exaggerations, reassurances that were not the case to get us into conflict by the spring".

She claimed Mr Blair told President Bush that "we will be with you" without laying down conditions to temper US ambitions.

She also claimed that the intelligence and diplomatic community had privately opposed the war. This is the first time she has alleged that intelligence figures had serious doubts about the need for early military action.

Justifying her charge of deception, she said: "Three extremely senior people in the Whitehall system said to me very clearly and specifically that the target date was mid-February."

She went on: "I believe that the prime minister must have concluded that it was honourable and desirable to back the US in going for military action in Iraq and therefore it was honourable for him to persuade us through various ruses and ways to get us there - so for him I think it was an honourable deception."

No 10 last night denied Ms Short`s charge and said Mr Blair had worked as hard as possible to secure support for a second UN resolution that might have persuaded Saddam Hussein to cooperate.

In the same evidence session Mr Cook exonerated Mr Blair of the charge of deliberately misleading the country, but asserted that intelligence material was chosen selectively to fit a predetermined policy.

He said his own personal briefing by the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) confirmed him in his belief that Iraq did not have weaponised chemicals, let alone weapons capable of being fired within 45 minutes, a claim made in the main intelligence document published last September.

"I think it would be fair to say there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion," he said. "I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled."

He asserted that No 10 had "a burning fixation" with weapons of mass destruction that led Mr Blair to reject Mr Cook`s view that the policy of containment was working.

Both former cabinet ministers confirmed a previous Guardian story that cabinet ministers had been given private intelligence briefings by SIS, but insisted the briefings did not indicate that the world had to act immediately to stem an imminent Iraqi threat. At best, Ms Short said, Iraq had scientists working to try to develop biological and chemical weapons, but it was wrong to suggest that meant there were "weaponised" materials.

Ms Short also claimed there was a shocking collapse in proper government procedure, with a small unelected entourage in Downing Street making the decisions without minutes, proper options papers or any written material. She said the cabinet was never shown military options papers.

She also gave the impression that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was a cypher who "went along" with the decisions, while the real decision-making was "sucked out" of the Foreign Office.

The vehemence of the attack by the two ex-cabinet ministers and their damning analysis of the intelligence failure over Iraq raises fresh questions for Mr Straw when he gives evidence before the committee next week.

He will defend the use of intelligence material in both public and private evidence sessions. The prime minister has declined to speak to the foreign affairs committee, but will co-operate with the private inquiry by the intelligence and security committee.

He is determined to disprove the claim that the September document was manipulated by No 10 to exaggerate the case for war.

The former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has withdrawn his earlier offer to give evidence to the foreign affairs committee, arguing the misuse of intelligence is a matter for the British government and parliament.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

Heavy hand of America fans the Taliban embers into life
Luke Harding in Khost
Wednesday June 18, 2003
The Guardian

The new police chief of Khost, the Afghan town once synonymous with al-Qaida, always knew he had a tough job on his hands. But Abdul Saboor wrongly assumed that no one would try to kill him on his first day at work.

Shortly before reviewing his force last month he found six rocket-propelled grenades pointing at the podium where he was about to sit. Two days later, while he was touring a nearby district, someone planted a mine under his car. It blew the vehicle five metres into the air. Astonishingly, he was unhurt.

"The Americans told me afterwards, `You are a very lucky man`," he said. "Several of my bodyguards were wounded. I am not afraid of these things."

The attacks on Mr Saboor, a personal friend of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, were almost certainly the work of Taliban sympathisers.

The Taliban were supposed to have disappeared from Afghanistan 18 months ago, but in recent weeks they have begun a comeback with a series of primitive but deadly attacks on officials and the government`s military allies. Last week a suicide bomber blew up an explosives-filled taxi next to a bus full of German peacekeepers in Kabul, killing four of them. It was the deadliest attack on the international forces in Afghanistan so far.

In his response to the incident Mr Karzai claimed that the Taliban had been "completely defeated". But the evidence suggests otherwise: 40 Taliban fighters were killed this month in a gun battle with government troops near Kandahar, and in the same area the Taliban recently killed a Red Cross worker and an Italian tourist.

Khost, a seven-hour drive from Kabul in east Afghanistan, is one of their main areas. Its new mosque was built with Arab money; Arab, Pakistani and Chechen volunteers used to hold dinners in the governor`s mansion.

Rumour has it that soon after America began bombing the Taliban in late 2001 Osama bin Laden`s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, escaped from Khost into Pakistan, a two-hour drive away.

Since then many Taliban have found sanctuary in Pakistan, and slip back across the border to fire rockets at the military HQ at Sara Bagh just outside Khost, which houses 2,000 Italian and American soldiers.

Afghan officials say Arabs linked to al-Qaida are behind the attacks, claiming that they pay local Afghans to plant mines and explosives.

Mr Saboor alleged that the Pakistani inter-services intelligence agency (ISI), which supported the Taliban, was involved. But nobody quite knows who is responsible, although it is clear that disgruntled opponents of Mr Karzai have begun a sporadic guerrilla campaign to overthrow him.

A former Taliban fighter, who did not want to be identified, denied to the Guardian that the Taliban were regrouping. His old Taliban commanders were lying low, he said. "Some of them are up in the mountains chopping wood. Others are working in the market."

He complained bitterly about Mr Karzai`s government, which is dominated by Tajiks, and said it discriminated against the Pashtun majority. There was no security, and some women were even taking off their burkas. "According to Islam women should cover up when they go to the bazaar," he said, adding: "I`m prepared to die for my beliefs."

Ordinary Afghans too are becoming resentful of the 11,500 soldiers - mostly American - still in their country, hunting for Taliban and al-Qaida suspects.

Last week American troops arrived by helicopter in Laka Tiga, a village on the potholed road between Khost and the town of Gardez, and the local warlord, Bacha Khan Zadran, sent out his son Abdul Wali and bodyguard Zangal Bacha to assist them. According to witnesses a soldier opened fire on Mr Bacha as he sat in the back of his LandCruiser. He was killed instantly.

Soldiers also accidentally shot several Afghan civilians driving past in a mini-van, and a nine-year-old boy, Raz Mohammad, who had been sitting under a mulberry tree.

The Americans bundled Mr Wali into a helicopter and flew off.

The US claims that Mr Bacha was a "guerrilla" and opened fire first; this is denied by villagers. Many of them also complain that American soldiers stole their money after breaking into their homes and ransacking boxes. "They took 20,000 Pakistani rupees (£235) and my wife`s bracelet," Islam Jan said.

UN officials have watched the behaviour of the US forces in Afghanistan with increasing dismay, and say that it is frequently reckless. "This doesn`t help us at all," one said. "The people are basically pro-America. They want US forces to be here. But American soldiers are not very culturally sensitive. It`s hardly surprising that Afghans get angry when the Americans turn up and kick their doors in."

Bacha Khan said: "The Taliban are getting stronger and stronger. This is because US troops are misbehaving. I want my bodyguard`s killer brought to justice. I`d also like my son back."

Mr Saboor said he would do whatever it took to defeat the Taliban. The Russians had hanged three of his brothers in the 1980s, after their invasion of Afghanistan, he said, and he was not prepared to give up now. "I love my country. I will carry on doing my duty, even if they put a mine under my car."



Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Iraq`s museums: what really happened
The truth behind the sacking of a cultural heritage is far less colourful than the allegations of corruption and cover-up

Eleanor Robson
Wednesday June 18, 2003
The Guardian

What is the true extent of the losses to the Iraq Museum -170,000 objects or only 33? The arguments have raged these past two weeks as accusations of corruption, incompetence and cover-ups have flown around. Most notably, Dan Cruickshank`s BBC film Raiders of the Lost Art insinuated that the staff had grossly misled the military and the press over the extent of the losses, been involved with the looting themselves, allowed the museum to be used as a military position, and had perhaps even harboured Saddam Hussein. The truth is less colourful.

Two months ago, I compared the demolition of Iraq`s cultural heritage with the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in 1258, and the 5th-century destruction of the library of Alexandria. On reflection, that wasn`t a bad assessment of the present state of Iraq`s cultural infrastructure. Millions of books have been burned, thousands of manuscripts and archaeological artefacts stolen or destroyed, ancient cities ransacked, universities trashed.

At the beginning of this year, the staff, led by Dr Dony George and Dr Nawala al-Mutawalli, began to pack up the museum in a well-established routine first devised during the Iran-Iraq war. Defensive bunkers were dug in the grounds. Early in April, Dr John Curtis, head of the Ancient Near East department at the British Museum, described a recent visit to Baghdad during which the museum staff were sandbagging objects too big to be moved, packing away smaller exhibits, and debating "the possibility of using bank vaults and bunkers if the worst came".

The worst did come. On April 11 the news arrived that the museum had been looted. We later discovered that there had been a two-day gun battle, at the start of which the remaining museum staff fled for their lives. Fedayeen broke into a storeroom and set up a machine gun at a window.

While senior Iraqi officials were begging for help in Baghdad, the US Civil Affairs Brigade in Kuwait was also trying from April 12 to get the museum protected. They already knew that its most valuable holdings were in vaults of the recently bombed Central Bank. The museum was secured on April 16, but it took until April 21 for Civil Affairs to arrive.

Captain William Sumner wrote to me that day: "It seems that most of the museum`s artefacts had been moved to other locations, but the ones that were looted were `staged` at an area so that they would be easier to access. It was a very professional action. The spare looting you saw on the news were the excess people who came in to pick over what was left." In other words, there was no cover-up: the military were informed immediately that the evacuation procedures had been effective. Suspicions remained that a single staff member may have assisted the core looters. But, Sumner says: "It might have been one of the grounds people, or anybody. I suspect that we will never know."

Within a week the museum was secure enough for George to travel to London. At a press conference he circulated a list of some 25 smashed and stolen objects which the curators had been unable to move from the public galleries before the war. They included the now famous Warka vase, which had been cemented in place. Last week it was returned in pieces. Other losses came from the corridor where objects were waiting to be moved off-site. George was understandably reluctant to reveal the location of the off-site storage to the Civil Affairs Brigade as security was still non-existent.

Inventories of the badly vandalised storerooms finally began after the catalogues were pieced together from the debris of the ransacked offices. Dr John Russell, an expert in looted Iraqi antiqui ties, made a room-by-room report for Unesco late in May. He noted that most of the objects that had been returned since the looting "were forgeries and reproductions". Other losses, he reported, included some 2,000 finds from last season`s excavations at sites in central Iraq. His summary tallied well with George`s. "Some 30 major pieces from exhibition galleries. Unknown thousands of excavated objects from storage. Major works from galleries smashed or damaged." The unknown thousands are beginning to be quantified. Expert assessors in Vienna last week estimated the losses from the museum storerooms at between 6,000 and 10,000.

Outside the Iraq Museum, the picture is equally grim. At Baghdad University, classrooms, laboratories and offices have been vandalised, and equipment and furniture stolen or destroyed. Student libraries have been emptied. Nabil al-Tikriti of the Univer sity of Chicago reported in May that the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Affairs lost 600-700 manuscripts in a malicious fire and more than 1,000 were stolen. The House of Wisdom and the Iraqi Academy of Sciences were also looted. The National Library was burned to the ground and most of its 12 million books are assumed to have been incinerated.

In the galleries of Mosul Museum, cuneiform tablets were stolen and smashed. The ancient cities of Nineveh, Nimrud, and Hatra lost major sculpture to looting. The situation is far worse in the south. Some 15-20 large archaeological sites, mostly ancient Sumerian cities, were comprehensively pillaged by armed gangs.

It will take years of large-scale international assistance and delicate diplomacy to return the Iraq Museum to functionality. The process is deeply charged with the politics of occupation and post-Ba`athist reaction. The Civil Affairs officers are discover ing that senior staff are not necessarily enamoured of the American way, while junior staff are testing their newfound freedom to complain about their bosses. One insider commented: "George might make them work instead of read papers. And that is what all the fuss is about."

The British School of Archaeology in Iraq and the British Museum now have staff working in the Iraq Museum, while other organisations worldwide are fundraising. George, Mutawalli and his colleagues have achieved the extraordinary in preserving as much as they have. We now need to help them salvage as much as possible from the wreckage and re-establish the country`s cultural infrastructure so that Iraqis can plan their future knowing their past is secure.

· Eleanor Robson is a council member of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq and a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford
[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Exposed: Blair, Iraq and the great deception
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
18 June 2003


Tony Blair was charged with deliberately misleading the public over Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction yesterday as two former cabinet ministers revealed that MI6 believed Saddam Hussein`s arsenal posed no immediate threat.

In an extraordinary public hearing at Westminster, Clare Short and Robin Cook told MPs that intelligence chiefs had concluded that the risk of Saddam using chemical or biological weapons was not high.

Ms Short, the former secretary of state for international development, said Mr Blair was guilty of "honourable deception" and claimed he used "a series of half-truths, exaggerations, reassurances that were not the case to get us into conflict by the spring.

"I believe that the Prime Minister must have concluded that it was honourable and desirable to back the US in going for military action in Iraq and therefore it was honourable for him to persuade us through various ruses and ways to get us there - so for him I think it was an honourable deception," said Ms Short.

Mr Cook, the former foreign secretary, accused ministers of "not presenting the whole picture" and presenting selective evidence to back the case for war.

Both former ministers said Mr Blair exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction, and condemned the Government`s dossier on Saddam`s arsenal as "shoddy" and "thin".

They spoke out at the start of the all-party Commons Foreign Affairs Committee`s inquiry into Mr Blair`s handling of the run-up to war.

Their testimony, based on detailed knowledge of intelligence reports from Iraq and personal briefings with senior figures from the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, undermined repeated claims made by Mr Blair and other senior ministers that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the Middle East and world.

Mr Cook told MPs that in his briefing with the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee: "I heard nothing to contradict anything I said in my resignation statement that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction in the understood sense of the term."

Mr Cook, who saw all intelligence reports on Iraq between 1997 and 2001, said he did not believe that Saddam had succeeded in building biological weapons. He revealed that concerns about Iraq had eased to such an extent in the late 1990s that Britain considered "closing the files" on Saddam`s nuclear and long-range missile programmes.

Ms Short, who saw raw intelligence reports and was briefed repeatedly by MI6 and the Defence Intelligence Staff before the war, said: "There is a risk, but the risk of use is not high, was probably the tone."

She insisted that she had never heard Mr Blair`s now infamous claim that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons "within 45 minutes" in any of her intelligence reports.

Both former ministers bitterly attacked the Government`s dossiers on Iraq`s weapons. Mr Cook said of the first dossier: "I was taken aback at how thin the dossier was. There was a striking absence of any recent and alarming firm intelligence. The great majority was derivative.

"The plain fact is that a lot of the intelligence in the dossier turned out to be wrong.

"Stripped down, there was very little in that document that presented new alarming evidence of an imminent threat."

He said the second dossier - criticised as "dodgy" after it was revealed to include material from a PhD thesis culled from the internet - had been a "glorious and spectacular own goal", while Ms Short said it was a "shameful piece of work".

Mr Cook said: "There was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion, rather than a conclusion that arose from a full consideration of the evidence."

Ms Short added: "This phrase `weapons of mass destruction`. When that is used, people think of bombs full of chemical and biological weapons waiting to rain out of the skies. They don`t think of scientists in laboratories doing experiments ... That is where the falsity lies. Yes, he [Saddam] was dedicated to scientists carrying out chemical or biological work, but the suggestion to the public was it was all weaponised and a dangerous threat."

Mr Cook said: "Iraq was an appallingly difficult intelligence target to break. There was very little human intelligence on the ground and no hope of putting in a Western intelligence agent." But he warned: "The absence of intelligence is a bloody thin ground on which to go to war."

Ms Short used her hour-long appearance to attack Mr Blair`s style of government, accusing a cabal of unelected advisers of sidelining the Cabinet and the Foreign Office in the approach to war.

She said: "Things were not decided properly; no records, no papers; in the Prime Minister`s study - all informal with a small group of in people."

Downing Street declined to respond to the claims.

Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This reinforces our call for an independent judicial inquiry."
18 June 2003 09:44


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

CIA deliberately misled UN arms inspectors, says senator
By Rupert Cornwell, in Washington
18 June 2003


The row over Iraq`s missing weapons intensified in Washington yesterday as a leading Senate Democrat accused the CIA of deliberately misleading United Nations inspectors to help clear the decks for an invasion of Iraq.

The charge by Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, comes as Congress gears up for its own hearings into whether the Bush administration misinterpreted or manipulated pre-war intelligence on the scale of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Mr Levin is not the first Democrat to question the CIA`s role. But his allegations are the most precise yet, and seem bound to increase pressure for a fuller, more public investigation than the Republican majority on Capitol Hill has been willing to concede thus far.

Mr Levin says that when the UN team under Hans Blix returned to Iraq last autumn, the CIA - contrary to what it claimed at the time - did not pass on its full list of 150 high or medium priority suspected weapons sites. This, in turn, enabled the US government to shut down the inspections quickly, opening the path for military action.

"Why did the CIA say that they had provided detailed information to the UN inspectors on all of the high and medium suspect sites, when they had not?" Mr Levin asked. "Did the CIA act in this way in order not to undermine administration policy?"

Had it been known that there were still outstanding sites, he suggested, there would have been "greater public demand that the inspection process continue".

President George Bush yesterday dismissed critics who doubt his pre-war claims about the Iraqi threat. He called them "revisionist historians". These days, however, he seems more careful to refer to the existence of Iraqi "weapons programmes," not the weapons themselves.
18 June 2003 09:47
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

June 18, 2003

Blair seeks deal with Saddam`s men
By Michael Evans, Defence Editor

Row with US over bid to find weapons fast

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-717569,00.html


BRITAIN is pressing America to offer top Iraqi prisoners possible freedom in exchange for information to speed up the search for Saddam Hussein and his missing weapons of mass destruction.
British officials are telling Washington that plea bargaining is the only way to track down the dictator and his arsenal, but to the Government’s intense frustration the Bush Administration has so far rejected the appeals of its closest coalition ally.

Thirty-one of the fifty-five individuals on America’s most-wanted “pack of cards” list have been arrested, but British officials told The Times that none of them had divulged any information during intensive interrogation.

The British Government wants to tell them that in exchange for crucial information their help will be taken into account if they appeared at a war crimes court. They might even be offered protection and a new life overseas if their information were decisive.

“We have been trying for ages to persuade the Americans but they have come up with all kinds of legal arguments,” one government official said. US authorities have been happy to offer plea bargains to some of America’s most notorious criminals, but apparently draw the line at members of a regime that they have denounced as evil.

Unlike President Bush, Tony Blair is facing intense pressure to find the weapons that he cited as a justification for the war.

Two of the Prime Minister’s former Cabinet colleagues yesterday gave a withering account of what they claimed was unsubstantiated intelligence material about Saddam’s arsenal.

Appearing before the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Robin Cook, who resigned as Leader of the Commons over the war, accused the Government of presenting intelligence selectively to justify the war. He told MPs that his claim in his resignation speech that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction ready for use had come “almost word for word” from a member of MI6. Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary, told the committee that the raw intelligence that she saw was like “droplets” that did not say anything clear about weapons.

Officials said that the prisoners were keeping quiet either from fear of incriminating themselves, or because they were petrified that if they co-operated with the coalition Saddam’s Fedayin militia would take revenge on their families.

The official said that all the detainees held in centres in Baghdad appeared convinced that Saddam was still alive and that it was too dangerous or disloyal to help the coalition.

The intelligence community in Washington and London is also convinced that Saddam is alive and “lying low” in Iraq, and that his continuing existence is casting a shadow over all the efforts to find weapons of mass destruction.

But British officials said that Washington was divided over the suggestion, with the Pentagon opposing any arrangement that might reduce the prisoners’ eventual sentences. Some of the top regime figures, including Saddam, could face the death penalty if found guilty of crimes against humanity.

The prisoners include Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Zuhayr Talib abd al-Sattar al-Naqib, director of military intelligence, Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi, a presidential advisor on scientific and technical affairs, and Rihab Taha, also known as Dr Germ.

A few top scientists have been flown out of Iraq, but most of the detainees are still being held at an undisclosed location in Baghdad. They have been questioned frequently by the CIA and other agencies, including MI6, but have revealed nothing.

British officials said that they all had similar stories about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, claiming there was no clandestine programme, and the coalition interrogators were getting nowhere.

Faced with Washington’s opposition to plea bargaining, British investigators are focusing their effort on trying to trace medium-ranking Iraqi scientists not on the list of 55, hoping that they might be able to pinpoint where weapons might be hidden.

Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, admitted yesterday that it was essential that the weapons of mass destruction were found. “We do have to demonstrate to the world that those weapons of mass destruction are there in Iraq.”

Next month the heads of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ, the signals intelligence centre, are expected to appear before the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, which has started an inquiry into the Iraqi weapons.

[Joerver]

June 18, 2003
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-717362,00.html
Iran is no Iraq and the US should leave it well alone
Amir Taheri
A discontented generation could provide the answer that the hawks are seeking



The words “regime change” are being uttered again. Washington hawks concerned about Iran’s nuclear capacity are urging the overthrow of its Islamist Government. These hawks confuse Iran with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iraq was a mere torture chamber for a brutal dictator. Unlike in Iraq, there is no need for a military confrontation in Iran, a country with a well-developed opposition, which allows a lively debate between hardliners and moderates, and has a strong chance of democratisation without US intervention.
Iran resembles a double-headed eagle, trying to fly in opposite directions at the same time. One head represents the Khomeinist revolution, with its forlorn ambition of exporting a bankrupt ideology and creating an Islamic superpower to confront the American “Great Satan” and establish Islam as the only faith of mankind.

The other head represents the Iranian nation-state, one of the oldest in the world, that has little interest in Islamic piety, let alone militancy. For instance Tehran, with a population of 12 million, has just over 700 mosques, compared with 2,600 in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, with two million inhabitants. A poll conducted by a state-owned company in Tehran in February revealed that 70 per cent of Iranians had a favourable view of the US (which is thus more popular in Iran than in Britain, let alone in France and Germany).

More than 60 per cent of Iran’s population of 70 million is aged under 30 and cannot clearly remember life before the Islamist revolution of 1979. The country is unable to provide the educational, leisure and job opportunities its discontented youth needs. In terms of disposable individual income the average Iranian today is 50 per cent poorer than in 1977. A report by the International Monetary Fund on brain-drain puts it at No 1 among 91 developing nations. Each year up to 180,000 highly educated Iranians emigrate, mostly to North America, and there are more Iranian doctors in Canada than in Iran. Youth unemployment hovers around 30 per cent. This discontented generation, yearning for a more liberal and open society, should give the US cause for hope of evolutionary regime change.

For the past eight days, thousands of students have been protesting against the regime in Iran. Starting in Tehran University, the movement has spread to campuses in other cities. It has also attracted some middle-class support, while industrial workers in a number of cities have held walkouts in solidarity.

The Khomeinist Establishment is no longer strong enough to crush its opponents, as it routinely did throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The armed and police forces have made it clear that they will not shoot anti-regime demonstrators and the regime’s hired thugs, known as the Followers of the Party of God (Ansar Hezbollah), are not numerous enough or confident enough to beat opponents and disperse demonstrations. Yet Iran is not on the verge of a second revolution or civil war, as some commentators suggest. The volcano, hissing menacingly, is unlikely soon to erupt.

The students’ demand for constitutional change seems to have some support within the Establishment. More than two thirds of the members of the Islamic Majlis (parliament) have published an open letter to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the spiritual leader, to endorse the call for the separation of mosque and State. Another open letter, signed by 250 intellectuals with impeccable Khomeinist credentials, goes further by calling for the establishment of a Western-style democratic system.

A consensus may yet emerge inside Iran for change through a referendum. One popular idea is to remove two articles of the Constitution and amend six others, thus separating the mosque from the State. Under the proposals the position of Supreme Guide, held by Ayatollah Khamenei, would be abolished, allowing Iran to become a “normal” republic with a president and parliament elected by and accountable to the people.

Today hardly anyone, even within the Establishment, is prepared to defend the principle of Velayat-e Faqih (Custodianship of the Cleric) under which a mullah, the Supreme Guide, is regarded as the embodiment of divine will on earth and given absolute powers.

The claim last week by Khamenei that the demonstrations were organised by American mercenaries was part of an initial panic reaction by a frightened regime. Since then wiser counsel seems to have prevailed. Now, even Khamenei’s associates admit that the pro-democracy movement is too broad-based to be dismissed as part of the pressure that the Bush Administration is exerting on the regime.

The American presence in countries neighbouring Iran, especially Iraq and Afghanistan, has put the fear of God in the Khomeinist Establishment. This does not mean, however, that there is any support for an aggressive posture by the US among the demonstrators. The threat of American military action could backfire by triggering an Iranian nationalistic reflex, giving succour to the hardliners.

As Iran enters a delicate phase in its internal political evolution, it is important that the US and the EU be on the same side in dealing with Tehran. Pressure on such issues as nuclear non-proliferation and Tehran’s sponsorship of terrorism must be accompanied by support for the prodemocracy movement, and promises of aid and trade in exchange for reform.

Dealing with Iran requires tact and patience. Broadly speaking, Iran is on the right path, although zigzags and even temporary reversals cannot be ruled out. Less chatter about regime change by hot-heads in Washington circles would help Iran’s moderates.



The author is an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern affairs.

[Joerver]

June 18, 2003
Word That U.S. Doubted Iraq Would Use Gas
By JAMES RISEN


WASHINGTON, June 17 — American intelligence analysts reported to the Bush administration last year that Saddam Hussein`s government had begun to deploy chemical weapons but that Baghdad would almost certainly not use them unless the government`s survival was at stake, United States officials said today.

In a wide-ranging report in November, the Defense Intelligence Agency said it was unlikely that Iraq would use unconventional weapons as long as there were United Nations sanctions against the country. President Saddam Hussein would turn to the weapons only "in extreme circumstances," the D.I.A. report concluded, "because their use would confirm Iraq`s evasion of U.N. restrictions," according to the report, portions of which were read to a reporter by an intelligence official.

The November D.I.A. report, which remains classified, indicates that most analysts believed at the time that Iraq had some illegal weapons, but that Mr. Hussein was not likely to use them or share them with terrorists.

The report also provides fuller context for statements made last fall by George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, in a letter to Congress in which he said Iraq might use its weapons, but only if attacked.

The D.I.A. report and Mr. Tenet`s letter do not dispute that Iraq had chemical and other weapons.

The existence of the November report was first made public in U.S. News & World Report on Friday, prompting American officials to defend pre-war intelligence assessments that indicated Iraq possessed illegal weapons.

In their public comments before the war, senior Bush administration officials portrayed Iraq as possessing illegal weapons that posed a threat to the United States, either directly or because they might be supplied to terrorists.

Some intelligence analysts, government officials and Democratic critics of the Bush administration have alleged that the administration exaggerated the nature of the pre-war intelligence on Iraq`s weapons and of suspected ties to Al Qaeda.

President Bush and his advisers have defended their statements on Iraq`s weapons. Today, appearing in Virginia, Mr. Bush said: "We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm. And we asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him."

The D.I.A. report suggests that while, before the war, there was something close to a consensus in intelligence agencies that Iraq still had a program to develop illegal weapons, there was debate about whether Iraq intended to use them against the United States.

The report, titled "Iraq`s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and missile programs," also stated that the United States had evidence of "munitions transfer activity in mid-2002," suggesting that "the regime is distributing chemical warfare munitions in preparation for an anticipated U.S. attack."

That tactical intelligence suggested that Mr. Hussein was planning to deploy chemical weapons to his most elite military units in case of an American invasion. As a result, the American military prepared ground forces for chemical attacks, requiring troops to frequently don chemical protective suits. Chemical weapons were never used during the war.

But short of an all-out invasion of Iraq, the D.I.A. analysts did not see many situations in which Mr. Hussein would turn to unconventional weapons, the report shows.

"Iraq`s chemical agent use against Iran and the Kurds suggest that Baghdad possesses the political will to use any and all" illegal weapons, the report said, but only if "regime survival was imminently threatened."

The report shows that the D.I.A. was in agreement with the C.I.A.`s assessment, made public last fall by Mr. Tenet in a letter to Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who was then the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In that letter, Mr. Tenet stated that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or illegal weapons, but that "he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions" if convinced that an American-led attack could not be deterred. Those assessments were also included in an overview on Iraq`s weapons programs produced by the entire United States intelligence community in October.

Earlier this month, a portion of a September 2002 D.I.A. report that dealt with Iraq`s weapons programs was declassified, largely because D.I.A. officials wanted to dispel the idea that its analysts did not believe that Iraq had a chemical weapons program before the war. In that September report the D.I.A. stated that it did not have "reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has or will establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said some accounts of the September report had been misleading because they stopped there and neglected to cite the part of the report that said Iraqi military units had received chemical weapons. Appearing on Fox News on Sunday, Mr. Powell said, "The very next sentence says that it had information that weapons had been dispersed to units."

D.I.A. officials say that the document was prepared for operational military purposes, and was intended to inform war planners at the United States Central Command, and that it did not have much information that would be useful for targeting weapons facilities in case of war.

The analysts were still convinced that something was there. "A substantial amount of Iraq`s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998," the September report stated. "Nevertheless, we believe Iraq retained production equipment, expertise and chemical precursors and can reconstitute a chemical warfare program in the absence of an international inspection regime." Since major combat ended, however, evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its program has eluded the United States.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 18, 2003
Bushworld and Hillaryland
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON

Once toast in this town, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now the toast of the town. (Or at least the Venus part.)

At a Clintonista déjà vu party last night, Hillary was honored for her sensational debut as the fastest-selling nonfiction author ever. (More than Howard Stern even.)

The Mars brigade stormed a Bush-Cheney re-election fund-raising kick-off at the Washington Hilton — $2,000 a head for hot dogs, burgers and nachos. The White House wants fat cats to pony up $170 million for the run — a small price to pay for the cut in taxes on dividend income.

The 1,200 Bush donors and White House motorcades snarled evening traffic downtown, perhaps a Machiavellian attempt to prevent Hillary doters from making their way out to the Maryland manse of Lissa Muscatine for Hillary`s party.

Ms. Muscatine was chief speechwriter for Hillary when she was first lady, and part of the team that toiled for two years helping the senator stitch together her own account of her own life. With le tout hacks, flacks and Hill pols eager to munch on miniature sirloin burgers and Champagne, many guests were discouraged from bringing spouses. (A celebration of a book about marital rifts should not cause them.)

Even with her "spouse problem," as she wryly refers to it in her book, Hillary`s polls have shot up since the publication of her sisterhood-is-powerful political manifesto, cleverly masquerading as confessional victim and self-actualization literature.

Once Hillary was in the White House, besieged with questions about deception and secrecy, and beset by cascading investigations.

Now, George W. Bush is in the White House, besieged with questions about deception and secrecy, and beset by cascading investigations.

This president has weapons of mass destruction problems, whereas the last president had weapons of mass self-destruction problems.

W. must persuade doubters why he knew Saddam was an imminent threat before he made a pre-emptive move on Iraq, even as Hillary must persuade doubters why she did not know that Monica was an imminent threat who made a pre-emptive move on Bill. (If only a drum of chemicals were as easy to spot as a black thong.)

With her book, Senator Clinton is dropping a handkerchief in the 2008 race, signaling another amazing roundelay between the two first families of American politics, the fancy Republicans who strain to be common folk, and the Democratic common folk who strain to be fancy.

The Bushies dismissed the Clintons as "means justify the ends" types, who did as they liked and left a mess for others to clean up.

The Clintons saw themselves as audacious warriors for good, ingeniously grappling with intractable problems like health care.

Now the Democrats want to hold open hearings to see if the Bushies are "means justify the ends" types, who did as they liked and left a mess for others to clean up.

The Bushies see themselves as audacious warriors for good, ingeniously grappling with intractable problems like remaking the Arab world.

Just as the Bushies think Mr. Clinton dropped the ball on Osama and terrorism, the Clintons think the Bushies dropped it on the economy and the disenfranchised. And don`t get either side started on Whitewater and Halliburton.

In her book, Hillary writes that the right wing considered her husband illegitimate, then goes on to imply that Mr. Bush is, saying of William Rehnquist: "As the country would later learn in the election-deciding case of Bush v. Gore, his lifetime tenure as a Supreme Court Justice did not inhibit his ideological or partisan zeal."

Just as Bushworld is a macho preserve with a tight über-loyal circle, so Hillaryland is a female preserve with a tight über-loyal circle.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich and others have been trying to banish the if-it-feels-good-do-it, McGovernick, hippie ethos of the 60`s. In her book, Hillary defends the era: "Some contemporary writers and politicians have tried to dismiss the anguish of those years as an embodiment of 1960s self-indulgence. In fact, there are some people who would like to rewrite history to erase the legacy of the war and the social upheaval it spawned. They would have us believe that the debate was frivolous, but that`s not how I remember it."

Yup, she`s running, and if you`re not part of the solution, you`re part of the problem.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com PRINT ARTICLE ONLY

The Final Word on Iraq`s Future
Bremer Consults and Cajoles, but in the End, He`s the Boss

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 18, 2003; Page A01


KIFL, Iraq -- The search for local political talent brought L. Paul Bremer out for a bone-jarring drive across Iraq`s central farmland and lunch from a communal plate of yellow rice topped with a sheep`s skull.

Bremer, America`s viceroy in Iraq, was the guest of Sheik Ali Mohammed Abbasi of the Bani Hassan tribe, the leader of hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims. The sheik welcomed Bremer as a head of state, ushering him into a long room lined with 50 tribal chieftains. As the men sized up Bremer during a one-hour chat earlier this month, he considered the sheik as a candidate for a new national political council.

In the end, a bond was forged. "We are with you," the sheik declared.

Dispatched to Baghdad five weeks ago by President Bush to lead the U.S. effort to rebuild Iraq, Bremer has emerged not just as the day-to-day administrator of the occupation but also as the central architect of Iraq`s political future. He is using negotiation, persuasion and outright fiat to recruit a new crop of leaders who he hopes will lead the country of 25 million people toward democracy.

But until then -- national elections could be two years away -- Bremer has made clear that he is in charge. Over the past few weeks, he has signed a range of far-reaching executive orders to waive import tariffs, seize Baath Party assets, ban heavy weapons and claim licensing power over telecommunications services. When several college presidents asked him to lift a travel ban that had been imposed on academics by Saddam Hussein`s government, Bremer promised to do so by the end of the day.

"As long as we`re here, we are the occupying power," he said in an interview in the vast Republican Palace on the banks of the Tigris River, which used to be the seat of government under Hussein and is now Bremer`s home. "It`s a very ugly word, but it`s true."

Bremer`s influence has made him the most powerful man in Iraq -- and perhaps the most powerful American overseas since Gen. Douglas MacArthur oversaw the reconstruction of Japan after World War II. "This whole mission is riding on Bremer`s ability to pull it off," a senior U.S. official here said.

In many ways, Bremer is an unlikely choice. Although he is a former ambassador and a terrorism specialist, he has had little involvement in Arab affairs or with major reconstruction projects. Before coming to Iraq, he headed a crisis consulting firm.

Bush administration officials turned to Bremer to replace Jay M. Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general whose efforts were overwhelmed by the chaos that descended on postwar Iraq. They said Bremer`s appointment appealed to both the State Department and the Pentagon, which have feuded over Iraq policy, because of his diplomatic experience, his belief in aggressive action to deal with terrorism and his close relationship with prominent conservatives, particularly former secretary of state Henry A. Kissinger.

Bremer maintains that his lack of specialized experience has made him an independent operator. "I don`t come with any philosophical baggage one way or the other," he said. "I approach it as a fresh issue." He said he makes decisions based on the advice of his U.S. and British staff members and Iraqis he consults, and on his experience as a diplomat and businessman.

Marching Orders

"When I came out here, the president said, `Go out and make an assessment, and draw your own conclusions about what we should do,` " Bremer said. "My judgment after we got here was that most of the Iraqis I spoke to were anxious to get something done rather quickly."

His first moves have been bold. He rejected arguments from some in the Pentagon that authority should be handed over to former exiles. He also rejected the contention of many regional experts that Iraqis be allowed to choose a transitional administration. Instead, he decided to slowly devolve power through an advisory council of 25 to 30 Iraqis, whom he intends to select.

Bremer will also control the council, which he wants to shape a new government by selecting delegates for a constitutional convention. He also envisions the panel grappling with issues such as rewriting textbooks and setting trade policies, instead of deferring those decisions to an elected government. Although he promised to "broadly accept their recommendations," he has warned he will veto any of the council`s decisions that "are fundamentally against coalition interests" or not in the "better interests of Iraq."

He is purging members of the former ruling Baath Party from government jobs with the assumption that they will fade away instead of regrouping. And he is examining plans to overhaul the economy by privatizing scores of government-owned firms, a move that could increase efficiency but eliminate thousands of jobs.

On Tuesday, Bremer said the U.S. occupation authority would set up a commission to screen judges for human rights violations and links to the Baath Party leadership. In addition, he said the authority would establish a special court to try people accused of committing serious crimes since the war began on March 19 but who are not classified as prisoners of war.

The court, which will have Iraqi judges and prosecutors, will follow sections of the national criminal code passed in 1969 and 1971, and suspects will also have the right against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney. A U.S. official here said the new court would probably try many of the people detained in raids over the past week aimed at suppressing armed resistance to the occupation.

On Baghdad`s streets, away from the small groups of English-speaking professionals and well-connected political leaders with whom Bremer often talks, many Iraqis said they feared his agenda was a way to prolong the U.S. presence here and delay self-governance.

"Mr. Bremer doesn`t understand what the people want," said Ahmed Abbas, a bookseller. "Most people, I think, would be willing to allow the Americans to provide security and assistance with rebuilding, but they want Iraqis to make the decisions. This is our country."

Although Bremer contends that conditions in Baghdad have "improved significantly" since his arrival -- more shops are open, government employees are being paid, gas lines are almost nonexistent, garbage is being collected and more police officers are on the streets -- he is concerned about meeting expectations. Unemployment is rampant, as is fear of crime. Electrical service is intermittent, and work has not begun to repair scores of government buildings gutted by looters immediately after the war.

"This country went from night to day at literally lightning speed, so the process of repairing its economic, political and, I would say, even its psychic capital is not going to be done overnight," he said.

Focus on Terrorism
Known as Jerry to his friends, Lewis Paul Bremer was born in Hartford, Conn. He received a bachelor`s degree in history from Yale University and a master`s in business administration from Harvard. He joined the State Department and was stationed in Afghanistan, Malawi and Norway. After serving as ambassador to the Netherlands from 1983 to 1986, he was named President Ronald Reagan`s ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism.

Bremer, who is married and has two grown children, retired from the government in 1989 to become a managing director of a consulting firm run by Kissinger, for whom Bremer had served as an executive assistant in the 1970s. As concern about international terrorism grew in the 1990s, Bremer spoke and wrote extensively on the subject, warning that radical Islam posed an imminent risk to the United States.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he became a regular guest on television talk shows. A month later, he was named chairman and chief executive of the crisis consulting arm of insurance giant Marsh & McLennan Co., and last year, he was appointed to Bush`s Homeland Security Advisory Council.

Although he had not been a prominent advocate of confronting Hussein, he adopted a more hawkish stance after the 2001 attacks. In January, he concluded an op-ed piece in the Washington Times by stating: "Regime change in Iraq, long a sponsor of terror, would be an excellent way to bring home to friends and foes that we are serious about terrorism and show that opposing the United States has a high cost."

Although his role as administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority -- the formal name of the U.S.-led occupation administration -- does not give him control over U.S. military forces in Iraq, he does receive regular security and intelligence briefings. The increasing frequency of attacks against U.S. troops has become one of his top concerns, a U.S. official said.

A trim, 61-year-old former triathlete who appears a generation younger, Bremer usually wakes at 4:45 a.m. At 5, he goes running for about 20 minutes on the palace grounds, covering about 21/2 miles.

By the time his daily staff meeting starts at 7 a.m., he has read the morning newspapers on the Internet -- often printing out articles of interest for his deputies -- and has gone through overnight correspondence from the United States. Although he and his staff remain in close contact with officials at the White House, State Department and Pentagon, often holding conference calls late into the evening, he appears to have a broad mandate from Washington.

"He`s not Rumsfeld`s lackey," said a person familiar with the occupation authority`s decision-making, referring to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "He has a great deal of freedom to do what he thinks is right."

Bremer contends his plan for an appointed council does not mean he has backed away from the formation of a democratic government. "If we just slap together something quick -- even though that may be what some people want -- it`s not going to work," he insisted. "I am committed to establishing a democracy here. But to do this right, it will obviously take time."

Although he plans to offer seats on the council to several established political figures, U.S. officials here said he also will anoint some tribal sheiks and Iraqis with liberal religious and social beliefs with the goal of increasing their profile as future national leaders and muting the growing influence of conservative Shiite clerics.

"Every Iraqi should be able to look at the council and see themselves represented there," he said.

To persuade Iraqis of the wisdom of his course, Bremer has hit the road almost every day in an armored Chevrolet Suburban. Dressed in a dark suit and tie despite the 110-degree heat, with a white handkerchief in his breast pocket, he has been to schools, hospitals, local government offices and even a tribal conclave. At times, crossing the street to shake a man`s hand or hoisting a young boy onto his lap, he seems like a politician. At other times, he displays the reticence of a career diplomat, reading briefing papers in his car.

Much of his time is spent inside the Republican Palace, which is off-limits to all but a few Iraqis. He sleeps there on a wooden cot covered with a mosquito net, in a tiny room that lacks air conditioning and looks over a row of portable toilets. He said he would rather live and work somewhere else because he does not like "the impression of the new rulers coming in and occupying the rather lavish seats of power of the tyrant."

An avid reader of history, he said he has been studying the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II. A major conclusion he has drawn is that progress in Iraq has been comparatively quick.

"We are actually, in most areas, going faster than was the case in Germany and Japan . . . talking about when elections might be held and starting the constitutional process," he said.

Even so, he said, "this is going to be a long, difficult job. It`s going to take a lot of patience. We will make mistakes. But as we make them, hopefully we`ll learn from them and adjust."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Democrats` Online Appeal


By Harold Meyerson

Wednesday, June 18, 2003; Page A25


As revolutions go, this one began with remarkably little fanfare.

Last Thursday MoveOn.org sent out an e-mail to its members -- all 1.4 million of them -- asking if they`d like to take part in an online Democratic presidential primary later this month. Candidates would answer questions that MoveOn put to them, and if one of them managed to pull a majority of the members` votes, the organization would endorse him.

This is no straw poll: MoveOn does real politics. Founded by some Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as a way for liberals and others to electronically register their rage at the impeachment lunacy of 1998, MoveOn has already become a force in American politics. It has coordinated its members to lobby Congress on a host of issues, was a center of opposition to the Iraqi war, and has proved itself as a source of grass-roots campaign contributions ($4.1 million in 2002) to progressive candidates.

Last fall MoveOn made a special pitch to its members to help out Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone, then embroiled in a tight reelection contest.

Within a couple of days Wellstone`s campaign had an unexpected windfall of more than $600,000 in hard-money contributions. "Now our membership is nearly three times as big as it was then," MoveOn President Wes Boyd notes. (Membership skyrocketed during the run-up to the war.)

In last Thursday`s e-mail, MoveOn stated that one reason it wanted to try for an endorsement now was to help its endorsee, should one emerge, rake in some megabucks before the June 30 contribution reporting deadline. It also mentioned that preliminary polling of its members showed that Howard Dean, John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich had the lion`s share of early support.

The candidate with the most backing from MoveOn members (though by no means necessarily a majority) is Dean. Not surprisingly, winning this primary has emerged as the Dean campaign`s chief focus in the next several weeks. The former Vermont governor has clawed his way into the first tier of Democratic candidates in part through his campaign`s unparalleled success in waging a candidacy online. In its last financial statement, the campaign reported $750,000 in online contributions; campaign manager Joe Trippi says that figure now totals roughly $1.25 million.

The campaign already claims 33,000 online Dean supporters who came together through MeetUp.com, a Web site that enables people of like interests to, well, meet up. Trippi is urging his MeetUppers to join the MoveOners but acknowledges that 33,000 new members would just be a drop in MoveOn`s bucket.

Both Trippi and the MoveOn leaders think that winning 50 percent support this early in the process will be an arduous task. The thing about an online election, however, is that it`s no big deal to hold another one 30 or 60 days later -- a process to which MoveOn seems committed until an endorsement emerges. Still, Dean`s legions are filled with highly educated, Internet-savvy young people, and that`s a pretty good description of MoveOn`s members as well.

How much money such an endorsement would be worth to its recipient is one of the hottest topics in liberal America today. MoveOn`s staff offers only the most cautious projections, but political operatives sound awestruck as they contemplate what the numbers could be. "If Dean has their support and wins Iowa," says one longtime liberal strategist who`s no Dean partisan, "what people don`t realize is that MoveOn could get him $30 million in the next two days."

This is a topic to which Trippi has given a lot of thought. A "mature Internet," he says, could be the link that earlier insurgent candidates missed. "If Gary Hart had had the Internet in 1984, you have to wonder if Mondale would have won the nomination," says Trippi, who worked for Mondale that year. "Hart had no way to raise the money to go national after he won New Hampshire and had to compete immediately in a nationwide Super Tuesday." With the added technology, the Eugene McCarthys and John McCains of this world might well have gone farther.

And so, two pre-primary primaries loom large this summer: MoveOn`s, in which passionate young voters may reward a seemingly passionate candidate such as Dean, and the AFL-CIO`s, in which pragmatic labor leaders may give the nod to a more conventionally pragmatic candidate such as Dick Gephardt.

There is no Vietnam War dividing these two groups into irretrievably opposed camps -- indeed, many labor leaders I`ve spoken with are quite enthused by MoveOn`s emergence -- but the potential for a rift remains.

Zack Exley, MoveOn`s organizing director, says that the advantages of MoveOn`s move into presidential primaries clearly outweigh the downside.

"We`re trying to allow the voices of ordinary voters, the 1.4 million MoveOn members, to chime in at this crucial early stage in the process, when so much is being determined by high-dollar donors, pollsters, pundits and political elites," he says. In a world where money talks, MoveOn is handing the Democrats` liberal base a large megaphone.

The writer is editor at large of the American Prospect.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

For Immediate Release - Office of the Press Secretary - June 13, 2003 - 9:23 A.M. (EST)


PRESIDENT RELEASES NEWLY RECOVERED WARZONE DOCUMENTS OFFERING INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF IRAQI ACQUISITION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Statement by the President

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Today, I`m taking just a few minutes off from scarfing down pork rinds at my daddy`s 79th birthday party to bring glorious news to the American people. After months and months of fruitlessly scouring the charred carcass of Iraq for some shred of evidence to justify my killing more innocent civilians than died on 9/11, I`m pleased to say that documents newly recovered from Saddam bin Hussein`s safe prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this nefarious evildoer was actively scheming with rogue regimes to acquire vast quantities of WMDs. And while I have not had an opportunity to examine the papers myself, I have the utmost faith in the competence of those persons in the Central Intelligence Agency to whom I delegated the task of covering my ass. Therefore, I have ordered these documents to be released immediately. I trust that they will appease the crybaby liberal news media, and effectively debunk any absurd speculation about my Administration and the DoD`s Constitutionally suspect Intelligence Office having bullied Georgie Peorgie Tenet and his chubby office jockeys into falsifying reports of Iraqi WMDs just so I could settle a family score. Thank you.


http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/061303.asp

[Joerver]

Fall Guy?
The White House is blaming George Tenet for faulty WMD intelligence. But forcing out the CIA director will not repair the damage to America’s credibility abroad


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


June 13 — Republican leaders have for now headed off a full-blown investigation into the Bush administration’s prewar claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But unless inspection teams come up with something soon that President George W. Bush can call a smoking gun, a formal inquiry is inevitable
THE STAKES ARE too high to gloss over what got us to this point. Bush created the expectation that large stores of chemical and biological weapons would be found in Iraq and that Saddam had an active nuclear program. Nothing of consequence has yet been uncovered—suggesting either a colossal intelligence failure or the selective use and manipulation of the data that was available to suit the administration’s political aims.
These are serious charges that go to both the administration’s candor and its competence. The only predicate to a policy of preemption is good intelligence, so you know what you’re preempting. If you don’t have that, the new Bush foreign policy has no merit. Democrats have so little credibility with the American public on national-security matters that the most outspoken critic of Bush is a Republican, former Nixon turncoat John Dean, who says that if it is proven that Bush misused the CIA to take the country to war, that would be worse than Watergate. The White House finds that comparison ludicrous. “That kind of language I love because it’s so over the top,” scoffs a White House aide.
It’s not fair to jump to Watergate, but the administration is in a vulnerable position. There is so much uncontrolled information swirling around that the control freaks at the Bush White House are sucking air. At particular issue is an allegation that the Iraqis were trying to import uranium from Africa. When this piece of intelligence first surfaced, CIA director George Tenet dispatched a trusted former top official to Niger to investigate. He reported that the documents alleging the sale were forged. It wasn’t even hard to spot. The Niger government officials cited were no longer in office. Yet months later this phony evidence showed up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address as part of the administration’s case for war.
What comes next is straight out of a Tom Clancy novel. In a front-page report in Thursday’s Washington Post headlined CIA DID NOT SHARE DOUBT ON IRAQ DATA, the White House asserts that the CIA did not pass along the information about the forged Niger documents, and therefore Bush was unaware they had been falsified. If true, that means that George Tenet, head of the CIA, knowingly placed a verifiably false piece of information in the president’s hands that Bush used as a key element in the road to war when he spoke to Congress and the country. If Bush truly believes his CIA director set him up like that, he should fire Tenet.
Phoning around Capitol Hill for reaction to the Post story, I found a high degree of skepticism about the White House version of events. The SOTU is the most vetted speech a president gives. It’s not credible to believe Bush and all the bigwigs around him were duped. A more likely explanation is that the administration needed to bolster the nuclear leg of its case. The hard-liners running foreign policy didn’t have enough to claim Iraq was an imminent threat with chemical and biological weapons. Most experts don’t regard them as real WMD; they’re terror weapons, and absent a convincing connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, which the administration couldn’t make, they did not pose an imminent threat to the United States.
A congressional source says Powell knew what the administration’s pro-war wing was doing, and that Tenet was trying to put up resistance while also serving his clients, a jujitsu act that sets him up as the fall guy in the unfolding WMD scandal. “He’s a good politician in the worst possible sense of the word,” says a Senate foreign-policy aide. “He plays both sides of the street.”

Tenet is not a Bush loyalist; he was CIA director in the Clinton administration before Bush asked him to stay on the job. Getting hung out to dry on the front page of the Post is Tenet’s reward. He’s where the giant finger of blame is pointed. “We know what we were told,” says a White House official, ridiculing the claim made by unnamed CIA officials that they felt pressured because Vice President Dick Cheney made numerous trips to the agency. “Does an accountant tell you he feels pressure to get this guy a deduction? They know where the president is, but they’re professionals. They made a judgment, and they might still be right. [Bush’s] dad was director of the CIA. He knows how this works. If they felt pressure, they should have resigned.”
The quality of the CIA’s intelligence, and whether it was cooked to accommodate the administration’s political needs, is at the heart of the controversy. The late and widely admired Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said after the cold war ended: “The CIA could tell you every conceivable detail about the Soviet Union except that it was falling apart.” If Bush needs a villain, the CIA will do nicely. But that will not close the chapter on the politicization of intelligence. Tenet won’t go quietly, and in classic Washington fashion, the story of what Bush knew and when he knew it will leak out a little at a time, with a drip-drip that damages American credibility abroad even if Bush escapes political damage here at home.

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/926383.asp?0cv=KB20

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqweap…
THE WORLD


New Hunt for Iraqi Arms Resembles Old
U.S., British and Australian teams will rely heavily on military intelligence but also use many of the U.N. inspectors` techniques.
By Bob Drogin
Times Staff Writer

June 18, 2003

BAGHDAD — A sweeping overhaul of the search for Saddam Hussein`s suspected weapons of mass destruction is creating an operation with striking similarities to the United Nations inspection system that Bush administration officials openly derided before the war, according to senior military and intelligence officials here.

Unlike the U.N. teams, however, the new weapons hunt will rely chiefly on "secret squirrels," as U.S. commanders call the growing army here of CIA and military intelligence operatives, National Security Agency eavesdroppers, British MI-6 agents and elite Special Operations teams whose very existence is classified.

In addition to the latest spy gizmos and techniques, the American, British and Australian teams will have the advantage in the postwar occupation of what one commander called "unfettered access to Iraqis at all levels," at gunpoint if necessary.

"We have a full deck of cards," added the official, who requested anonymity. "The U.N. had about 35."

But the 1,400 people in the Iraq Survey Group, as the new effort is called, will utilize many of the same highly intrusive investigative and covert intelligence-gathering techniques that U.N. inspectors secretly used between 1991 and 1998 to find and destroy vast quantities of illicit Iraqi weapons and production materials.

The U.N. inspectors collected more than a million pages of architects` blueprints, weapons designs, financial and customs records, as well as microfilm, videos and other media. They interviewed not only senior Iraqi weapons scientists and government officials, but also warehouse workers, factory accountants, lab assistants, office clerks and truck drivers.

U.N. inspections resumed last November, but Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the Security Council in February that U.S. intelligence showed that the Baghdad regime was deceiving the U.N. teams and was concealing active programs to build chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Powell opposed extending the U.N. inspections, which had found no evidence of new Iraqi weapons programs. The U.N. teams were withdrawn shortly before U.S. troops invaded Iraq on March 20.

Brig. Gen. Steve Meekin, the senior Australian officer in the Iraq Survey Group, said the new effort "absolutely" resembles the former U.N. inspection system here because it will focus on collecting clues and not just searching buildings.

"We`re changing our focus that way on almost a daily basis now," said Meekin, who is commander of a center studying captured military equipment, a key part of the new group. As a result, he said, both the number and quality of leads coming in are gradually increasing.

"We haven`t had any single dramatic discoveries," Meekin said. "But we`re getting closer."

The redesign was ordered after U.S. field commanders acknowledged that the hunt, as organized and implemented so far, probably would not find any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, one of the chief reasons President Bush had cited for taking the nation to war.

"Some people thought we`d just drive in and find fields of WMD, with neon signs saying, `Look here,` " a senior Defense Department official here said. "We had to get expectations under control."

The shift in effort was symbolized by the quiet departure Monday of Army Col. Richard R. McPhee. He commanded the 75th Exploitation Task Force, a former field artillery brigade from Ft. Sill, Okla., that was reconfigured before the war to serve as the lead unit in the search for unconventional arms.

No announcement was made, but U.S. officials said command has passed to Keith Dayton, a two-star general from the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon`s chief spy service. Dayton is considered an expert in collecting intelligence through interrogations or from informants. The nucleus of his staff will be intelligence officers, including several former U.N. inspectors.

Dayton`s group won`t be functioning fully for several weeks, officials said. Members ultimately will live in mobile trailers and operate from 100 workstations and a secure facility for top-secret communications that will be built in a ballroom at one of Hussein`s former palaces that is located near the Baghdad airport. The team will also open two satellite bases in northern and southern Iraq.

Because they were forced to rely on a target list set before the war, the previous weapons-hunting teams spent most of the last two months picking through rubble or empty shells of former Iraqi factories, Baath Party offices, secret police centers, military camps and other sites that had taken the brunt of both U.S. bombing and postwar looting.

Most of the early weapons teams lacked translators, interrogators and transportation, as well as investigative expertise. They took hundreds of "wipes and swipes," as one officer here called it, of suspect substances for analysis at U.S. and British military laboratories. No germ agents, poison gases, or undeclared nuclear materials have been found.

The Iraq Survey Group plans to start anew by focusing on collecting and consolidating fresh clues.

The lead teams, working from an interrogation and debriefing center, already have been assigned to find and interview Iraqis. Others have begun translating and analyzing Iraqi documents and computer data. Still others will seek to unravel covert procurement networks outside Iraq.

"This is truly going to be looking for all the clues," said the Defense Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We haven`t done that before."

Officials say any clues or raw intelligence will be instantly fed back to intelligence analysts, weapons specialists and others at the Pentagon`s Central Command headquarters in Qatar. Information then will go to a new inter-agency intelligence center in Washington. Suggestions for follow-up will be fed back to officials in the field.

"There are thousands of analysts and others in the intelligence community who are chewing on this," the official said.

Three-member teams will be assigned at each level simply to look at the intelligence "with a different eye," another official explained, in case they see something others may have missed.

News headlines in the 1990s chiefly focused on the U.N. inspection teams` recurring struggles to gain access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq. But the teams steadily eliminated more of Hussein`s unconventional weapons than were destroyed by coalition airstrikes during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to U.N. records.

Their success — especially at uncovering Hussein`s germ warfare and nuclear weapons programs — was largely based on intense investigations of Hussein`s clandestine weapons procurement programs, as well as the research, development and production systems, according to former U.N. inspectors.

Meekin said the weapons hunters have mostly revisited sites that U.N. teams already had searched, and have growing respect for the U.N.`s work. "We have not recovered anything that the U.N. had not seen," he said.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq18ju…
THE WORLD

Iraqis Voice Fear of Signing Away Their Identity
Civil employees must declare in writing to obey the orders of the U.S. administration.
By Michael Slackman
Times Staff Writer

June 18, 2003

HILLAH, Iraq — After all that has happened in Iraq — the bombing, the fall of the government, the disruption of services, the looting, the crime and foreign troops in the streets — the latest affront to many Iraqis is one sentence in one document. All citizens who work for the government are required to sign a document that states, "I will obey the laws of Iraq and all proclamations, orders and instructions of the Coalition Provisional Authority."

In an Islamic society where faith and state are intertwined, many fear this provision is designed to undermine their religion.

Hundreds of residents of this city about an hour`s drive southeast of Baghdad took their concerns to the streets Monday in a peaceful demonstration, and their leaders are threatening further protests — even a call for a nationwide strike — if the document is not amended. The U.S.-led administration has refused.

"We are afraid that this is paving the way in order for the Americans to abolish our Iraqi and Islamic identity," said Said Adnan Unaibi, who serves as a local representative for one of the two main schools of Shiite Muslim thinking in Iraq. "This represents a provocation of the people."

The Coalition Provisional Authority, as the U.S.-led administration is known, is moving aggressively to assert itself as the sole legal authority in Iraq and to rub out any remnants of the former Baath Party regime. It has drawn a line in the sand, and in order for Iraqis to have a role in the running of their country, they must agree to the conditions laid down by civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer III.

One of those involves signing a form that is primarily a denunciation of the now-outlawed Baath Party, which Saddam Hussein relied on as one of his pillars of power. Tucked into the form is the sentence that has infuriated so many Iraqis, not just in this city near the ancient ruins of Babylon but also in Baghdad.

Iraqis want someone to be in charge, but many also chafe at the idea that they have become wards of the United States. That conflict creates a problem for the Americans as they try to enforce rules, restore security and create a normal rhythm of life in a country that they have concluded is not yet ready to run itself.

"They are quite capable intellectually," said Lt. Col. P.J. Dermer, who is working with the civil administration to develop grass-roots democratic practices in Baghdad. "The assets are there. The mentality doesn`t exist. They need us. They know it`s up to us to walk them through this."

Many Iraqis don`t see it that way.

Ali Hussein Ali is a pathologist in Hillah. He was finally going to receive his pay this month when the person giving out the cash asked that he sign the denunciation form. Shiite clerics in the south have issued fatwas, or religious edicts, instructing that the forms not be signed. Ali wanted his money, and he wanted his job, but he also wanted to be true to his faith.

So he penciled in his own addendum: "But it should not contradict Islamic law."

"We will cooperate with an Iraqi government," he said. "They should not try to control our principles."

Ali works in the 17th of July Health Center, a rundown clinic in a walk-up near the center of town. A few doctors, a nurse and a pharmacist work there, although they are short on medicine and patients. They are not short on hostility at their circumstances.

"According to what the U.S. government said, this was a liberation," said Dr. Hamid Naimer, 41, the director of the clinic. "Now that they say American law should be implemented, it means this is an occupation. They didn`t say anything about Iraqi law. This is a full occupation."

The south of Iraq is primarily populated by Shiites, a branch of Islam that accounts for more than half the population of Iraq. Hussein, a Sunni, vested power in his religious brethren and oppressed the Shiite majority.

While U.S. troops are being shot at now in Sunni communities in central Iraq, the Marines who patrol this city say almost everything is under control here. One officer said they have not been the targets of any planned attacks.

That has allowed the Marines and the Army unit here to focus on nation-building, rehabilitating infrastructure, giving out gasoline and offering cash gifts of $40 a month to pensioners. It also has meant paying salaries for all 38,000 government employees, a mammoth task.

But the efforts have been at least partially undermined by blanket decisions that have come out of the civil administration. The two major problems arise from the decision to dissolve the Iraqi military, which was the largest employer in the country, and the inclusion of the one sentence in the denunciation form, according to Marines, who have been providing security in the area.

"It`s a real issue," Lt. Ernest Adams of the 1st Battalion, 4th Regiment Marines, said of the document. "We are here for the benefit of the Iraqi people. They are afraid we will take their religion away. That`s why we are here. To protect them."

Some of the Americans here said they were taken aback by the severe reaction to the form. This week, for example, many members of the faculty at Hillah University refused to sign the form, one official said. They were paid anyway, but the conflict has not been resolved.

"From my personal perspective, it`s not a big deal," Adams said. "We want to get them paid. But it`s very important to the Iraqi people."

After the protest Monday, several community leaders met with top military officials in the city and asked for the inclusion of a short clause in the document, something along the lines of "in the interest of the Iraqi people." The request was passed up the line to Bremer`s office.

In the past, Bremer`s staff has refused to make any changes, and it appears likely that position will remain the same, according to civil administration spokesman Stewart Upton.

"Up to this point, we`ve told them straight up there will be no deviation from the form," Upton said.

There is a feeling among some administrators, he said, that the issue is simply being used by those who want to cause conflict.

That may not be true, but clerics such as Unaibi are using the clause in the document to promote the idea that the U.S. is implementing a plan to wipe out Iraq`s Islamic identity.

"If they are not responsive to our demands, there will be a strike and demonstration in Hillah," he said. "If that doesn`t work, we will call on all Iraqis to demonstrate. I think we have the capability to do that."

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iraq18j…
EDITORIAL

Good Cop, Bad Cop in Iraq

June 18, 2003

Though it`s unrealistic to expect citizens of any land to cozy up to a conquering army, U.S. soldiers, somewhat belatedly, are learning and applying beneficial new tactics in dealing with civilians in Iraq. Even as snipers and land mines continue to kill and maim troops nearly seven weeks after the end of heavy fighting, U.S. forces are proving tactically adept in balancing the firing of machine guns with providing water and gasoline. There`s a long way to go in rebuilding the mess Saddam Hussein left of Iraq, and smart, flexible approaches — not just brute force — will work best.

Since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, Iraqis have killed more than 40 Americans, many in attacks by reputed remnants of Hussein`s Baath Party. Last week, U.S. forces responded with a nationwide crackdown that killed nearly 100 Iraqis. Then, on Sunday, Americans in many towns provided gasoline for Iraqis as a goodwill gesture.

In Fallouja, pro-Hussein sentiment led to Iraqi attacks that prompted a U.S. troop reinforcement with tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. A sign at a market in the central Iraqi town urged residents to avoid cooperation "with the nonbeliever coalition troops."

To undercut that sentiment, Americans last week met with local civilian and religious leaders to hear their complaints. In a smart gesture, the U.S. forces agreed to change procedures. Changes include using vehicles lighter than tanks for routine patrols; tanks tear up asphalt softened by midday heat. The caveat: Tanks will still be used in military operations. But they`ll be back patrolling only if Americans are targeted. Since the meeting, Fallouja has calmed down.

Tamping down unreasonable expectations and actions on both sides will be vital in this ongoing mission. Residents of Baghdad and other cities wonder why a force that could win a war in weeks cannot guarantee around-the-clock electricity and get oil wells back in operation. These complaints anger troops who see Iraqis as ingrates and are especially galling to young soldiers who yearn to go home — and not to occupy a distant land. Combine those emotions with scorching heat and little wonder that troops are testy and may be tempted to shove back or shoot too quickly at the Iraqis.

The Bush administration knew it would not be easy to rebuild Iraq; after Hussein`s regime fell, looting, shooting and chaos erupted in Baghdad and other cities, forcing the Pentagon to increase troop strength. Getting allies to provide more peacekeeping and reconstruction help, swiftly, would be good. For now, the soldiers need to get better intelligence more quickly to root out Hussein cronies. This would provide more protection for the forces and make it easier for Iraq to recover from decades of dictatorship and war.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-huff18j…
COMMENTARY


If Politics Look a Bit Crazy Recently...
By Arianna Huffington
Arianna Huffington writes a syndicated column. E-mail: [e-mail].

June 18, 2003

By all accounts, the battle within the Bush administration over just what information should have been used — or spun or hidden — to make the case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world was a knockdown, drag-out fight between the facts and a zealous, highly politicized "who needs proof?" mind-set. And the truth was left writhing on the floor.

Hey, why let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good war?

This pathological pattern of disregarding inconvenient reality is not just troubling — it`s deadly. And it`s threatening to drag us into a Sisyphean struggle against evildoers in Syria, Iran, North Korea or whatever locale Karl Rove thinks would best advance "Operation Avoid 41`s Fate."

Since I`m not a psychiatrist, I consulted the work of various experts in the field in order to get a better understanding of the fanatical thinking that is driving the Bush administration`s agenda — and scaring the daylights out of a growing number of observers.

Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, lists among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent; a doctrine riddled with contradictions; the belief that one`s cause has been blessed or even commanded by God; and the use of reinforcement techniques, such as repetition, to spread one`s message.

Sound like anyone you know? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, come on down!

According to Doidge, one of the essential features of fanatics is their certainty that not only is their cause good "but that it is the only good, an absolute good." Or, as President Bush famously declared: "There is no in-between, as far as I`m concerned. Either you`re with us or you`re against us."

This absolute intolerance of dissent, Doidge says, often extends beyond the fanatics` enemies, frequently leading to a "campaign of terror" against those within their own ranks. If you`re wondering what this has to do with the Bush administration, you might want to give a call to GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio. After having the temerity to question the wisdom of the president`s massive tax-cut plan, the senatorial pair became the targets of withering TV attack ads, sponsored by allies of the White House, that portrayed them as "so-called Republicans" and compared their opposition to the latest round of tax cuts to France`s opposition against the war in Iraq.

Another crucial element of a fanatic`s faith, according to professor Dixon Sutherland, who teaches religion at Stetson University in Florida, is that he "sees himself as acting for God. You have a circular logic that is very powerful that combines God`s authority — through the Bible — with a messenger who carries out that authority."

Tom DeLay, for example, saw the 2000 election as a choice between a "biblical worldview" and the worldview of "humanism, materialism, sexism, naturalism, post-modernism or any of the other -isms." And the Republican Party, of course, represented the biblical worldview, God and all things good.

Gustav le Bon, a social scientist known for his theories on crowd psychology, has stressed the importance of repetition as a weapon in the fanatic`s arsenal. Repetition breeds blind acceptance and contagion. And James Moore, coauthor of "Bush`s Brain," notes that "if the president says it over and over, enough people will believe it, just as Karl Rove got him to say over and over that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11."

The technique was so successful that one poll showed 66% of Americans believed that Hussein and Osama bin Laden were both behind the attacks.

Wonder why the WMD are MIA? The answer may lie in the DSM — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I know it can sound a bit cheap to call people you disagree with nuts, which is why I refer you to the psychiatric literature. Just keep an open mind, something the Bush crowd stopped doing a long time ago.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com In A Wal-Mart Kind Of Hell
Censored magazines, banned music and pseudo-Christian fun at America`s scariest retailer
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



Stop. You`ve found it. This is the place. Americana HQ. Patriotism in a giant tin bucket. This is where souls recoil, children wail, dreams die.

This is Wal-Mart. The glorious consumer mecca, the epic wonderland/wasteland of prefab landfill merch, not only the world`s largest and most powerful retailer and the most aggressive snarling frightening happy-place marketer and quite possibly the most hideously overlit soul-draining monster empire you will ever know in your entire lifetime, but also the very multibillion-dollar pseudo-Christian kingdom that censors their offerings and refuses to sell certain music CDs and bans "risqué" beer-`n`-babes mags like Maxim and FHM and Stuff, because, you know, pretty girls are evil.

And Wal-Mart just recently decided to cover up the covers of other, less garish but apparently equally "naughty" women`s mags like Elle and Cosmo (which, BTW, is owned by Hearst, as is SFGate) and Mademoiselle due to racy or suggestive images -- but will not, presumably, cover up the truly dangerous and psychologically debilitating mags like Better Homes & Gardens, Mary-Kate and Ashley and Cake Decorating & Dog Mange Monthly. Go figure.

We must try to focus. We must zero in. Innumerable are the intellectual insults and karmic assaults Wal-Mart represents, and hence we shall concentrate on the censorship issue. Because it matters. We wish it didn`t. But it does.

It might seem mild. It might seem innocuous, this magazine cover-up, this prosaic Bible-lickin` censorship, merely representing Wal-Mart`s ostensible pro-family nightmarish dystopian mega-ethos of perky corporate sweatshop happiness and their infamous claim that they are merely responding to their customers` wishes when they remove products, block out words, cover up those horrible boobies.

People complain, they claims, customers call in and bitch that their kid might`ve seen a racy magazine cover and asked one too many questions about just what "orgasm" or maybe "pleasure" or even "happiness" means, and the parent was all flustered and humiliated and confused and hence Wal-Mart, being the good falsely sanctimonious citizen, not wanting to offend the American Family, covers up the mags or removes them entirely. How thoughtful.

Except there`s a bit more to it than that. Except the groups that complain about the mags are often the same ones that cheer Wal-Mart`s censorship decisions, groups like the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association (AFA), one of those desperately hyper-Christian anti-choice anti-gay anti-porn asexual pseudo-ethical groups representing "traditional" family values -- like, you know, massive reeling intolerance. And hellfire. And the end of icky tongue kissing.

And, of course, the safety of America`s checkout lanes. This is what they really care about. Because as we all know, if there`s one overlooked extant hot spot of debased American culture, it`s our unbridled freewheelin` checkout lanes. Shield your eyes, little Timmy, it`s the new issue of Glamour. Gasp.

Of course it shouldn`t matter. Of course we shouldn`t care. There is no shortage of Maxims or Cosmos in the world, and if you don`t like Wal-Mart, hey, don`t shop there, and if you live in one of the smallish Midwest towns the gluttonous and voracious Walton family hell-beast has invaded like a plague and you have no real remaining shopping options because Wal-Mart has killed all the small family-owned competition, well, too bad for you.

Here is why it matters. Here is why you should care. Because Wal-Mart is not merely a store. Wal-Mart is not merely a hollow and deeply frightening Christian-values mega-retailer that makes you feel like you need a karmic shower and soul de-lousing immediately upon exiting the vacuum-sealed whooshing glass doors.

Wal-Mart shapes ideas. They affect mind-sets. They influence cultural perspectives. This is frightening and wrong. They ban (or "sanitize") the latest Marilyn Manson CD? They don`t carry Maxim? Then for 100 million benumbed Wal-Mart regulars, Marilyn and Maxim might as well not even exist. Why not choose a nice issue of, say, Guns & Ammo and the new Shania Twain instead? There there, Timmy. Now hush up and let Daddy buy some bullets and a vat of Cheez Doodles.

Do you understand? Do you see the danger? That`s 100 million customers per year, $200 billion in annual sales, 3,000 stores and growing fast, and isn`t it just wickedly telling that the state with the largest number of Wal-Marts in the entire country is, by a wide, wide margin, Texas? Pretty much says it all, really.

Wal-Mart manipulates the culture. They represent a type of cultural myopia and a prefab brand of hollow sexless Americana and a value system that does nothing to promote any core conviction you genuinely care about, and censorship decisions like theirs are a threat to all that is good and sexy and alternative and righteous and naked and I don`t care how cheesy sexist frat-boy stupid Maxim magazine is, its message isn`t 1/100th as poisonous or dangerous as much of the deleterious junk Wal-Mart hawks, the AFA lifestyle they endorse.

Let`s put it this way. Wal-Mart is all too happy to pummel customers with mountains of toxic processed foods and Teen People and giant tins of barbecued popcorn and sweatshop-made T-shirts and gaudy porcelain-clown bookends and giant bins full of stuffed teddy bears made in Malaysia.

All well and good. Hey, they`re a discount retailer, after all. Horrible landfill merchandise and giant ads for Doritos and tons upon tons of plastic crap you really don`t need intermixed with a few things you actually do, and deep deep deep this nation is in a BushCo recession so of course Wal-Mart is flourishing.

Of course, they also sell guns. Did we mention the guns? Oh yes. How`s that for a message -- hey kids, don`t look at the impossibly pretty half-naked Photoshopped model on the cover of Elle because your undereducated little mind might get corrupted and you`re just not ready for the word "sex" in bold 48-point Helvetica. But here, have a nice Remington .22. Now scamper off and go kill something, sweetie.

Wal-Mart is, in short, deciding what America needs based on the shockingly uptight whims and intolerant perspectives of the hard Right. This is why you should worry. This is why you should care. The arbiter of taste for much of the country is not the media. It is not the movies. It is not Britney or Keanu or MTV.

It is a giant suckass superstore, one that aggressively works every single day to drain out any semblance of voice or personality or alternative viewpoint and works harder than any other company in the nation to kowtow to the masses and keep the nation in a nice big hole of casual blind lockstep sameness without the nation even knowing any better. Ah, just like BushCo. Just like America.

Except, you know, cheaper.


. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.

[Joerver]

What are Americans dying for now?
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/169/oped/What_are_American…

By Derrick Z. Jackson, 6/18/2003

IL IS TO DIE for. More to the point, oil is precious enough for the government to send off your children, your husbands, your wives, your partners, your brothers, and your sisters to die for. That is a rapidly escalating conclusion as American soldiers continue to die at the rate of one a day in Iraq without destruction have been found. What we do have are sniper shootings, grenade attacks, and the deaths of nearly 50 US soldiers 48 days after Bush said major combat operations were over in Iraq.


On May 1, Bush said, ``We`ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.``

Seven weeks later and with no vile vials in hand, Bush gave a speech Monday in Elizabeth, N.J., where he did not make a single reference to weapons of mass destruction. Instead, Bush chose to distract Americans from his Nixonian erasing of his justification for war by criticizing his critics as ``revisionist historians.``

Meanwhile, Bush`s fellow Republicans in Congress were suppressing history by fighting any formal investigation into the possible cooking of intelligence to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Their job, for the time being is being made a piece of cake by a Democratic Party that cannot spell the term ``opposition party`` if you spotted them all the o`s and p`s.

As the Republicans sit on the intelligence, as Democrats sit on their thumbs, and as Americans plan summer vacations depending on the cheapest gasoline for the biggest cars in the world, our soldiers - many of them teenagers - are halfway around the world, taking bullets for a mission that is rapidly losing meaning - at least the stated meaning.

Oh, yes, a lot of angry e-mails attempt to remind us ``revisionist historians`` that the current absence of weapons of mass destruction really does not matter because the mass graves of Iraqis who were brutally murdered by Saddam proves the humanitarian aspect of the invasion was still worth it. That does not hold up.

We went to Somalia a decade ago for what was supposed to be a humanitarian mission, after 300,000 people died in war and starvation. We fled within months of a failed raid by Army Rangers that ended in the deaths of 18 soldiers and the searing photographs of the corpse of a US soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.

Back then, the call for the United States to get out of Somalia was stunningly bipartisan. Since the White House was then occupied by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, it was no surprise that Republicans leaped on the sad turn of events, with Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico saying, ``We can`t continue in that quagmire.`` Then-congresswoman Olympia Snowe of Maine, now a senator, said, ``I cannot express my disgust at watching on television the treatment of our soldiers.... There really isn`t a reason for the US to be in Somalia now.``

The criticism was just as blunt from many Democrats. ``If you asked all 535 members of Congress today, almost all of them would say let`s get out of Somalia now,`` said Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

``More and more senators are saying, `We gave them food, we gave them medicine, and now they`re shooting at us. Let`s get out,``` said Senator John Breaux of Louisiana.

Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey said, ``I think we ought to leave now.`` Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia said, ``Americans by the dozens are paying with their lives and limbs for a misplaced policy.... Let`s vote and get out.``

When it came to Somalia, Dole asked: ``What is our purpose? What is the cost? And how long do we stay?`` A decade later, the same question should apply. In the Iraq invasion we lost 139 soldiers, according to the Pentagon, while 3,240 Iraqi civilians had died as of the most recent counting by the Associated Press. The AP said the final toll is sure to be much higher. Now, nearly another 50 soldiers have died in nebulous situations that range from justifiable self-defense to dubious overreactions more reminiscent of the shootings of American students and rioters by National Guardsmen in the 1960s.

On May 1, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that ``one of the most successful military campaigns ever waged`` displayed to the world ``a new American way of war.`` The new American way is already dissolving into a disgusting result that has grown old in the half-century after World War II - a quagmire. It is about time to ask why we accept a quagmire for Iraq when we would not do it for Somalia.

Without the weapons of mass destruction, it has to be for the oil.

Derrick Z. Jackson`s e-mail address is [e-mail].

This story ran on page A15 of the Boston Globe on 6/18/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

A triumph of ignorance or manipulation?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mtexpress.com/2003/03-06-18/03-06-18murphy.htm
Commentary by Pat Murphy

Night owls who take in Jay Leno’s "Tonight Show" won’t be surprised by a poll revealing startling ignorance about the war in Iraq.

Leno’s occasional street-people feature, "Jaywalking," pops simple questions on seemingly uninformed young adults.

Answers are sadly indicative of profound ignorance.

After looking at a photo of the Alamo, for example, one Jaywalking guest said it is "King Tut’s tomb."

A photo of the iconic World War II flag-raising on Iwo Jima was seen as "landing on the moon" to another.

A humiliating moment involved a college student planning a teaching career--she didn’t know how many dimes are in a dollar.

So what’s the connection to a poll?

After interviewing 1,256 American adults, the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes found:

· one-third believe U.S. troops have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although, none have been found yet.

· 22 percent said Iraqi troops actually used chemical or biological weapons on U.S. forces. They didn’t.

This ignorance is partly garden variety inattention to current affairs.

But much is a tribute to President Bush’s spin machine, according to Thomas Mann, of the Brookings Institution. "The public is susceptible to manipulation. . . ."

Said Mann: "Tapping into the feelings and fears after Sept. 11 is a way to sell a policy." Bush & Co. filled the air with dark claims of imminent Iraqi use of apocalyptic weapons against the world.

A majority seems indifferent to whether attacking Iraq was justified by hype and distortion. Instead, they accept the war as humanitarian.

If so many are uninformed about going to war or they swallow political spin so easily, are they just as blank about decisions plunging America into deeper debt and deficits, about police powers over their lives by the hyperbolically named Patriot Act?

Now, the question of impeachment has cropped up.

An expert, John Dean, White House counsel during Watergate and one of those who helped bring down President Nixon, hints at the possibility.

"If Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information," Dean writes June 6 on the Web site www.FindLaw.com, "he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be ‘a high crime’ under the Constitution`s impeachment clause.

"(W)hen Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security.

"The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war."

But even if true, would the Republican Congress regard lying to go to war as nefarious as lying about sex with a White House intern and would it spend $60 million investigating a Republican president as they did his Democratic predecessor?

[Joerver]

Try Telling Clark He’s Not a Patriot
by Joe Conason

http://www2.observer.com/observer/pages/conason.asp

From the awful autumn of 2001 to the triumphal photo op on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln this spring, Karl Rove’s strategy has been consistent and clear: run every campaign as a referendum on the "wartime" presidency of George W. Bush. That plan has succeeded in mitigating the inherent political weaknesses of the Bush administration, and in concealing the damage done to American security by its foreign and security policies.

Mr. Rove must almost be grateful for the continuing cooperation of the opposition party, whose confused, hesitant reactions have lent Mr. Bush more credibility than he has earned. Of course, the Democrats are in a trick bag. If they criticize the President’s conduct of the war on terrorism, they’re smeared as unpatriotic; if they endorse his policies, then why should anyone vote for the Democrats in an era of national peril?

That quandary reflects deeper problems and divisions within the Democratic Party. Unless they can mount a Presidential campaign that addresses valid concerns about terrorism and security and confronts the Republican appeal to those fears, they will be unable to exploit the President’s poor record on domestic issues.

Of the current hopefuls, John Kerry possesses both a sterling military record and an extensive Senate record in foreign policy. Those were among the reasons why Al Gore almost selected the Massachusetts Senator as his running mate in 2000. He has demonstrated a powerful capacity to stand up against the Republican tactic of questioning the loyalty of their opponents, a gambit that would boomerang badly if used against this decorated Navy captain.

But while Mr. Kerry has made a strong start, partly by articulating the most thoughtful critique of Bush policies, he has lately gotten bogged down in sniping with Howard Dean, the highly competitive anti-war candidate. The Republicans plan to caricature Mr. Kerry as an "elitist liberal" like Michael Dukakis, the last nominee from the Bay State.

All those factors explain the sudden appeal of Wesley Clark, the retired general, television commentator and political flirt who has yet to declare his interest in the Presidency or even his partisan affiliation. In theory, he personifies the Democratic answer to the Rove strategy. A native Arkansan, Mr. Clark graduated first in his class from West Point, won several service decorations, went to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, and completed his Army career with victory in Kosovo and four stars as supreme allied commander of NATO. Aside from Mr. Kerry, he is the only candidate with real military experience—and that includes both the incumbent President and the Vice President, each of whom found a way to avoid their generation’s war.

Smart and telegenic, Mr. Clark easily transcends the old stereotype of the Southern military man. He supports abortion rights and affirmative action. His opinions about tax cuts, health care, education and the environment are all well within the progressive Democratic consensus. Speaking as a career Army officer, he might be able to persuade independent voters who tend to be suspicious of traditional Democrats.

In his 2001 book, Waging Modern War, he explains his liberal stance simply but effectively. "I grew up in an armed forces that treated everyone as a valued member of the team. Everyone got health care, and the army cared about the education of everyone’s family members. It wasn’t the attitude that you find in some places, where people are fending for themselves and the safety net doesn’t work."

More significant than Mr. Clark’s views on domestic policy are his willingness and capacity to speak out credibly against the Bush administration’s security policies. During his stint as a CNN commentator on the Iraq conflict, he skillfully critiqued Pentagon strategy and White House diplomacy without getting himself singed.

In an interview with The American Prospect magazine last March, he articulated an outlook that would serve the Democrats well. "Terrorism is a multilateral problem," he told Michael Tomasky. "You cannot defeat it in one nation. You need international police work, teamwork, international harmonization of laws against terror. You act unilaterally, you lose the commitment of your allies to make it work. That’s the one thing that will kill you in the war on terrorism." To him, America represents "the embodiment of the Enlightenment," which calls for "a foreign policy of generosity, humility, engagement, and of course force where it is needed. But as a last resort."

Both Mr. Clark and the nascent movement to draft him may already have missed their moment. He was expected to announce an exploratory committee two months ago. Back in his home state, some Democrats suspect he is actually running for Vice President. He would be more than an adornment to any Presidential ticket next year.

And whatever the merits of all the other candidates, it would badly complicate Mr. Rove’s "patriotic" strategy if Messrs. Bush and Cheney were required to confront not one but two progressive Democrats who served in Vietnam.

You may reach Joe Conason via email at: [e-mail].

This column ran on page 5 in the 6/23/2003 edition of The New York Observer.

[Joerver]

Bush World: Bush Applies Bad Philosophy To Fabricated Problems
http://www.bushwatch.net/bushh.htm

Dr. Gerry Lower< Keysone, South Dakota
Bush Watch, www.bushwatch.com

There is an old aphorism which states that all good philosophy begins with the Here and Now. That is true insofar as good philosophy starts with recognition of actual problems in the Here and Now. Good philosophy then proceeds to explain the What, How and Why of those problems by examining their natural history and evolution with an eye toward comprehending causation. Solutions, preferably preventive, involve intervention with specific processes involved in either causation or œ course in the overall causal fabric.
Translation: If you have rats in the house, you best be learning how they are getting in so that you can implement an effective preventive intervention (which provides a much cleaner solution than buying rat poison as an after-the-horrible-fact therapy.

Although good philosophy does start with the Here and Now, this does not imply at all that the Here and Now is a good place to be. Sometimes it is not so bad and sometimes it is not so good, as a function of prevailing political realities. In the physical sense, the Here and Now is the only place possible to be. In the philosophical sense, the Here and Now is where to begin but it is the worst place to be, because solutions to problems require thinking outside of this tiny box in which time is not particularly relevant. All western religious world views are built upon the ancient Hebrew Here and Now, where time is not a serious consideration. Indeed, the western world did not really get into the concept of time until Galileo figured out a way to measure small amounts of it in order to comprehend ballistics.

Most Americans, of course, are intimately familiar with the Here and Now. We have been, since World War II, raised to live mostly in that world, as if there were no yesterday and maybe no tomorrow, and certainly no source of nourishment apart from money. In this highly exclusionary world, we are lost from our own roots and we have, therefore, no vision. We are proud American pragmatists, so savvy and self-assured by our wealth and dominion that we do not need to ask Why questions anymore. Life in the Here and Now prevents its inhabitants from learning anything, for millennia on end, since every morning they get up, they are back in the Here and Now, no necessary relationships to yesterday, therefore no plan for tomorrow.

But there is, of course, always a Why beneath every situation in this world and if we fail to examine and adduce that Why, we simply end up having someone else`s Why imposed upon us, e.g., the Why beneath Bush`s pre-meditated, pre-emptive war on Iraq, a Why that is properly impossible for honest, thoughtful and caring people to abide. Getting a realistic handle on Why is a function of how much time we are willing to embrace in our thought, whether or not we are embracing adequate time to encompass causation.

THE HERE AND NOW VIEW: From the narrow perspectives of the Here and Now, our current situation in America is seen as just a continuation of post World War II capitalism, Republicans versus Democrats. In this view, nothing has really changed in America and nothing ever will. The political pendulum will eventually swing back Demward and we will return to some sort of capitalistic "normalcy." In the meantime, we will ride out Bush`s dalliance with neo-imperialism for better or worse.

Neither of these potential outcomes derived from Here and Now views is likely to be an option for America, given the despotic nature of current "leadership." Yet, here is where most Americans typically remain with their heads, not seeing at all the historical and evolutionary enormity of our current American problems. In effect, most Americans keep themselves removed from any and all larger levels of awareness that threaten the utility of denial and ignorance and the religious ground upon which they justify themselves, time frames that threaten the Here and Now views that sustain the "American Way."

THE HISTORICAL VIEW: From larger historical perspectives embracing the past two centuries of American democracy, our current situation is seen as the culmination of the battle between American (Jeffersonian) values speaking on behalf of democracy and the people and British (Hamiltonian) values speaking on behalf of profits and the corporate aristocracy. Hamiltonian values have now totally eclipsed Jeffersonian values and American Democracy is in a state of full crisis, having come full circle to reside upon the despotic ground from which it extracted itself 200 years ago. For Democracy to prevail, as it will, right wing political philosophy will have to discredit itself in American eyes. In launching its preemptive war on Iraq, the right wing has already accomplished this in everyone`s eyes but their own.

THE EVOLUTIONARY VIEW: From larger evolutionary perspectives embracing the past two millennia of western cultural evolution, our current situation is seen as the culmination of the battle between Science and nascent Christianity (empiricism) and Religion (vengeance-based transcendentalism). Because Democracy is the political philosophy of Science, it is reassuring to recall that Science has never lost a battle to religion in explaining how the world works. For Science to prevail as a pan-cultural human knowledge base, as it will, supernatural religion will have to discredit itself in the eyes of the world. In driving the bulk of all political violence, the three supernatural branches of western religion, i.e., Judaism, Islamism and "compassionate" conservatism ("American" neo-JudeoRomanism) have already accomplished this in everyone`s eyes but their own.

Insofar as good philosophy begins with the Here and Now, we can also ask where bad philosophy begins. With the Bush administration as a proud exemplar, one can state immediately that bad philosophy begins with the failure to recognize actual problems in the Here and Now (especially those problems resulting from one`s own policies) and with the fabrication of non-existent problems in the Here and Now (especially those problems which coerce the people`s support). As a result, actual problems go ignored (e.g., terrorism) and manufactured problems (e.g., war on Iraq) waste our national time, effort and resources, not to mention our good name.

Knowledge of causation in Bush world is restricted to "timeless" (see what I mean) supernatural religious understandings of good and evil. The cause of moral decay in America is seen as the result of the (necessary) American departure from traditional religious values (e.g., absolutism, despotism). America, we are told, needs to return to religious despotism in order to restore American morality in the form of enforced legal/penal code. This "logic" says that we must eliminate Jefferson`s Christian wall ("Render unto Caesar ...") between church and state , we must destroy religious freedom in order to impose neo-JudeoRomanism on the people in the name of a "controlled" American society. It would never occur to these fools that the moral decay of America is more related to capitalism`s ludicrous notions of fairness and decency and its devastating impact on working people and their families.

Having no causal grasp of actual problems (e.g., greed-driven capitalism`s creation of the largest gap between haves and have nots in human history), bad philosophy then proceeds to apply failed religious attitudes and approaches to solve fabricated problems (e.g., self-righteous lies and fabrications in legitimizing preemptive war on Iraq).

In other words, bad philosophy begins with failed old ideas employed to solve Here and Now problems that are only percieved to exist or are fabricated into existence, all the while that actual problems go ignored. Now, that is truly bad philosophy, essentially a greed-driven and power-driven psychosis characteristic of those driven by fundamentalist western religion.

The problem resides in how we Americans are looking at the problem, the nature of which is a function of how much time we embrace in our thought. The further we get from the Here and Now, the deeper and broader is our understanding of the current American situation.

The Bush administration is literally locked into the ancient Hebrew Here and Now where the history of religion and Science and Democracy will not get in their way. Having lived in that tiny world for decades as a result of capitalism`s imposition of relative mindlessness, it has been easy to coerce most Americans into Here and Now support.

The further we remove our thought from the Here and Now, the more significance must be assigned to our current situation. The further we remove our thought from the Here and Now, the uglier the Bush administration becomes, as it plays out its self-assigned religious role to eliminate evil in the world, ultimately eliminating vengeance-based religion, crony capitalism and itself. --06.18.03

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Weapons Of Mass Stupidity
Fox News hits a new lowest common denominator

BY HAL CROWTHER

http://www.weeklyplanet.com/current/cover.html
It`s the inviolable first rule of democracy that all politicians will praise the wisdom of the people -- an effusive flattery that intensifies when they ask "the people" to swallow something exceptionally inedible. What the people never hear from anyone, or from anyone with further ambitions, is the truth. If a public figure wishes to leave the stage forever, a sound strategy is to offer his fellow citizens a candid and disparaging assessment of their intelligence.

In the aftermath of the conquest of Iraq, as we awake to the bewildering possibility of a United States of Asia, the patriotic pageantry and premature gloating call to mind an obsession that once gripped the great French novelist Gustave Flaubert. (In my recklessness I ignore the halfwit embargo on all things French.) Flaubert, according to W.G. Sebald, became convinced that his own work and his own brain had been infected by a national epidemic of stupidity, a relentless tide of gullibility and muddled thinking which made him feel, he said, as if he were sinking into sand.

At his low point, Flaubert convinced himself that everything he had written had been contaminated and "consisted solely of a string of the most abysmal errors and lies." Sometimes he lay on his couch for months, frozen with the dread that anything he wrote would only extend Stupidity`s domain. Flaubert became a scholar of moronic utterances, painstakingly collecting hundreds of what he called betises -- stupidities -- and arranging them in his Dictionary of Received Opinions.

The wondrous blessing God bestowed on Gustave Flaubert -- and on America`s own great chroniclers of contagious stupidity, Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken -- is that they lived and died without imagining a thing like Fox News. It`s easy to laugh at Rupert Murdoch`s outrageous mongrel, the impossible offspring of supermarket tabloids, sitcom news spoofs, police-state propaganda mills and the World Wrestling Federation.

Fox News is an oxymoron and Cheech and Chong would have made a more credible team of war correspondents than Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North. Neither Saturday Night Live nor the 1973 film Network, Paddy Chayefsky`s corrosive satire of TV news, could even approach the comic impact of Geraldo embedded, or of Fox`s pariah parade, its mothball fleet of experts who always turn out to be disgraced or indicted Republican refugees. If Ed Meese, Newt Gingrich and Elliott Abrams couldn`t fill your sails with mirth, you could count on the recently deposed Viceroy of Virtue and High Regent of Rectitude, my old schoolmate Blackjack Bill Bennett.

With its red-faced, hyperventilating reactionaries and slapstick abuse of lame "liberal" foils who serve them as crash dummies, Fox News could easily be taken as pure entertainment, even as inspired burlesque of the rightwing menagerie. But the problem -- in fact, the serious problem -- is that Fox isn`t kidding, and brownshirts aren`t funny.

Harper`s reports that Fox commentator Bill O`Reilly became so infuriated by the son of a Sept. 11 victim who opposed the war -- "I`m against it and my father would have been against it, too" -- that he cursed the man and even threatened him off-camera. A Fox TV anchor, one Neil Cavuto, celebrated the fall of Baghdad by informing all of us who opposed the war in March, "You were sickening then, you are sickening now." If reports are accurate, these troubled men are neither bad journalists nor even bad actors portraying journalists -- they`re mentally unbalanced individuals whose partisan belligerence is pressing them to the brink of psychosis.

But the scariest thing about Fox and Rupert Murdoch, the thing that renders them all fear and no fun in a time of national crisis, is that they channel for the Bush administration as faithfully as if they were on the White House payroll. Like no other substantial media outlet in American history, Fox serves -- voluntarily -- as the propaganda arm of a controversial, manipulative, image-obsessed government. To watch its war coverage for even a minute was to grind your teeth convulsively at each Orwellian repetition of the Newspeak mantra, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I swear I hate to stoop to Nazi analogies; but if Joseph Goebbels had run his own cable channel, it would have been indistinguishable from Fox News.

Fox`s truculent patriotism is misleading, of course. Rupert Murdoch is not exactly an American patriot, he`s not even exactly an American. Though he became an American citizen in 1985 (solely to qualify, under U.S. law, as the owner of a TV network), the Australian Murdoch was already 54 and his tabloid formula had already polluted the media mainstreams in Australia and Great Britain. Murdoch is an insatiable parasite, a vampirish lamprey who fastens himself to English-speaking nations and grows fat on their cultural lifeblood, leaving permanently degraded media cultures in his wake. Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip, naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he contaminates. And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into his mix for good measure. ("He tried so hard to use race to sell his newspapers that he became known as `Tar Baby` Murdoch," Jimmy Breslin once charged.)

Murdoch`s repulsive formula has proven irresistible from Melbourne to Manhattan, and now, by satellite, he`s softening up Beijing. His great fortune rests on his wager that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to the core. In America today, it`s hard to say whether Rupert Murdoch is an agent, or merely a beneficiary, of the cultural leprosy that`s consuming us. But the conspicuous success of Fox News, lamentable in the best of times, is devastating in a shell-shocked nation that sees itself at war.

It is and has always been true, in Samuel Johnson`s famous words, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- by which, of course, Dr. Johnson meant patriotism as a political and rhetorical weapon, not as a private emotion. Belittling other people`s patriotism to achieve political leverage is the lowest road a public scoundrel can travel, the road where neo-conservative meets neo-fascist. In flag-frenzied Fox, an unscrupulous administration found a blunt object ready-made to hammer its critics.

Years ago in Moscow, at the dawn of perestroika, a pair of Russian journalists showed me headlines from the New York Post that made Kruschchev`s "We will bury you" sound like "Have a nice day." How can there ever be peace, they asked me, if America hates us so much? Handicapped by the yawning gap between our respective press traditions, I tried to explain that the Post had nothing to do with our government or even the American media machine, that it was owned by an Australian whose Red-baiting and saber-rattling was an act designed to sell newspapers to morons. That he was unconnected to our government was something I believed about Murdoch in 1984, though no doubt Ronald Reagan was eager to naturalize a lonely immigrant with billions to invest in right-wing media.

But now? Is it sheer coincidence that the president`s stage manager, Greg Jenkins -- responsible for the notorious flight-suit landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, and for posing George Bush against Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty -- was recently a producer at Fox News?

If these elaborate tableaus Jenkins choreographs for President Bush seem clumsy, tasteless, condescending and insulting to your intelligence, you must be some kind of liberal. They bear an uncanny family resemblance to the red-white-and-blue show at Fox News, and heavy-handedness has never harmed its ratings, nor the president`s either.

How stupid are we, finally, how easy to fool? Fox News is run by the insidious Roger Ailes -- image merchant for Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior, producer for Rush Limbaugh, newsman never -- and Fox is not what it seems to be. It`s not a news service, certainly, nor even the sincere voice of low-rent nationalism. It`s a calculated fraud, like the president who ducked the draft during Vietnam, and even welshed on his National Guard commitment, but who puts on a flight suit stenciled "Commander-in-chief" and plays Douglas MacArthur on network TV.

"I almost choked," said my mother`s friend Doris, who`s 90. "I had to lie down." It`s possible that even old George Bush, who served with distinction in World War II, had to stifle a groan over that one.

The invasion of Iraq was in no way what it seemed to be, either. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His "weapons of mass destruction" remain invisible, his terrorist connections remain unproven, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Most cynical of all was the "liberation" lie, the administration`s sudden concern for the helpless citizens of Iraq. Saddam, as grotesque as he was, wasn`t getting any meaner, and "liberators" like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were doing brisk business with him when he was in his murderous, citizen-eating prime (and in Cheney`s case, as recently as 1999). It would take half a page to list all the U.S.-sanctioned dictators, killers of their people, who will be sharing hell`s hottest corner with Saddam Hussein.

Liars with secret agendas are treating Americans like frightened children. If that sounds like a cry from the Left, get a transcript of Sen. Robert Byrd`s remarks to the Senate on May 21. Byrd, nobody`s liberal by any stretch of the imagination, accuses the White House of constructing "a house of cards, built on deceit," to justify its war on Iraq.

According to polls, at least half of us were so eager to be deceived, we believed the one lie Bush never dared to tell us, except by implication: that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to a CNN poll, 51 percent believe this -- "The Moron Majority," declares the headline in The Progressive Populist. And at that point, like poor Flaubert, I feel the sand around my ankles. I want to lie down and give up. On the wall above my bed of pain, two familiar quotations: "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time" -- Albert Einstein; and "Perhaps the universe is nothing but an equilibrium of idiocies." -- George Santayana.

It violates democratic etiquette to call your fellow citizens "idiots." (Unless they`re liberals -- "We all agree that liberals are stupid," writes Charles Krauthammer.) Fortunately, the PC wordworks has coined a new euphemism to replace the ugly word "retarded." It`s "intellectually disabled," and we have it just in time. How else could we describe a majority that accepts the logic of "supporting the troops"? Protest as I might, a local columnist explained to me, once the soldiers are "locked and cocked" I owe them not only my prayers for their safe deliverance but unqualified endorsement of their mission, no matter how immoral and ill-advised it may seem to me.

According to this woeful logic, whoever controls the armed forces in the country where you live owns your conscience and your soul. It mandates unanimous civilian support for King Herod`s soldiers smashing Hebrew babies against doorposts. It holds our soldiers hostage to silence our common sense, independent judgment and moral autonomy -- the foundations of each thinking individual`s self-respect, not to mention the foundations of every theory of democratic government.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," said President Theodore Roosevelt.

They don`t make Republicans like they used to. The troop-support doctrine, so universally and smugly conceded, is logic for the intellectually disabled, for people who`ve been hit in the head repeatedly with a heavy shovel. The stupidity of those who buy it is no more astonishing than the hypocrisy of those who sell it -- Republicans who preach our sacred duty to the army`s morale and simultaneously cancel $15-billion in veteran`s benefits and 60 percent of federal education subsidies for servicemen`s children. If you can`t believe that, look it up.

When is it too late to wake the sleeping masses? When a Fox TV show for amateur entertainers turns up more voters than Congressional elections? The marriage of television and propaganda may well have been the funeral of reason. In the meantime, Iraq is a bloody mess and Afghanistan a tragic mess, and most of the earth`s 1-billion Muslims think the U.S. and Israel are trying to conquer their world and destroy their religion. America`s economy is suffocating ("A sickly economy with no cure in sight," says this morning`s paper), her currency is in free fall and her reputation flies below half mast on every continent. We`ve been instructed to hate the French, our allies since the days of Lafayette, because they dared to tell us the truth.

What our best friends think of us is epitomized by a new play in Paris titled George W. Bush, or God`s Sad Cowboy. Another in London is called The Madness of George Dubya. Our only original enemies, the terrorists of Al-Qaeda, seem to be thriving -- and quite naturally gaining recruits. There`s a chilling suspicion that major architects of our current foreign policy are insane. Listen to Bush adviser Richard Perle, known since his Reagan years as the Prince of Darkness: "If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don`t try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war [my italics], our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Is that the children I hear singing, or the madhouse choir? (Calling Dr. Strangelove. . .) But polls tell us that through all the wars and lies and logical meltdowns that followed Sept. 11, 70 percent of adult America declared itself well satisfied and well served.

"I think it is terrifying," said the late Bishop Paul Moore, a Yale aristocrat who, like most mainstream clergymen, did not support the Bush wars. "I believe it will lead us to a terrible crack in the whole culture as we have come to know it."

I believe it has, and I believe that the split between liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican is inconsequential compared to the real fracture line, between Americans who try to think clearly and those who will not or cannot. What hope, a cynical friend teased me, for a country where 70 percent believe in angels, 60 percent believe in literal, biblical, blazing Armageddon, and more than half reject Charles Darwin? He didn`t need to add that creationists, science-annihilating cretins, have now recruited President Bush, who assures fundamentalists he "has doubts" about evolution.

Whether the president is that dumb or merely that dishonest is beside the point. He knows his constituency. New research published by the National Academy of Sciences asserts that human beings and chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of their DNA. Would the polls (or the elections) change if subjects had to submit to DNA tests to prove they possess the qualifying .6 percent? American readers have purchased 50-million copies of Tim LaHaye`s gonzo Apocalypse novels, still more evidence that what awaits the United States of America is not a physical but an intellectual Armageddon.

Was it dry, desert sand or quicksand that the despairing Flaubert imagined? When we look down, can we still see our knees? Novelist Michael Malone, a notorious optimist, offered a faint ray of hope when he urged me to ignore all the polls -- if the government has intimidated most of the media, he argued, what makes you think the polls are credible?

When the sand begins to grip us and no lifeline appears, we clutch at straws. Yet there`s anecdotal evidence that the polls could be wrong. Brownshirts targeted the Dixie Chicks, and they survived handsomely. At the Merle Watson bluegrass festival in rural Wilkes County, singer Laura Love ridiculed President Bush from the main stage and harvested thousands of cheers to perhaps a hundred catcalls. At a crowded bookstore in Charlottesville last month, I tossed aside the book I hoped to sell and read a white-knuckled antiwar essay I wrote in 1991. One woman walked out, but everyone else applauded and grinned at me. Come to think of it, nearly everyone I know hates these wars and these lies as much as I do.

Are we so few, or are the numbers we see part of the Bush-Fox disinformation campaign -- like Saddam`s missing uranium and his 25,000 liters of anthrax? This faint last hope will be tested in the presidential election of 2004. If the polls are right and Malone is wrong, as I fear, it`s going to be a long, sandy century for the United States of America, for our children and grandchildren and all those sweet singing children yet unborn.

Hal Crowther is the author of two collections of essays, Unarmed and Dangerous and Cathedrals of Kudzu, and a winner of the H.L. Mencken award for columnists. He contributes regularly to the Oxford American and to Creative Loafing in Charlotte, where this article first appeared.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

From Watergate To Weaponsgate


BuzzFlash.com provides progressive headlines, news and commentary to an audience of two million monthly visitors.


Editor`s Note: The following interview was published by BuzzFlash.com on June 17, 2003, and is reprinted with permission.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8128


Forever known as the man who "warned" Nixon of the "cancer on his presidency" (i.e., Watergate), John Dean has emerged as one of the most articulate analysts warning of the threats to our Constitutional and civil rights faced under the Bush administration and the right wing direction of the federal bench and Supreme Court. He is the author of many books, including The Rehnquist Choice.

In this interview, Dean further explains his thoughts on the accusations being made that George W. Bush engaged in official misconduct, and the implications for Bush and our country.


BuzzFlash: In a recent article in FindLaw.com, you wrote:

"In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. [...] To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be `a high crime` under the Constitution`s impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony `to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.`"

If investigating committees can prove that there was no reason to go to war at this time, at least not on the grounds that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat, Bush`s crimes would be considered far more reprehensible than Nixon`s. Based on your political and government experience, what`s your gut reaction about how this will play out? Do you think impeachment hearings are potentially possible? Particularly given Republican control of the House of Representatives, where impeachment proceedings would have to be initiated?

John Dean: Let me start from the end of your question and work back, addressing your last two sub-questions first. Given the fact that Republicans control the Congress, there is absolutely no chance, because of the way Bush has handled the matter of Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction, escalating into impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political proceeding, of quasi-legal nature. Republicans are not going to impeach their president. To the contrary, it is very clear they would defend him.

While the political soothsayers believe it a long shot, it is not impossible that the Democrats could regain control of Congress with the 2004 election, and should that happen it would be a different story. With that thought -- however remote -- in mind, let me address your "if" question. If an investigation established that the president had lied to Congress and the American people to take the country to war in Iraq, and that in fact Hussein did not pose an imminent threat, would that be "more reprehensible" than Nixon`s abuses of power?

Clearly it is more reprehensible than the abuses that fall under Watergate, which is a litany of activity that related to domestic matters. You will recall that there was an effort in 1973-74 to impeach Nixon for his unauthorized and secret bombing of Cambodia -- which resulted in untold deaths of innocent Cambodians. Nixon was charged with "false and misleading statements to the Congress" concerning that bombing. But the House Judiciary Committee`s impeachment inquiry did not address the question of the president`s lying, rather whether he had conducted an unlawful war.

By a vote of 26 to 12 the committee decided Nixon had not committed an impeachable offense, because he had informally informed a few select members of Congress of his action, and that he was acting within his powers as commander-in-chief to protect American troops in Vietnam. President Bush, of course, had Congressional authority, if not United Nations authority, for his actions in Iraq. But he certainly didn`t have authority to lie.

BuzzFlash: Could you explain the specific steps that would lead to charges being brought against Bush or anyone in his administration? What sort of evidence would be needed to prove that intelligence data was manipulated or misused? Would it have to be proven that Bush knew he was using lies to lead the American public into war? Would he be let off the hook if an aide said, "I withheld information from the president that he was assuring Americans about information that we knew was likely false, or knew to be a lie?"

Dean: Some of the most interesting evidence developed so far, which is public, has been largely ignored. It is the work of one of the country`s best investigative journalists -- who has not become part of the establishment. I am referring to the work of Sy Hersh in The New Yorker, specifically his essay "Selective Intelligence" in the May 12, 2003 issue.

Sy presents a powerful case that Rumsfeld`s team -- no doubt with Dick Cheney`s support -- knew what they wanted and managed to intimidate the rest of the intelligence community into agreeing with them. That they, in effect, had a pre-determined conclusion and simply ignored any and all information that conflicted with their conclusion. Needless to say, this is not intelligence gathering. Hersh`s work is precisely the type of information that can start opening up the closed doors. Indeed, Sy has done this before, and his work resulted in the revelatory hearings by the Senate (the Church Committee) and the House (the Pike Committee) during the mid-1970s. Sy doesn`t get it wrong very often, and if he does, he will be the first to say so.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees have scheduled what they are calling "reviews" of the pre-war intelligence. They are going through all the boxes of documents that have been given to them now, and then they will meet with witnesses. Unless the inter-agency/department internecine war between the Defense Department and the CIA, or the Defense Intelligence Agency and Rumsfeld`s Office of Special Plans erupts before one of these committees, I doubt much will surface. More likely, hard information -- if it exists -- will be uncovered by a reporter like Hersh, who has been digging and has a good source. That, I suspect, will be how any misconduct will be discovered.

To more specifically answer your question, it will take either documentary evidence, like e-mails or memoranda, or sworn testimony, to make a case of misconduct. There also may be recorded telephone conversations, because making such recordings is very common in the intelligence community, and it appears from some of the leaks that there is a good bit of typical bureaucratic "CYA" thinking going on. [Editor`s note: CYA refers to "cover your ass."]

What will have to occur is the entire pre-war period will need to be carefully reconstructed: Who said what to whom and when. Then it will be known if there was a deliberate, or improper, manipulation of the pre-war intelligence. Given George Bush`s executive style, and the fact that he has no background or experience with national security intelligence, the person I suspect has been guiding Bush through this is Cheney. Indeed, Cheney is to a war like a Dalmatian dog is to a fire: He wouldn`t miss it.

I have little doubt that Cheney is the player in the middle of all this intelligence business, but the likelihood of his testifying about it is nil. Dick Cheney is the most secretive man in government, the most powerful, and the most unaccountable with no responsibility other than to give the president behind-the-scenes help. I doubt we will ever know what transpired between Cheney and Bush; therefore, I doubt we will ever know the true story. I am reluctant to speculate further because whether Bush could defend himself by claiming he was not given the information will depend on the facts. We are still very, very early in the efforts to unravel all this. So no one should jump to any conclusions, even if the aroma has a bit of a stench about it.

BuzzFlash: If Bush manages to get away with starting on a war based on false information, what does this mean for future presidencies in terms of extending presidential powers?

Dean: It is a sad but unfortunate truth that our history is filled with examples of presidents misleading the country about wars. President Madison did not exactly lay all the facts and mixed motives on the table in seeking a declaration of war with England in 1812, nor did President Polk in leading the nation to war with Mexico in 1846. President McKinley glossed over facts when calling for war to "free" Cuba in 1898, just as President Wilson did in 1917 with World War I. President Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 with a pledge that American boys were not going to be sent into any foreign wars and President Lyndon Johnson used a similar ploy in 1964 regarding Vietnam.

It will be a sorry commentary if another president is added to this list, which I have only partially set forth. Yet historians and presidential scholars regularly have the highest historical praise for presidents who take us to war, regardless of how they do it -- not those who keep us out of war. This has always struck me as not only ironic, but moronic. It may be the best reason in the world to start electing women presidents, because that will end measuring presidents by their machismo -- although lots of Americans like Bush`s warmongering, and like our nation being a bully. The fact that such people have an aberrant gene is another story.

BuzzFlash: You had personal experience with the Watergate scandal, as the legal counsel to President Nixon. You warned him that there "was a cancer" on his presidency. Is there currently a "cancer" on the Bush presidency?

Dean: No signs of cancer, yet. But he certainly has a viral infection that could weaken his immune system.

BuzzFlash: In the FindLaw.com article, you identified six speeches in which Bush unequivocally stated that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons. Looking back, are you surprised that he spoke with such certitude? Clearly this was not merely an attempt at innuendo on his part.

Dean: Actually, I was stunned when I went back and pulled all of his pre-war statements about WMD. None of them is the slightest bit equivocal. To the contrary, he speaks like a man who has actually seen the weapons. These pre-war declarative statements make glaring his most recent statement where he now has become equivocal. His last public statement was that Iraq had "a weapons program." A program, of course, is only a plan, not actual possession. This is an inconsistent statement that calls into question his prior statements. While the White House has tried to spin it, the president’s latest statement effectively undercut all his prior statements.

As lawyers know, when a witness gives inconsistent statements it is said he or she has been impeached. Once a witness is impeached it takes additional evidence to rehabilitate that witness. What the White House needs to rehabilitate the president is obvious: They must find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or this president`s credibility is in trouble.

BuzzFlash: What about the responsibility of our elected officials to investigate Bush`s claims? How could members of Congress not have known about the shoddy intelligence and overwhelming flaws of Bush`s argument before jumping on the war bandwagon? Even before the Iraq war, some of the key pieces of Bush administration "evidence" against Iraq were being seriously challenged in the British press.

Dean: Absent a public outcry, Congress will do nothing. The only conception of "checks and balances" remaining in the Congressional conscience are campaign contribution checks, and whether they have met or exceeded the balance of the last campaign. While there are a few members of Congress trying to flush out the facts, like Congressman Henry Waxman, he is the exception, not the rule.

BuzzFlash: Though U.S. television programs like Nightline and several notable columnists have been on top of the "Where are the weapons?" story, the issue seems to be causing more of a stir in other countries, such as Britain. In America, it is generally still not a front-page story. After all, a recent poll indicated that more than 40 percent of Americans thought that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And Bush claimed that two mobile vans were WMD, despite evidence to the contrary. Is the American press asleep at the wheel?

Dean: No one knows better than BuzzFlash and its readers how this administration plays to public ignorance, and has become one of the most effective presidencies at manipulating the news media. It is remarkable that this story has run as many news cycles as it has. And it does pop up on the front page. On Sunday, June 15, The Los Angeles Times did a front page story, along with an extensive inside story on the missing WMD. But the implication of your question is correct. Let me explain:

In the aftermath of Watergate, the news media became highly vigilant of the presidency. Before Watergate, presidents were given the benefit of any doubts. After Watergate, they had to make their case, and quickly. But in late 2000, after the Florida election recount debacle, there was a collective mood change in the news media. While there are a few exceptions, as you mention, by and large, reporting has returned to its pre-Watergate status: Almost any news is more important than the potential of presidential failures or screw ups.

BuzzFlash: Finally, not even the Democratic leadership in Congress is making much of a deal about Bush misleading the nation. What would it take to move public opinion to the point that lying about going to war would be considered at least as impeachable an offense as lying about sex?

Dean: If this issue has not been resolved by the time the Democrats nominate their standard bearer next summer, I believe it will become a campaign issue -- potentially a serious issue for Bush if he has not been able to put it away by then. At that time, it could become a real problem for Bush. In fact, he will have trouble launching another war until he gets this issue resolved. Other than that, only Barney showing up at a White House press briefing to announce he is leaving home over the issue, is it likely to get widespread public attention. Needless to say, if such weapons are found, Bush will have a great "I told you so" that you can be sure will be exploited in the 2004 campaign, as he and his father parachute into New York City for the GOP 2004 Convention, and then proceed down Wall Street, wearing flight suits with helmets under their arms, in their tickertape parade.


Click here to subscribe to our free e-mail dispatch and get the latest on what`s new at TomPaine.com before everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your information to any other entity.





Published: Jun 17 2003

[Joerver]

Nachkriegs-Unordnung

Unruhen im Irak entzweien Alliierte

Schießereien und Plünderungen: Nach dem Krieg versinkt der Irak im Chaos. Doch während sich die Briten über die anfangs verkannten Probleme den Kopf zerbrechen, spielt Donald Rumsfeld die Schwierigkeiten herunter: Wäre Washington so groß wie Bagdad, gäbe es dort viel mehr Morde, rechnet der Pentagon-Chef vor.

Washington - Rumsfeld sieht hinter den jüngsten Angriffen auf US-Truppen in Irak lediglich versprengte Reste des gestürzten Regimes, keinen größer organisierten Widerstand. Der US-Verteidigungsminister sprach in Washington von "kleinen Elementen" von zehn bis 20 Personen, die für Angriffe auf amerikanische Soldaten verantwortlich zu machen seien. Seit dem erklärten Ende der größeren Kampfhandlungen am 1. Mai sind bei Unfällen und Feuergefechten 50 US-Soldaten getötet worden.

Im Irak-Krieg selbst kamen 138 US-Soldaten bei Unfällen und Gefechten ums Leben. Rumsfeld verglich diese Zahlen mit denen von Opfern täglicher Gewalt in amerikanischen Großstädten: "Wenn Washington die Größe Bagdads hätte, würden wir ungefähr 215 Morde im Monat haben. In einer großen Stadt wird es immer Gewalt geben." Er räumte aber ein, dass die Feuerüberfälle auf US-Soldaten in Irak gezielte Angriffe und keine "gewöhnlichen Verbrechen oder etwas in der Art" seien. Sein Stellvertreter Paul Wolfowitz sagte im Verteidigungsausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses, man befinde sich noch in einer Phase, in der beträchtliche Kampfkraft benötigt werde, um "diese Reste des alten Regimes" anzugreifen.

Die britische Entwicklungshilfeministerin Valerie Amos hatte sich dagegen wegen der Sicherheitslage im Irak äußerst besorgt gezeigt und verschob sogar einen Besuch des Landes. Der "Financial Times" sagte sie, die Alliierten hätten das Ausmaß der Probleme nach dem Krieg nicht richtig vorausgesehen. Auch Amos` Vorgängerin Clare Short machte die mangelhafte Planung für die Plünderungen und die Gewalt in Bagdad verantwortlich. Die US-Regierung sei "für ihre Aufgaben nicht angemessen vorbereitet" gewesen. Short waren aus Protest gegen den Krieg von ihrem Amt zurückgetreten.

Auch bei einem anderen Thema tun sich Meinungsunterschiede zwischen London und Washington auf. Die britische Regierung drängt Washington, sich auf einen Handel mit ranghohen irakischen Gefangenen einzulassen, um schneller auf die Spur von Saddam Hussein und seinen angeblichen Massenvernichtungswaffen zu kommen.

Die "Times" hatte unter Berufung auf britische Beamte berichtet, dass trotz intensiver Verhöre noch keiner der bisher inhaftierten irakischen Ex-Regierungsmitarbeiter ausgepackt habe. London sei mittlerweile davon überzeugt, dass ein Handel mit hochrangigen ehemaligen Beamten der einzige Weg sei, an die wertvollen Informationen heranzukommen.

Zur Frustration der Briten lehnt Washington aber ein solches Vorgehen strikt ab. Vor allem die Hardliner um Rumsfeld würden sich bisher verweigern - und sind dabei in einer komfortablen Situation, da die Fragen nach dem Kriegsgrund und den irakischen Massenvernichtungswaffen die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit weitgehend kalt lassen. Premier Blair aber steht innenpolitisch bereits mit dem Rücken zur Wand.

Arabisch sprechender General für US-Truppen

Die US-Truppen im Irak und Afghanistan sollen demnächst von einem arabisch sprechenden General mit libanesischen Wurzeln angeführt werden. US-Präsident George W. Bush nominierte gestern Generalleutnant John Abizaid als Nachfolger von Tommy Franks. Franks, der Oberbefehlshaber der alliierten Truppen im Irak-Krieg und im Anti-Terror-Feldzug in Afghanistan war, hatte kürzlich angekündigt, dass er in den Ruhestand gehen will.

Die Nominierung Abizaids war allgemein erwartet worden. Er war bisher Franks Stellvertreter. Die Nominierung muss noch vom Senat bestätigt werden. Nach Angaben aus Regierungskreisen werden allerdings keine Probleme erwartet.


© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Just another day in Baghdad
The demonstrating Iraqis have no work, no money and are desperate. Two are shot dead. Nearby, an American soldier guarding a gas station is casually killed

Rory McCarthy in Baghdad
Thursday June 19, 2003
The Guardian

Hussein Saber shook with fury as he lay on a dirty hospital bed last night and told the story of another day in Baghdad, a city torn apart by killings, misunderstanding and the startling failures of America`s military occupation.

Yesterday Hussein, 33, should have collected a $50 (£30) emergency payment which all Iraq`s now unemployed soldiers are due to receive. The money did not arrive and so he and hundreds of other frustrated young men poured towards the gates of the US-led authority to protest.

Within minutes he was shot in his right side by a young, nervous American soldier. Hussein survived but two other Iraqis standing next to him in the crowd were killed.

Just a few miles away in the centre of the city, gunmen in a passing car shot dead one American soldier and wounded another as they guarded a propane gas station. It was another strike against the US military by an increasingly bold guerrilla resistance force intent on destabilising the reconstruction.

Neither the Iraqis nor the Americans ever dreamed that Baghdad would be like this, ten weeks to the day after Saddam Hussein`s regime was finally toppled.

The people of this city are still gripped with the deepening problems of poor security, interminable power shortages and unpaid salaries. Their frustration is spilling over into a spate of attacks on the US military, which are met with heavy-handed raids and mass arrests which, in turn, spark yet greater frustration.

Searing midsummer temperatures do little to cool tempers on either side.

"I hoped and I wished that when the American forces came they would bring us democracy and freedom but unfortunately we have seen the opposite," said Hussein, a non-commissioned officer in the air force for the past 18 years. "The Americans are going to get hurt if the situation remains as it is."

All the junior ranks within Iraq`s 400,000-strong military, which was formally dissolved last month, have been promised a one-off payment and the chance to apply for a job in the new Iraqi national army.

In reality none have been paid since their last wages from the regime in February or March. Recruitment for the new military has not started and, like the thousands of regular government employees still without work, their frustration should be evident for the US authority to see.

Hundreds of former soldiers gathered at the national recruitment office in Baghdad yesterday morning where they expected to receive their payouts. Similar payments have been made by the British army in Basra.

But yesterday when officials in the building told them they had no money to offer they poured towards the gates of the Republican Palace, once Saddam`s home and now the base of the US-led authority.

In the eyes of the US military, the crowd of frustrated former soldiers was a threat and they eventually opened fire. The Iraqi soldiers see themselves very differently - as husbands and fathers, struggling to make a living, gripped with defeated pride and disappointment.

Khadum Hussain Hani, 32, joined the Iraqi military aged 15 for the same reasons that brought many of the young Americans on patrol in Baghdad into the US army - he wanted to serve his country and he wanted a decent wage.

His brother, also a soldier, died during the war with Iran in the 1980s. Following tradition, Khadum married his brother`s wife and took responsibility for the couple`s three young children. Last year they had another son.

Until the war he was paid 75,000 dinars a month (then worth $37). Since March he has received nothing and has had to borrow thousands of dollars to pay the 30,000 dinars monthly rent on his small apartment. "I have borrowed and borrowed and all I have left in my pocket today is my identity card," he said yesterday. Before the war he and his wife talked about whether he would fight. "I told her I wouldn`t fight. I was glad the Americans were coming to take us away from this oppression," he said.

Now he has to explain to his children why he has no work and no money. "Sometimes they ask: `Did you bring home any apples today father?`" he said. "I tell them I will bring apples one day when I have some money."

It is all too clear that the natural goodwill that many Iraqis felt when the US and British forces brought to an end three decades of brutality and repression is rapidly fading. "There is a big gap between the Iraqis and the Americans right now," said Khadum.

American troops speak freely of their own frustrations. They patrol in heavy bulletproof jackets and Kevlar helmets in the suffocating midday heat.

Many were first deployed to camps in Kuwait nine months ago and have had little time to rest or recover from the intense three weeks of combat that brought them to Baghdad. The shift from fighting to peacekeeping has been frac tured and slow. Still they are being targeted in guerrilla attacks and they don`t understand why.

The al-Shawaf crossroads outside the Republican Palace, the bloodied site of yesterday`s killings, has become the touchstone of the failings of the military occupation. Here there are queues of the articulate and the plain angry. The US officials who should be listening to their very simple and very real complaints are locked in a cycle of meetings from dawn until after midnight in the palace complex, behind the heavily guarded, barbed-wire entrance at the palace gates.

Alia Abbas Issa, 42, used to work in the palace as a seamstress, sewing curtains for Saddam`s offices and private rooms. She took the job to help pay for English lessons at the local British Council office. It paid her well, up to 200,000 dinars (£2000) a month. Then came the war. Her apartment was looted of all her possessions, even her bed, and her job disappeared. She is left caring for the two daughters of her younger brother, who died in Kuwait during the first Gulf war. "There is nothing I can tell them. We used to have money now there is nothing. We cry from night until morning," she said.

"I thought the Americans would bring us a new start. We want to like George Bush but the Iraqis are suffering and suffering," she said.

"God will reward those people who come here if they come here to help us."


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

The right to resist
Armed opposition to the occupation of Iraq will continue until the US and Britain withdraw

Seumas Milne
Thursday June 19, 2003
The Guardian

It would have been hard to predict in advance that the US and British occupation of Iraq could go so spectacularly wrong so quickly. The words of the historian Tacitus about the Roman invasion of Scotland in the first century AD might just as well have been written about our latter-day Rome`s latest imperial adventure: "They create a wasteland and they call it peace."

More than two months after the collapse of Saddam Hussein`s regime, Iraq is sinking deeper into chaos and insecurity, as US forces lash out at the Iraqi resistance, which is now killing an average of one American soldier a day. Another was shot dead in Baghdad yesterday, while US troops killed more protesters - as they have repeatedly done since the massacres of demonstrators in Mosul and Falluja in April. The British minister in charge of reconstruction in occupied Iraq, Baroness Amos, had to admit yesterday that she is unable to visit the country because of the risk of guerilla attack, while the British commander, Major General Freddie Viggers, conceded that British troops may now be in Iraq for up to four years because of the growing insurgency.

In Britain, the unravelling of what US deputy secretary of defence, Paul Wolfowitz, called the "bureaucratic" pretext for war - the supposed threat from Iraqi chemical and biological weapons - has created the most serious political crisis for Tony Blair`s government in six years and removed the last vestige of possible legality from the aggression. With no sign of any such weapons on the ground in Iraq, intelligence leaks and the withering accounts of former cabinet ministers Clare Short and Robin Cook have stripped bare the ultimate New Labour spin operation. Polls show most British people are now convinced the government deliberately exaggerated the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to bounce public and parliament into war. Not surprisingly, attitudes to the conflict itself are also beginning to turn.

In Iraq, the mounting social and human cost of the invasion and occupation has become ever clearer. The country`s first Burger King may have opened at Baghdad airport and the Queen`s birthday may once again be celebrated on the banks of the Tigris, but the impact of war and regime collapse on essential services and infrastructure, on top of the havoc wreaked by the first Gulf war and 13 years of grinding sanctions, has been devastating.

Add to that the rampant lawlessness, insecurity, looting of all public institutions, destruction of national treasures, epidemic of murder and robbery, and it is little wonder that most Iraqis appear to find it hard to see themselves as having been liberated. And far from being lower than expected, the number of Iraqi civilians killed is now estimated - on the basis of hospital, mortuary and media records - to have been between 5,500 and 7,200, while Iraqi military deaths are thought to run into tens of thousands.

Amidst all this misery, there have also been positive changes. The fall of the dictatorship has meant an end to the torture and execution of political prisoners, replaced by more spasmodic beatings and killings of innocents by coalition soldiers. Political parties can now organise and independent newspapers circulate. The discovery of mass graves has been a reminder of the cruelty of Saddam`s rule, though ironically the largest were filled with victims of the 1991 uprising, incited and then betrayed by George Bush senior.

But the anti-democratic and flagrantly colonial nature of the new power in Iraq is undisguised. While Iraqi political parties are pressing for a broadly-based conference to elect a transitional government, the new US proconsul, Paul Bremer, is only prepared to tolerate a hand-picked Iraqi advisory council, while his occupation authority ploughs ahead with shaping the free market, pro-western order the US plans to impose on the ruins of an independent Iraq.

The senior coalition "adviser" to the Iraqi industry ministry, Tim Carney, declared this month that the occupation authorities will press ahead with the privatisation of dozens of state-owned companies within a year, pre-empting the decision of any future elected Iraqi government. And the Bush administration, fresh from handing out contracts to White House corporate cronies, has let it be known it aims to reverse the historic nationalisation of Iraqi oil before it`s finished with "reconstruction".

What freedoms have been allowed are now being reined in, with censorship of press and television. Bremer has even issued a decree outlawing any "gatherings, pronouncements or publications" that call for opposition to the US occupation. All of which is a clear sign that the US administration is far from confident it can control the direction of Iraqi politics.

It also helps to explain the scale of civil and armed resistance, which is concentrated in the Sunni triangle to the north and west of Baghdad. Around 50 US soldiers have been killed by Iraqi fighters since the war was declared won - getting on for half the number killed in the war itself. A series of punitive counter-insurgency operations by US troops in the past week has led to the capture and deaths of hundreds of Iraqis - sweeping up many innocents in the process - but appears to have had no impact on the level of attacks. US commanders have branded the guerillas "subversives" and even "terrorists", or tried to dismiss them as "remnants" of the regime. The evidence suggests that while Ba`athists form part of the resistance, that is far from being the whole picture.

But what they cannot by any sensible reckoning be called are terrorists - nor does the US have any right to try guerillas who attack occupation troops as criminals, which Bremer announced it plans to do this week. It is an almost universally accepted principle that a people occupied by a foreign power has the right to use armed force to resist - though whether force will be the best tactic is another matter. It was the crudest self-delusion on the part of the invading states to imagine that because most Iraqis wanted an end to the Saddam regime they would accept the imposition of a foreign occupation to replace it.

The situation seems bound to get worse, as the resistance fights a war of attrition and the occupation forces win new recruits for the guerillas with brutal and misdirected counter-attacks. Armed resistance has yet to spread to the south, where British troops are based and rival Shi`ite Islamist groups are busy building their political strength. The longer the occupation continues, however, the more that is likely to change, with the further risk of drawing Iran into the maelstrom. Last week the pro-Iranian Shi`ite leader Ayatollah Hakim predicted that armed resistance would grow. Meanwhile, anti-occupation protests have been multiplying across the south. In Basra on Sunday, and again on Tuesday, thousands demonstrated outside British headquarters chanting slogans against Blair and Bush and demanding the right to rule themselves. As things stand, British troops are one fatwa short of the treatment being meted out to the Americans further north, while the occupation is achieving nothing for Iraqis they could not more effectively achieve for themselves. The sooner political pressure builds to end it and negotiate an orderly withdrawal, the better for all of us.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Über diese englische Revulotion muß unbedingt berichtet werden. Ist GB ohne Time please noch GB.

All-hours drinking a step closer as Lords debate reforms
Steven Morris and Sarah Hall
Thursday June 19, 2003
The Guardian

All-night pub opening will move a step closer today when a radical and controversial reform of licensing laws is debated in the Lords.

Despite protests from anti-alcohol campaigners and many in the trade, it seems increasingly likely that fixed drinking hours will be abolished.

The government has already backed down on another contentious part of its plans: to allow unaccompanied children into licensed premises as part of an attempt to introduce a European-style cafe culture.

It may also be defeated on proposals to reform entertainment licences after critics warned they could harm everything from folk music to Punch and Judy shows. Peers hope to defeat the government on this issue.

They also want to force the government to introduce measures that could curb 24-hour opening in certain cases, by forcing licensing bodies to take into account whether pubs are in residential areas.

The licensing bill was launched at the end of last year, and Tessa Jowell, the culture secretary, has argued that reforms of the "out of date, complicated and costly" laws are overdue; the present laws have changed little since opening hours were set to keep munitions workers sober during the first world war.

The present system is split between local authorities and magistrates, who issue dozens of different licences.

Ms Jowell believes that allowing premises to open 24 hours will lead to a reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour by allowing people to drink at a slower pace and cutting the number of drunks who spill out at closing time.

Most involved in the pub trade welcome the simplification. But peers have already inflicted nine defeats on the government over controversial sections of the bill and concessions have been made, including exempting church halls, schools and armed forces messes from the licence requirement. There are also fears that the liberalisation of opening hours could benefit the big players in such as the chain pubs, which have the resources to stay open for longer than the independents.

The Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS) is one of the groups which has led attacks on aspects of the bill. Its director, Andrew McNeill, said: "We don`t believe the bill will end binge drinking. There is no evidence that what the government is doing will change drinking culture."

Those sceptical of the government`s plans point out that in Ireland an attempt to move to a cafe culture by allowing bars to stay open had failed. Alcohol consumption has shot up and one in five 12- to 14-year-olds are regular drinkers.

This month the social care group Turning Point claimed that almost four million people in England and Wales were dependent on alcohol - more than six times the number of problem users of class A drugs.

Many local politicians fear 24-hour drinking could cause chaos in compact towns where pubs are crammed into a small space. Malachy Pakenham, chairman of the licensing committee of St Albans district council, said he believed towns like his could be particularly badly affected.

"I don`t think 24-hour opening will solve the problem it will just shift it. You will find people spilling out on to the streets and causing trouble at 1.30am rather than 11pm."

In the capital too, not all licensees are pleased at the prospect. Matthew Bennett, a Soho restaurateur and chairman of the Open All Hours? group, which was set up to examine the government`s proposals, said he welcomed some relaxation of opening hours, saying out that it was "loopy" that theatre goers had to race into a pub at the end of a performance.

But he said 24-hour opening would make city centres more unpleasant places to live at a time when the government is trying to encourage people to live in the heart of the city.

And Mr Bennett complained that the government did not seem to be taking a "polluter pays" approach: "There are going to be extra costs, for example, policing and cleaning. The local taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill."

Campaign groups such as Alcohol Concern express support for many aspects of the bill, but have lobbied strongly against the idea of unaccompanied children being allowed into premises.

Jean Coussins, chief executive of the Portman Group which promotes responsible drinking on behalf of the drinks industry, said the laws needed to be liberalised.

She said the Portman Group supported any reforms which made pubs more "family friendly". She said: "The way children are going to grow up into sensible drinking is to see people drinking sensibly."


SocietyGuardian.co.uk © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Musharraf warns of threat in Afghanistan
By Mary Dejevsky
19 June 2003


Afghanistan could descend into anarchic warlordism unless drastic measures, including far more aggressive use of troops, were taken to extend the authority of the central leadership outside Kabul, President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan warned yesterday.

"Things are not going as well as we had expected," he said. "There is a vacuum in the countryside that must be filled - if not, it will be filled by forces that are against peace."

After meeting Tony Blair and senior officials in London, General Musharraf said he wanted to see a force of between 40,000 and 50,000 troops in Afghanistan, a big increase on the present 15,000-strong peace-keeping contingent. Those troops, General Musharraf said, should be sufficient to take "between 11 and 15 regional centres" by force, and leave about 2,500 men in place in each centre.

He said the use of force was the only way to ensure that the writ of the central authority ran across the country, where local fiefdoms were becoming more entrenched by the week. He suggested that the additional troops could come from the United States, or from extended Nato participation.

Downing Street confirmed that Afghanistan was discussed when Mr Blair met General Musharraf for lunch on Tuesday. But officials said only that discussions would continue, a clear sign that no agreement was reached. The Pakistani leader, who goes on to meet President George Bush at Camp David, is likely to receive a similar response from Washington. Troop capacities have been considerably stretched by the war in Iraq and its aftermath.

The volatility in Afghanistan was also raised in a letter sent by more than 80 aid organisations to the United Nations on the eve of a Security Council meeting to discuss events in the country. The position was so bad, they said, that people had started to reminisce about the "better days" under the ousted Taliban regime.

The aid organisations want Nato, which takes over in August, to have a much broader mandate than the peace- keeping force.
19 June 2003 09:37


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

June 19, 2003

Bush comes to Blair`s defence over weapons
From Tim Reid in Washington

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-718630,00.html

PRESIDENT BUSH publicly defended Tony Blair last night against accusations that the Prime Minister exaggerated intelligence over Iraq’s illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Mr Bush’s spirited defence of his ally came as one American soldier was killed and another was wounded in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad, and US troops fired on protesters, killing two Iraqis. In a breakthrough for coalition forces, however, Saddam Hussein’s presidential secretary and senior bodyguard, Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, was captured in a raid north of the Iraqi capital. He was the ace of diamonds in the Pentagon’s deck of wanted Iraqis.

Asked about Mr Blair’s domestic critics, Mr Bush said: “He operated on very sound intelligence and those accusations are simply not true.”

[Joerver]

June 19, 2003
Bush Says U.S. Will Not Tolerate Building of Nuclear Arms by Iran
By DAVID E. SANGER


WASHINGTON, June 18 — President Bush said for the first time today that the United States and its allies "will not tolerate the construction of a nuclear weapon" in Iran, and an American official at a meeting of the world`s nuclear watchdog agency accused the country of repeatedly evading inspections and violating its commitments.

Mr. Bush`s assertion that Iran`s program would be stopped came as the White House said it hoped to begin working with allies soon on intercepting ships and aircraft suspected of carrying material that could aid states like Iran and North Korea in their nuclear programs.

For years American officials have been studying programs in Iran and North Korea that are believed to be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium from the spent fuel produced by nuclear reactors. The Central Intelligence Agency believes North Korea already produced, a decade ago, enough plutonium to produce two weapons. Then, in October, the North admitted to a second program to produce highly enriched uranium in a laboratory process, and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency found a very similar program in Iran, after receiving tips from American and other intelligence agencies.

Programs in both countries appear to have accelerated in recent months, American intelligence officials say.

Mr. Bush`s statement today came in response to questions from reporters during a meeting with senators about Medicare. Asked how he would stop Iran from acquiring a weapon, he said: "The international community must come together to make it very clear to Iran that we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon. Iran would be dangerous if they have a nuclear weapon."

But Mr. Bush did not describe a strategy to halt the program, and while he is picking up support for gradual isolation of North Korea, many nations in Europe and elsewhere have extensive trade relations with Iran and rely on its oil. Moreover, administration officials believe that Iran is likely to pursue efforts to build nuclear weapons regardless of what government rules the country.

"They now see a nuclear power — the United States — right next door in Iraq," said one American diplomat with long experience with Iran. "That has to be affecting their calculations."

A senior White House official said tonight that Mr. Bush`s explicit warning to Iran was a "carefully-worded escalation" that, for the first time, drew a line that the White House said Iran would not be permitted to cross. "It`s not like this spilled out," a senior official said, noting that Mr. Bush had met extensively with his aides about the Iranian program in recent weeks.

Yet as recently as two weeks ago, when he was visiting Russia, which is providing crucial technology to Iran for a nuclear reactor, Mr. Bush said only that he was "concerned" about Iran`s program and that it was important to keep weapons out of the hands of "radical clerics."

By declaring today that he would "not tolerate" the Iranian program, he echoed exactly the statements he made last month about North Korea. Mr. Bush has said that the United States is seeking a diplomatic solution in North Korea and is leaving its military options open if diplomacy fails; in the case of Iran, he has never mentioned the possibility of military action.

Mr. Bush has made clear in a series of statements that began during the summit meeting of industrialized nations in Évian, France, two weeks ago that finding new ways to counter the Iranian and North Korean programs would be at the top of his agenda in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. The White House said today that it was moving forward with the first phase of its "counterproliferation" effort.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said a number of major allies had agreed in principle at a meeting in Spain last week to begin intercepting — at sea and in the air — nuclear and missile-related shipments into and out of countries suspected of developing nuclear weapons technology. "The interdiction initiative that the president announced in Krakow has been well received and has now moved forward," he said, referring to the president`s visit to Poland last month, although he added that no date had been set to begin intercepting such shipments.

The agreement in Spain calls for the seizure of such shipments when they pass through the waters or air space of countries agreeing to join the American-led effort. But it does not establish any new legal authority to seize such shipments in international waters, a step that would require redrafting international laws.

"We don`t want to get bogged down in that," one senior administration official said last week.

In recent weeks, North Korea has boasted of its nuclear program and said it would accelerate it if the United States did not agree to a package of aid, recognition and security guarantees for the country. Iran, in contrast, has insisted that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, a statement reiterated today by President Mohammad Khatami.

White House officials have clearly decided to increase the diplomatic pressure on both countries.

Today, speaking at a meeting of Asian leaders in Cambodia, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said that "no issue is of greater urgency to the U.S. than North Korea`s nuclear weapons programs." He was seeking broader Asian support for a policy of increasing isolation of the North, a strategy that Japan has joined, but that China and South Korea have resisted.

Meanwhile, at a meeting of the I.A.E.A. in Vienna, the United States ambassador, Kenneth Brill, contended that Iran is "aggressively" pursuing a weapons program, and at the White House Mr. Fleischer said it made no sense for an oil-rich nation to spend so much money to produce nuclear power to produce energy.

Mr. Brill also noted that the I.A.E.A. inspectors were only allowed to see parts of the nuclear program after their existence was revealed by outsiders.

"Without the outside revelations, Iran`s extensive nuclear program would still be proceeding on a largely clandestine basis," he said. "Can the I.A.E.A. or anyone else be confident under these circumstances that there are no other clandestine facilities that have yet to be revealed?"

Mr. Bush also voiced support for protesters on the streets of Tehran today, even though some of his aides have worried that any vocal American backing would play into the hands of hard-line clerics who say the street protests have been engineered by Washington.

"I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran," Mr. Bush said. "They need to know America stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 19, 2003
Up to 30,000 Troops From a Dozen Nations to Replace Some G.I.`s in Iraq
By ERIC SCHMITT


WASHINGTON, June 18 — Between 20,000 and 30,000 allied troops from more than a dozen nations will begin arriving in Iraq in mid-August to replace some of the American forces leading the military occupation there, Pentagon officials said today.

The international forces — from countries including Italy, Spain, Ukraine and Honduras — would join divisions led by Britain, Poland and perhaps another country, possibly India, and assume responsibilities for parts of central and southern Iraq.

How many American troops will remain in Iraq depends largely on the security situation there and how many other nations ultimately send forces, officials said. There are now about 146,000 American troops in Iraq, just 5,000 fewer than at the peak of the war. About 12,000 troops from Britain and seven other countries are also on the ground.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee today, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Pentagon was aggressively recruiting dozens of countries to contribute forces for peacekeeping and reconstruction duties.

"We have about 20,000 additional coalition troops that have been volunteered by countries to go to theater within the next 60 to 90 days," General Pace said. He said discussions were under way with another unidentified country to provide 10,000 troops.

But both officials acknowledged that prodding other nations to sign up has been difficult, even after a United Nations resolution last month cleared the way for other countries to begin contributing.

Just six weeks ago, in fact, administration officials had thought the United States could reduce the number of American forces to about 30,000 troops by this fall. But guerrilla-style attacks from remnants of Saddam Hussein`s military, security forces and Baath Party loyalists appear to have dashed those goals.

Throughout today`s hearing, Democrats and Republicans chided the defense officials for not doing enough to enlist more allies to help shoulder the burden in Iraq, where the postwar environment is still so dangerous that roughly one American a day has died since President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations were over.

"Occupation takes a lot of folks, probably takes a lot more folks than winning the war," said Representative Duncan Hunter, a California Republican who heads the panel.

Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee`s senior Democrat, added, "Given the challenges we are facing, we need our allies and their troops more than ever."

The Bush administration wants more allied forces for several reasons. The Pentagon wants to put a more international face on an American-dominated occupation. More international troops would cut the expense of an operation that lawmakers said was costing $3 billion a month. Mr. Wolfowitz said the Pentagon would probably have to ask Congress to approve another supplemental spending request to pay for the costs of military operations in Iraq.

But perhaps most important, at least for domestic political reasons, bringing in more allied forces would allow most of the First Marine Division and the Army`s Third Infantry Division, some of whose troops have been deployed overseas for more than a year, to return home.

Mr. Wolfowitz said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the commander of American forces in Iraq, to recommend a rotation policy for the two units by the end of June.

The Pentagon is looking for other ways to lessen the burden on its troops in Iraq. Mr. Wolfowitz repeatedly asked lawmakers today for authority to spend $200 million to train and equip additional Iraqi police forces who would take over duties now performed by Army troops.

General Pace said Iraq needed about 65,000 police officers, but American officials have been able to recruit and train only 20,000 so far.

Under the Pentagon`s current plans, there would be two or three divisions of allied forces, each made up of 10,000 to 14,000 troops. Britain would lead one division, which would also include troops from countries like Denmark and the Netherlands.

The allied forces would be a mix of combat troops and reconstruction specialists. The 380 Danish troops, for example, would include a light reconnaissance squadron, a civil affairs unit, mine-clearing experts and special operations forces.

Poland has committed 2,300 troops to its division, which Mr. Wolfowitz said today would also include forces from Ukraine, Spain, Honduras and El Salvador.

Pentagon officials are negotiating with several other countries, including some that did not support the war. Defense officials have set aside their anger at Turkey for refusing to allow American forces to enter northern Iraq through Turkish territory during the war, to discuss Ankara`s offers of reconstruction support.

Administration officials met recently with the Turkish foreign ministry`s second-ranking official, who offered relief aid and other assistance, as well as 1,200 to 1,800 troops. "Turkey is eager now to assist us in the reconstruction of Iraq," Mr. Wolfowitz said. "That`s just one example of a country that has begun to move in our direction."

Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter W. Rodman recently visited New Delhi to discuss troop commitments with Indian officials. A cabinet committee has yet to decide how to proceed, and the Indian government has said it will consult other political parties before deciding.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Schaffen sich so die die USA Freunde?

June 19, 2003
Iraqis Were Set to Vote, but U.S. Wielded a Veto
By DAVID ROHDE


NAJAF, Iraq, June 18 — American marines had built makeshift wooden ballot boxes. An Army reserve unit from Green Bay, Wis., had conducted a voter registration drive. And Iraqi political candidates had blanketed the city with colorful fliers outlining their election platforms — restore electricity, rehabilitate the old quarter, repave roads.

But last week, L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the American military occupation in Iraq, unilaterally canceled what American officials here said would have been the first such election in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Overruling the local American military commander, Mr. Bremer decreed that conditions in Najaf were not appropriate for an election.

Several days later, American marines stormed the offices of an obscure local political party here, arrested four members and jailed them for four days. The offense, the Americans said, was a violation of a new edict by Mr. Bremer that makes it illegal to incite violence against forces occupying Iraq.

Mohammed Abdul Hadi, an official in the party, the Supreme Council for the Liberation of Iraq, accused the United States of a double standard.

"Why do you apply these constraints on us in Iraq," he said, "and they are not being applied by the American government on Americans?"

The events here exposed an uncomfortable truth of the American occupation. For now, American officials are barring direct elections in Iraq and limiting free speech, two of the very ideals the United States has promised to Iraqis. American officials have said it may take up to two years for an elected Iraqi government to take over the country.

The events also exposed the tightrope Mr. Bremer is walking as he struggles to transform a society and help build a friendly and stable Iraqi government. Privately, American officials said they believed Iraq was not ready for elections, and voting could inflame tensions.

"The most organized political groups in many areas are rejectionists, extremists and remnants of the Baathists," said a senior official in Mr. Bremer`s office. "They have an advantage over the other groups."

But at the same time, the overt blocking of elections appears to be fueling anger of its own at the United States. In Najaf today, more than 1,000 people demonstrated against the cancellation of the elections.

Asad Sultan Abu Gilal, the man many people had expected to win the election, warned of violence.

"If they don`t give us freedom, what will we do?" he said in an interview tonight as his supporters gathered around him. "We have patience, but not for a long time."

A surge in attacks on American forces in recent weeks has occurred in northern and central Iraq, areas dominated by the country`s Sunni Muslim minority, which makes up only 20 percent of the population. If Shiites, who make up 60 percent of the population and dominate the south, mount attacks as well, the threat faced by American forces in Iraq would increase sharply.

Just what an election in Najaf would have looked like is unclear. In other cities across Iraq, American military officials have supervised the selection of town councils by several dozen community leaders chosen by American officials. Those town councils have then selected mayors. What was unusual about Najaf was that voters would have chosen a mayor in an open general election.

How Mr. Gilal, the leading candidate for mayor, would have acted in office is also unclear.

Mr. Gilal, 51, a college-educated father of seven, is a member of a local family that traces its roots in Najaf back eight generations and is famed for its resistance to Mr. Hussein`s government.

Dressed in a rumpled blue suit tonight, he gave off the folksy air of a man of the people.

Mr. Gilal, who spent six years in prison and fled Iraq after the 1991 uprising, returned to Iraq this spring after living in Saudi Arabia and Finland.

He was the candidate of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an opposition group with a long history of support from Iran, which some officials in Washington view suspiciously.

He said that American fears of Shiite fundamentalism are overblown and that the party supports the creation of a democracy in Iraq, not an Iranian-style theocracy. But on the outside of the party`s offices where Mr. Gilal spoke, a poster invited people to a ceremony marking the anniversary of the death of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the cleric who created Iran`s theocracy.

Fliers posted around town suggested that candidates would not stick to purely municipal issues. One candidate called for the rebuilding "educational life in private and public schools on a religious basis."

American military officials in Najaf appeared disappointed with Mr. Bremer`s decision. Preparations for the vote were extensive. Lt. Col. Christopher Conlin, commander of the First Battalion, Seventh Marine Regiment, went on local television and announced that elections would be held. On May 28, soldiers, marines and local teachers began registering voters at local schools. All 18 candidates were to get equal time to present themselves on local television.

Ballots would be taken to a central location and counted by American soldiers as Iraqi politicians observed. Roughly 250,000 to 300,000 of the area`s roughly one million residents had been expected to take part.

"We were going to give them a building block," said Lt. Ron Winchester, a 24-year-old marine from Rockville Center, N.Y., who was involved in the registration effort.

But after a day of registration, the program was suspended. Several days later, Mr. Bremer`s office indefinitely postponed the election. Maj. David Toth, a 42-year-old Army reservist and farmer from Baraboo, Wis., said he thought Najaf was ready.

The town was "stable," he said, referring to the lack of violence in the area. "We thought the people would be ready for it."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Compan

[Joerver]

June 19, 2003
Getting Ready to Bow Out, Hans Blix Speaks His Mind on How U.S. Doubted Him
By FELICITY BARRINGER


NITED NATIONS, June 18 — Hans Blix, the retiring chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, has questioned in an interview why American and British forces expected to find large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq when it was clear that his inspectors had failed to report any such discovery.

In an interview on Tuesday in his 31st-floor offices at the United Nations, he said:

"What surprises me, what amazes me, is that it seems the military people were expecting to stumble on large quantities of gas, chemical weapons and biological weapons. I don`t see how they could have come to such an attitude if they had, at any time, studied the reports" of present and former United Nations inspectors.

"Is the United Nations on a different planet?" he added. "Are reports from here totally unread south of the Hudson?"

Mr. Blix and his team have had little contact with the inspection teams currently in Iraq, and Bush administration officials have made clear that they have no desire to see Mr. Blix`s team return any time soon.

During the hour-long interview, Mr. Blix showed no particular rancor toward the administration, reiterating previous statements that his relations with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, were respectful.

That cannot be said of his attitude toward two of his most virulent critics — David Kay, a former subordinate when Mr. Blix headed the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Per Ahlmark, a former Swedish deputy prime minister. In a recent interview in the British newspaper The Guardian, Mr. Blix referred to them using an expletive. Mr. Kay has been chosen by the Bush administration to advise American inspection teams now in Iraq.

Although he avoided such language on Tuesday, Mr. Blix did say that those two critics had "a personal vendetta" against him and had distorted his record of inspecting Iraq`s nuclear facilities when he was director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the 1980`s and 90`s.

Discussing the failure of the atomic energy agency to unmask Iraq`s nuclear ambitions in 1990, Mr. Ahlmark said in an article last November in The Washington Times: "Regardless of how this crisis develops from this point, the United Nations has neglected its duties by asking a wimp to lead the inspectors who are supposed to stand up to the brute of Baghdad."

In the interview on Tuesday, Mr. Blix said the characterizations of the agency`s work were "totally unfair and a lot of fairy tales." He said he believed that such criticism had fed into Pentagon officials` skepticism about his work.

Later in the interview, Mr. Blix said that he was unsure if anything Saddam Hussein might have done, short of humbling himself before his people and the world on television, would have avoided the war.

Perhaps, he said, if the Iraqis had moved faster to provide a list of scientists said to have worked on the destruction of existing stocks of VX nerve gas and anthrax in 1991, interviews with these scientists may have accounted for the unconventional weapons that were never produced. "They gave us eventually a long list of people who were engaged in the destruction, even the transportation of it," he said.

But would the list, which the Iraqis provided on the eve of the war, have made a difference? "If we had clear evidence" of the stockpiles` destruction, Mr. Blix said, "that would have been impressive. But would it have been so unambiguous? That is doubtful."

The interview was one of a series of valedictory conversations now under way as Mr. Blix, 77, prepares to leave his job and return home to Sweden after three years as the executive chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission.

Asked about the war`s outcome, Mr. Blix said, "We all welcome the disappearance of one of the world`s most horrible regimes."

He added: "The good impact is the freeing of the Iraqi people. The bad impact is people have died, and the destruction that was brought there. The good impact may be upon the peace negotiations" in the Middle East. "I don`t know. It`s too early to know."

He continued: "The negative impact is the anti-Americanism that is abroad in the Middle East. And the bad impact would be if it drags out and you have more people become guerrillas in Iraq. The bad impact, I think, is on the U.N. Security Council — the U.S. further going away from the Security Council, saying this is a hopeless institution."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 19, 2003
Rumblings in Iran
By WILLIAM SAFIRE


WASHINGTON

On his way back from a Moscow summit, President Nixon made an overnight stop in Tehran. The Shah, greeting the White House staff individually, asked if I was enjoying my stay. I said I wished I could go antique shopping in Ferdowsi Square, but we had to leave early next morning.

The Shah said imperiously to an aide, "Keep the shops open." And so, after the state dinner, a bunch of somewhat embarrassed Nixon aides found bleary-eyed Iranian shopkeepers awaiting us in downtown Tehran.

Then we heard shouting around the corner, and what seemed like shots. Our minders said the noise came from hooligans, so we shrugged it off. But before the decade was out, a tide of those demonstrators, conspiring with a network of mullahs, deposed the Shah and imposed a more malevolent dictatorship.

That`s why I do not take lightly reports this week of student protests in Tehran and Tabriz, followed by the beating of demonstrators by supposed vigilantes. Only when satellite broadcasts about the beatings from Iranian exiles in Los Angeles aroused public opinion in Iran did the army belatedly restrain the government`s club-wielding thugs.

Why didn`t the ayatollahs order the protesters jailed? Why hasn`t the theocratic regime rounded up the 250 intellectuals who recently dared to state that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was accountable to the people and not just to God?

The answer is that every segment of Iranian society is split. In labor, industrial workers fume at jobs lost to outside sanctions while oil workers bask in the sun of high oil prices. In the military, many air force and navy officers silently scorn the anti-secular allegiance of the Revolutionary Guard, which is subdivided into zealots and careerists.

Those splits are aggravated by the resentment of women and the anger of students, 9 out of 10 of whom cannot get into universities. Clerics are torn as well, with some disgusted with the high living of others. Voters are tiring of electing "reformers" to Parliament and getting no reform.

Because resentment is rising in so many segments, authorities cannot "crack down" (as can North Korea and Cuba) without triggering a general uprising. To survive, Tehran feels it must whip up hatred of the West, finance terror against Israel and gain impunity with its own nuclear bomb.

How does America show solidarity with Iran`s restive majority without allowing the ayatollahs to credibly accuse their internal opposition of being stooges of the West?

Here`s what not to do: don`t assume the enemy of our enemy is our friend. The "People`s Mujahedeen," a communist group, broke with the ayatollahs decades ago and treasonously set up shop under Saddam`s protection in Iraq. We just disarmed thousands of these terrorists (getting no thanks from Tehran), and in Paris this week Jean-Louis Bruguière, chief of "la section antiterroriste" rounded up 150 of its leaders (getting effusive thanks from Tehran). We want no part of this crowd, hated by patriotic Iranians.

Nor should we succumb to the siren song of "engagement" with the phony reform front. Such a display of Western appeasement would undercut the dissenters and give the ayatollahs time to complete the nuclear bomb-building that even the previously complaisant International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors fear is underway.

Fortunately, engagement advocates have become an endangered species even at the State Department. Colin Powell is on board, and President Bush`s message to "those courageous souls who speak out for freedom in Iran" hit the right note: "America stands squarely by their side, and I would urge the Iranian administration to treat them with the utmost of respect."

His studied avoidance of the disparaging word "regime" signaled that it is political change that is needed, not regime change. Even in his tougher statement yesterday about the danger of nukes in the arsenal of the leading supporter of terrorism — "we will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon" — Bush`s pronoun "we" referred to consensus of "the international community."

By breathing on the spark of freedom without blowing too hard, and by leading the increase of pressure on a crumbling dictatorship, we may be able to limit the spread of nuclear weapons without having to take them out.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Lawmakers Begin Iraq Intelligence Hearings
White House Continues To Defend War Decision

By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 19, 2003; Page A16


The House and Senate intelligence committees began closed-door hearings yesterday on the intelligence that provided the basis for the U.S.-led attack on Iraq, as President Bush and his top policymakers continued to defend their decision to go to war despite the continuing failure to find chemical or biological weapons or indications of a reconstituted nuclear arms program in Iraq.

Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House panel, said after yesterday`s session that "the credibility of the intelligence community is at issue here" because the public has raised questions "about whether the [Bush] administration accurately portrayed the intelligence case regarding Iraq`s WMD [weapons of mass destruction] and ties to al Qaeda and other non-indigenous terrorist groups."

The House panel heard several intelligence officers provide background on the October 2002 national intelligence estimate on Iraq`s weapons programs and answer questions about how certain conclusions in that estimate were reached, administration and congressional sources said. Today the panel will hear from intelligence operations officers on the search for weapons, the sources said.

The Senate committee spent its session trying to work out details of how it will proceed. Both committees` hearings may continue through the summer.

At the committees` request, one senior U.S. official said, the CIA has sent them more than a dozen five-inch-thick binders containing information dating to 1996 on Iraq`s WMD programs and support for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups; documents supporting statements made by CIA, State Department and Pentagon analysts in the October 2002 estimate; and intelligence reports to support Secretary of State Colin L. Powell`s speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5.

One binder, the official said, contained a history of the intelligence, later proved false, on Iraq`s alleged attempt to buy uranium oxide from Niger in the late 1990s. Bush included a reference to the allegation in his State of the Union address Jan. 28, after the CIA had raised questions about it.

Also yesterday, Bush defended British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose statements about Iraqi arms are under investigation by a committee of Parliament.

On Tuesday, Blair`s former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, told the committee that intelligence had been used to justify going to war rather than to formulate policy. Cook also said the failure so far to find biological weapons meant that Iraq was "even less threatening" than he believed when he resigned before the war started.

Bush said that Blair "operated on very sound intelligence, and those accusations are simply not true."

One measure of how deeply the issue is felt on Capitol Hill came at a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was appearing on a different matter. Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said that he voted to support the war only after speaking to Wolfowitz, but that now he needed to know if the intelligence about the threat from Iraq`s weapons was wrong.

"A person is only as good as his word," Taylor said. "This nation is only as good as its word. And if that`s the reason why we did it -- and I voted for it -- then we need some clarifications here."

Wolfowitz replied, "If there`s a problem with intelligence . . . it doesn`t mean that anybody misled anybody. It means that intelligence is an art and not a science." He said the intelligence assessments reflected a broad consensus of the intelligence community and were based on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein`s "history of deception, his pattern of defiance, his willingness to incur an enormous price for himself, his regime and his country."

Wolfowitz repeated what he and others often said while U.N. inspectors were searching without success for weapons before the war, that "the burden of proof [was] on him, not on us." With the burden of proof resting on the United States, he told the committee, "it`s going to take time, and we`re going to have to be patient."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, pressed by reporters at the Pentagon on what he thought of the prewar intelligence, for the first time delivered his tentative view: "Imperfect, but good." He said that "the intelligence was correct in general, and that you always will find out precisely what it was once you get on the ground and have a chance to talk to people and explore it."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

"They will eventually explode like a volcano. We`ve exchanged a tyrant for an occupier."


washingtonpost.com
Frustration and Foreboding in Fallujah
For Men at Mosque, U.S. Occupation Is Focus of Anger and Reflection of Unmet Expectations

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, June 19, 2003; Page A16


FALLUJAH, Iraq, June 18 -- A little before 1 p.m., in a city seething with discontent, the men emerged from the washroom, their wet faces glistening under a searing sun. A woman in a long black abaya sat expectantly at the steel gate of the Shaker Thahi Mosque, seeking alms from gathering worshipers. From a scratchy loudspeaker sounded the phrase "God is greatest," repeated four times.

The crowd of men paused at the call to prayer, a gesture of respect. But only for a moment.

"I`m angry! I`m angry at this filthy life!" shouted Adnan Mohammed, who was wearing a soiled blue tunic called a dishdasha.

"We`re becoming like the Palestinians," added another worshiper, 27-year-old Khaled Abdullah.

"The Americans should get out of our city. It`s a Muslim city. We`re a Muslim country," cried out Shihab Mohammedi, as the muezzins` chants echoed among the market`s minarets. "Who said they were liberators? Liberators from whom?"

So went another conversation in the Sunni Muslim city that has emerged as a center of resistance to the American occupation of Iraq. Since arriving in Fallujah on April 23, U.S. troops charged with securing the peace have fired on protesters, fallen victim to hit-and-run attacks, staged nighttime raids and carried out hundreds of arrests. They have also painted schools, put up blackboards, handed out food and distributed soccer balls in an effort to salve the anger in this city 35 miles west of Baghdad.

A day at the mosque, a run-of-the-mill place of worship located in a prosperous market, provides a sobering glimpse of how deep, perhaps irreconcilable, run the differences between the occupied and the occupiers. Inside the mosque`s brick walls, across a courtyard paved with colored tiles, the men described a city agitated by unmet expectations and seized by grievances spanning not only nearly two months of U.S. occupation but also three decades of Saddam Hussein`s rule. They grapple with a faith and nation they fear are under siege, giving rise to talk of conspiracies. And they warn that the months ahead will witness greater resistance, even as they dismiss the Baath Party`s alleged role in plotting the campaign.

"The Americans are planning, organizing and working, but they don`t realize that they`re putting a noose around their necks," said Ahmed Mohammed, 36, the owner of the Islamic Bookstore across the street from the mosque.

Mohammed and his five brothers run the bookstore, which their father opened in 1950, the same year the Shaker Thahi Mosque began accepting worshipers. Mohammed is a soft-spoken man with a well-trimmed beard, whose politeness shrouds anger at a city grown unfamiliar, a country turned upside down and a future that remains ambiguous, at best.

For Mohammed, the anxiety stems from the presence of U.S. troops in the streets of Fallujah, a city of 500,000 that was treated relatively well by Hussein`s government, like much of the Sunni Muslim region across Iraq`s northwest.

"The area is Islamic, it`s tribal and it`s conservative," he said. "We have a proverb: A stranger should be well-mannered."

On April 28, just weeks after Hussein`s government fell, protests erupted in Fallujah -- a city long known as a center of smuggling -- over the U.S. presence. Soldiers fired on a raucous crowd, killing as many as 15 in what they said was self-defense. Two days later, U.S. troops killed at least two people; the soldiers said they had come under fire. In a report this week, Human Rights Watch accused U.S. troops of using excessive force and challenged the contention that they were responding to Iraqi fire. "The Army`s not here to provide security," Mohammed said. "The Army is here to fight.

"They`re always trying to prove their power," he added, "with their armored vehicles, their guns in the street, their tanks. They`re trying to use `shock and awe.` " He paused and smiled at his use of an English phrase, then dismissed it. "It`s terrorism."

Mohammed holds the key to the mosque, where he sat with relatives and friends in the spacious courtyard, shaded by a towering palm tree. Outside in the streets of Fallujah, traffic snarled along the main road, as cars barreled into intersections lacking traffic police. Horns blared, drivers shouted in the sweltering heat and no one gave an inch. At Shaker Thahi, a breeze blew over the men assembled before afternoon prayers, the sounds of water from the washroom serving as a backdrop.

"America is looking after its own interests. It doesn`t care about Iraq or its people," Mohammed said.

His brother Abdullah, 37, interrupted.

"Iraq will give America a headache," he said. "Every Iraqi considers himself president. This is a fact about the Iraqi people. Every Iraqi is an extremist -- in his behavior, in his action, in his work, in his opinions. He`s extreme in doing good and in doing bad."

"It will wear the Americans out," he said. "They are in a predicament."

Throughout the early afternoon, men trickled past stands laden with eggplant, watermelons, onions, cucumbers and tomatoes, and in through the mosque`s dented blue doors. Some sat casually on concrete pillars next to faucets, their sleeves rolled up as they performed ritual washing before prayers. They soon gathered inside in rows six deep, their shoes left outside.

As in any gathering in Fallujah these days, complaints coursed through the conversations that followed.

"We`ve lived through a long period of oppression -- before and now," said Mahmoud Abdel-Razzaq, a heavy-set, 40-year-old barber in the nearby market. "When an Iraqi has an opportunity, he explodes."

Marwan Saleh, 39, sat next to him on a tattered orange carpet. "Before the war," he said, "the Americans promised the Iraqis a romantic picture after the fall of the regime."

In other conversations, many dismissed the outreach attempted, so far, by U.S. troops. They demanded that their lives become better, that they be rewarded for their suffering.

"When they distribute food rations, they should give every family $100 -- at least -- to allow them to support themselves," Saleh said. His list of requests went on: better salaries, refrigerators, fans, air conditioners, even homes.

Others shook their heads in disagreement, saying that they most wanted an Iraqi government. For many, the phrase itself has come to promise stability in the war`s aftermath. After Hussein`s relentless rule, the uncertainty of transition has proven vexing, and Iraqis are often heard to say that the United States is fomenting chaos either to justify its presence or to keep Iraq weak for the benefit of Israel.

"When there`s a new government, everything will be stable. There will be no looting, there will be no stealing and there will be no killing," said Shlash Ahmed, 50, a custodian of the mosque for 30 years. "People will return to their normal lives."

For Ahmed, it would also the quickest way to get rid of the Americans.

"Everyone rejects the American presence. Why? It is a Muslim city -- not just Fallujah, but all of Iraq -- and they are heathens. They are non-believers and we are Muslims," he said. "We don`t accept humiliation, and we don`t accept colonialism."

In the streets of Fallujah, slogans scrawled in recent weeks have been covered with white paint. But some remain. "God bless the holy fighters of the city of mosque," reads one. "Fallujah will remain a symbol of jihad and resistance," proclaims another.

Worshipers at the mosque were dismissive of the U.S. contention that remnants of the Baath Party were organizing the attacks. "They`re sleeping with their heads under the covers," said one. Many argued that the almost daily ambushes and shootings were still random, vendettas inspired by the dead over the past six weeks.

Mohammed, the bookstore owner, pointed out that under tribal custom, every death justifies four killings in retaliation. Others said mosque preachers are urging restraint and have yet to call for jihad against the Americans.

"Iraqis consider this period only a truce between their people and the Americans," said Saad Halbousi, a 51-year-old former teacher who runs a photo shop. "They will eventually explode like a volcano. We`ve exchanged a tyrant for an occupier."

Abdel-Hakim Sabti sat in the background. A diminutive man with a thick black beard, he preaches at the Suheib bin Sinan Mosque on the edge of Fallujah. He wants the Americans out, but he said he would give them six months to leave.

"If the situation stays as it is, we`ll declare jihad," the 36-year-old preacher said. "This is what God commands of us."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Fusing Force With Diplomacy


By Jim Hoagland

Thursday, June 19, 2003; Page A27


President Bush demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan that he has the audacity and military power to bend the international system to America`s will. That gets him halfway home. He must now develop a larger strategy that integrates battlefield success with strong diplomatic engagement to convert change into durable progress.

Classical diplomacy and meaningful international negotiation have virtually disappeared as agents of global change and leadership. The Bush administration`s war on terrorism has led to a significant militarization of U.S. foreign policy that has become the dominant force in world affairs.

A cliche that once described this capital preparing for crisis abroad -- "the lights are burning late tonight at the State Department" -- has become an anachronism in George W. Bush`s Washington. Foggy Bottom is a somnolent, darkened nighttime quarter, while working weekends and cots for sleeping over at the office verge on being standard issue in Don Rumsfeld`s Pentagon.

Some see this as proof that the defense secretary has diabolically elbowed aside Secretary of State Colin Powell in a race for President Bush`s affections. But that greatly oversimplifies the broader phenomena at work. Rumsfeld, like nature, abhors a vacuum.

There is, to be sure, animosity between the two Cabinet members and their staffs. Rumsfeld`s fast-flowing stream of "snowflakes," as his concise and acerbic policy memos are known, infuriates Powell and his top aides. The two departments are butting heads over Rumsfeld`s view that the United States, which devised the Middle East "road map" with the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, should rule out a prominent role for those three powers in the negotiations to come.

Powell`s people are flabbergasted that the Pentagon dares to opine on diplomatic matters. But Bush seeks out Rumsfeld`s views -- so much so that Powell has been on occasion reduced to enlisting foreign powers to get his points across to Bush.

The faltering start of the road map process illustrates how ineffective U.S. diplomacy, which is after all the art of persuading, influencing or coercing other nations to advance American interests, has become. The political limbos in Afghanistan and Iraq make the same point.

Change today flows from the barrel of a gun. Asked about the escalating Israeli-Palestinian war of attrition, even U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan appealed for a new military force: "I would like to see an armed peacekeeping force act as a buffer between the Israelis and Palestinians" as an urgent interim step, Annan told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz last week.

Two quick wars have made U.S. soldiers the main guarantors of national integrity in Iraq and Afghanistan for years to come. The expansion, reorganization and recentering of NATO on new missions and new members is the clearest and most advanced U.S. foreign policy aim in Europe for Bush, as it was for Bill Clinton.

Russia and, to some extent, China count primarily in Bushist Washington as partners in the war on terror and the related campaign against nuclear weapons proliferation. U.S. troop redeployments, confronting North Korea`s nuclear blackmail and providing security help to Southeast Asia to fight terrorism are the only big arrows in Washington`s Asia-policy quiver.

This militarization of policy became inevitable in the wake of 9/11, as Americans understood that foreign terrorists were targeting them with ever more horrible weapons. Bush reached for the only tools available that would provide immediate protection. But Bush is optimistic enough, and ambitious enough, to seize the moment -- to extend a defensive war against terrorists into a campaign to produce structural change in world affairs. He probably at least toys with the idea.

Armed force, however, is not a self-fulfilling policy. It must be accompanied, guided and eventually tempered by effective diplomacy. American strength alone cannot impose a durable international imbalance-of-power system.

This is no appeal for multilateralism or the more aggressive French variant, multipolarity. These have become code words for systematically restraining American power, a goal that will not bring global stability or spread freedom and prosperity. Such options are no more meaningful than are dreams of empire at the other end of the political spectrum.

Ultimately, massive military power must be coupled to a set of values, precepts and understandings to which other democratic nations can plausibly subscribe -- even if they do not uphold every one of those values every day or join every campaign.

A great power may legitimately refuse to be bound by the ambitions or needs of its friends. But it will almost always be wise for that power to make it possible for those friends and for others to claim plausibly that they too count, even as they lose the argument. That is the essence of diplomacy.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Case of Conscience in New York


By Richard Cohen

Thursday, June 19, 2003; Page A27


CERNOBBIO, Italy -- Here on the shores of Lake Como, Mario Cuomo is attending an international conference. I sought out Cuomo because of something that just happened back in his home state. Three men were freed on bond after serving 18 years in jail for a rape and murder they probably did not commit. Cuomo long opposed the death penalty. The New York case is an example of why.

The crime, back in 1984, was just the sort that often draws the death penalty. A 16-year-old girl, Theresa Fusco, was found raped and murdered. The previous year another girl, Kelly Morrissey, 15, had disappeared while heading for a video-game parlor. She had been a friend of Fusco`s. Some months later, a third young woman, Jacqueline Martarella, 19, also disappeared in the same Long Island area as the other two. Her body was later found.

The police arrested three men, and after a lengthy interrogation (18 hours) one of them confessed. He said he and the two other men had picked up Fusco at a roller rink and driven her to a nearby cemetery. There, two raped her and a third -- the one who confessed -- strangled her. They then dumped the body. They were sentenced to more than 30 years in prison.

What followed has become depressingly familiar. The confession was recanted. The three men insisted on their innocence and spurned plea bargains. After their convictions, their case was joined by sympathetic lawyers and organizations, including the Centurion Ministries and the indefatigable Barry Scheck of the Innocence Project. Altogether, four DNA tests were conducted on semen found in the dead woman. The last, conducted about two years ago and using more advanced techniques, eliminated all three men. None of them had raped Fusco.

This was precisely the sort of crime -- the rape and murder of a young woman -- that, in another state at another time, might have resulted in the death penalty. But Cuomo, who was governor at the time, opposed capital punishment. Seven times over the course of his three terms he vetoed death penalty bills. He was pilloried for that, and it was used against him by George Pataki in Pataki`s winning 1994 campaign. It`s hard to say that he lost on account of it -- and Cuomo does not claim as much -- but it helped his adversaries paint him as a hopeless liberal, soft on crime and all of that.

Here in Europe, the death penalty has been almost repealed. There are many explanations for that, including the fact that in recent history it has been abused for political reasons -- Nazis, communists, etc. But when it was eliminated, it still was supported by majorities in most countries -- although that is not the case today. The difference between America and Europe is that politicians -- protected somewhat by a parliamentary system -- did what they are supposed to do: lead. In America, politicians have followed the polls, the money, the talk-show bombasters -- anything but their own consciences.

Cuomo understands. He was a politician himself. Still, he points out that political conservatives, who don`t think the government can do anything right, trust it to take a life. Only when it comes to capital punishment does the system operate perfectly. Such is the thinking, if it can be called that, of George Bush himself. No one has presided over as many executions as he did as governor of Texas -- and with as little doubt about guilt and as much faith in his own righteousness.

DNA testing proves, as Cuomo has long maintained, that capital punishment is nothing less than "a willingness to take innocent life." Any politician knows that -- or by now ought to. About 130 former prisoners -- many of them once on death row -- have been freed by DNA testing. Some of them confessed. Some were fingered by witnesses. Yet none of them committed the crime for which he was convicted.

The case of the three New York men is complicated, and Cuomo cautioned me not to jump to any conclusions. Yet it is a fact that none of them raped Fusco, and what once seemed so certain is now a muddle. Who knows what happened?

I asked Cuomo whether he felt he had saved lives. He demurred. But the fact remains that he set a standard for political courage that most American politicians cannot even begin to meet. Some of them, of course, genuinely favor capital punishment -- I am convinced of Bush`s sincerity, for instance. But when faced with the choice, they would prefer the death of the occasional innocent person to that of their own careers. They are not soft on crime. They are hard in the heart.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Fibbing It Up at Fox
by Dale Steinreich
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html

Flat out lies should be confronted

~ Bill O`Reilly; Fox News Channel; May 22, 2003

Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox`s protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began.

Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s.

March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage.

March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam`s bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."

[After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I wasn`t a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn`t on the war, and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction after another on this war). It`s interesting how these sniveling Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view. I do know enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua`s suggestion that a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters outside caves in Tora Bora). Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28 bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That Apparently Failed.]

March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.

[Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she`s a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.]

March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?]

March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don`t "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn`t know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.]

March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.

April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements."

[In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.]

April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network`s assertions to the contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of people. It`s constantly asserted that there`s a huge crowd. [I`m perplexed. Where`s the huge crowd?!]

April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. [In the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.]

April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.]

April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a "bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts."

[This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found in Mosul. A week later it is briefly conceded that the tiny truck was probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real ones will pour forth from the landscape continue. The second phantom lab, a large tractor-trailer truck was discovered around May 2 by Kurdish fighters.]

April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein`s September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [Because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it`s all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again, because it`s so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy obviously wasn`t too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his proudest achievements.

But all that`s an eternity ago for Imperial Conservatives with a 20-second attention span. The Fox newscasters rename Jacques Chirac "Jacques Iraq"(yuk, yuk, yuk – what a side splitter!) and keep going.]

April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as well.]

April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."

[My favorite Fox war commentator is definitely Colonel David Hunt. From my canvassing of all the cable network war coverage, it`s hard to find an analyst who is more dogmatic. When coalition forces weren’t greeted with hugs and kisses like he predicted and instead encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces in Basra and other places, Davey was all denial. Everything’s going perfect. Rummy is God, hallelujah and praise Dubya! There`s not a problem in Iraq that can`t be solved by blowing some Iraqi`s brains out.]

April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured – far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins` speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked. [Impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.]

April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it`s hard to tell what happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he`d surely have in order to plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.]

April 18: Bill O`Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."

April 21: Bill O`Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can`t tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq.

[Whoa, O`Reilly. I thought we promised the Iraqis that we were going to implement democracy, not democracy that gives the U.S. the election results it wants. That`s not democracy, now, is it? By now it`s quite clear that despite the spinning on The No Spin Zone, Iraq is descending into chaos.]

April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O`Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. [This is the same Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad in the Washington Times on January 7.] O`Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble. O`Reilly promises to explore the issue a month later. [Cool, let`s hold his feet to the fire on that promise. On an earlier show he said that U.S. credibility would be "shot" if no WMDs were found. ]

May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. He also claims that France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies although it`s apparent that`s where Vallely got his information].

May 11: On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of WMDs, but Folbaum hints that what’s important is that the trailer could have been used to make them. [Hmmm. I thought we went to war for actual WMDs, not for the ability to make WMDs.]

May 16: Special Report with Brit Hume. Muslims, citing Islam`s ban of alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their Christian owners. Under Saddam`s secular regime, Christian names were banned and schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol were freely available; there was tolerance for Iraq`s 1 million Catholic and Protestant Christians. In New and Improved Neocon Iraq, there`s a letter circulating in Baghdad threatening violence to even the families of women who refuse to wear the traditional Muslim head covering. [The report is yet another interesting and reluctant concession of unintended consequences.]

May 19: O`Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g., France supplied Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons, French companies sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes and helicopters, France possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers). Recall this last charge was made by Major General Paul Vallely on May 8 on The O`Reilly Factor. Again, the Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway thinks it`s obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them. O`Reilly claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don`t turn out to be true. O`Reilly refers to documents that prove that the French government was briefing Saddam right until the war started. [Briefed on what?]

May 20: O`Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer. "Somebody is lying," he states. He says that if the U.S. military has concocted a fraud, then it will be a terrible scandal but if the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing will happen to them. He says he is skeptical of the BBC and Scheer.

To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt. [Geez. Transcript here.] Over and over, Hunt calls the allegations of staged rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the world." He claims that the ambulance with Lynch in it that drove up to a Marine checkpoint was never shot at, its drivers demanded $10,000 for information on Jessica, Saddam Hospital was guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen, Jessica`s life was saved, and coalition forces didn`t trash the hospital. What were his sources for this information? The special ops members on the raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues. Over and over Hunt kept saying, "They`re the best soldiers in the world, they`re the best in the world. Why would they make this up?"

[What followed next was an exchange that`s priceless and one of many that goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:]

Hunt: In my opinion it`s an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and women in our service, it`s an assault on Jessica, it`s an assault on these great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a minimum we should no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer buy the Toronto Free Press, and shut the BBC off. It`s a government to government issue...this is calling into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it`s uncalled for, it`s absolutely unbelievable."

O`Reilly: If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to Scheer...he`ll just go along blithely printing his lies and living his life and getting paid for it.

[To the Colonel: U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that assessment that particular actions taken during the raid were not excessive and unjustified? How is the BBC`s story an assault on Jessica?! What do you mean when you mention a "government to government issue" given that the U.S. government now controls Iraq?! Is the Pentagon the most effective check on its own possible misdeeds? How convenient if you`re suggesting that it is. Who is your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom Jessica? Why hasn`t this allegation made its way into any other news reports?]

[To O`Reilly: If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there`ll be no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and the Pentagon will assert just the opposite and allow yet another embarrassment to slide into the Memory Hole. This is exactly why your demand for accountability from the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow and hypocritical. Instead of plumbing the U.S. military to investigate itself, why don`t you interview Iraqi doctor Harith al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the story was first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually saved Lynch`s life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have jeopardized it? The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an ambulance that had to return to the hospital because it was shot at by Marines. Why would he lie? You say you automatically trust the Pentagon. Why, when tales of Lynch`s heroics in fighting off 500 Iraqi soldiers with one hand while severely wounded and tales that she had amnesia have already been proven bogus?]

May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox and Friends with promises by the show`s hosts that he will verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn`t staged. King doesn`t prove anything. He states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the day after the rescue, concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the hospital, and that he "was told " that the hospital was guarded by hostile forces but doesn`t specify who told him. [The testimony of the hospital staff contradicts this last hearsay.]

May 22: O`Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon.

June 2: [Unfortunately for O`Reilly, Bush isn`t candidly explaining anything.] A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush in Poland claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction. His evidence? Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly used as mobile bioweapons labs. [A June 7 article by the Times` Judith Miller reports serious doubts by some analysts that the two trailers were used as mobile bioweapons labs. Said one senior analyst about the initial CIA report, it "was a rushed job and looks political." Yes, they violated U.N. resolutions but this is another red herring to suggest WMDs.]

June 4: O`Reilly`s Talking Points Memo: [Surreal.] O`Reilly says that the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!]. The war was a just war because there`s now great progress between Palestinians and Israelis and that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!]. Also the mass graves and other horrors discovered add to the case for war. The intelligence was either wrong or more time is needed to find the WMDs. [Again contradicting what he said on and before April 22.]

June 11: Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15 and wounding at least 100. [Looks like the real reason for war according to O`Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also disintegrated, but don`t expect O`Reilly to admit it.]

June 13, 2003

Dr. Dale Steinreich [send him mail] is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a contributor to AgainstTheCrowd.com.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

[Joerver]

The unruly joy of freedom
Robert Scheer - Creators Syndicate

06.16.03 - How telling that U.S. forces so carefully protected Iraq`s oil fields while ignoring the looting of Baghdad`s internationally renowned museum. The complete, and by all accounts preventable, destruction of one of the world`s most significant collections of antiquities is a fit metaphor for current U.S. foreign policy, which causes more serious damage through carelessness than calculation.

The notion that Iraq even has history -- let alone that 7,000 years ago this land was the cradle of civilization -- is not likely to occur to the neocolonialists running a brawny young nation barely more than 200 years old. The United States` earnest innocence is the charm that our entertainment industry markets so successfully around the world, but it is also the perennial seed of disaster as we blithely rearrange corners of the planet we only pretend to understand.

To Donald Rumsfeld, the widespread looting that has ravaged hospitals, libraries and museums in Iraq was simply further proof the U.S. invasion of this fractured Muslim country represents liberation. "Freedom`s untidy," he said. "And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes." Translation: You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

It almost sounds as if the Defense secretary is projecting onto the looters a blanket excuse for deadly errors the White House and the U.S. military have made and will continue to make in Iraq: alienating allies, killing civilians, handpicking craven and corrupt Iraqi "leaders" who haven`t been in the country for decades. This is, after all, the distillation of the Bush Doctrine: Free countries are free to commit mistakes and commit crimes in unfree countries.

One wonders whether Rumsfeld would extend such tolerance to the United States` own 2 million prisoners. Surely he would not dismiss our country`s long history of urban riots as an example of the untidiness of freedom? It is only in Iraq that we believe, to quote a song Janis Joplin made famous, that "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose."

Yet neither the awesome display of U.S. military power or the slew of false justifications used to unleash it -- the imminent threat of Iraq`s use of weapons of mass destruction, now likely to be proved nonexistent, or the unsubstantiated claims that Iraq is linked to 9/11 -- qualifies the United States to remake a nation with which we have absolutely no affinity.

If Iraq needs a foreign midwife to assist in its rebirth it should be under the broader sponsorship of the United Nations Security Council, which our macho president continues to disparage for having failed to vote our way. Will the democracy we so glibly promote for Iraq be pushed aside if it similarly fails to produce results to our liking?

Eager to rebuild their country after years of misrule, will Iraqis really swallow the shameless plans of Bush insiders to privatize Iraqi oil while the administration awards billions of dollars in contracts to U.S. companies?

And what if Iraqi Muslim fundamentalists prove as successful at the polls as radicals in Algeria, where the United States only mildly rebuked a repressive regime for smashing a popularly elected but theocratic opposition?

If the new Iraq follows the path of Pakistan and Turkey, where the populace is inclined to obliterate any wall between state and church, will the United States spin this as a victory for democracy? Will Rumsfeld justify the ethnic cleansing common in a nation riven with competing tribes, clans and religious sects arbitrarily packed together by previous colonialist rulers as the unruly joy of freedom?

Why have the media bought the administration`s propaganda that we come to Iraq with clean hands and virgin swords to slay the dragon of Saddam Hussein, when the United States did so much to keep him in power? Surely, even embedded journalists recall that it was Reagan administration special envoy Rumsfeld who met with Hussein in the 1980s to guarantee U.S. support for Iraq`s war with Iran.

Once again, we`re deep in the "nation-building" game that Bush the candidate railed against in 2000. Having blundered in, guns blazing, we should now play to win the peace, slowly backing out and inviting a true multinational rebuilding effort with support from the United Nations and Muslim countries.

And for heaven`s sake, can we remember in our next preemptive invasion to assign at least a few of our tanks to protect the hospitals and museums?

© 2003 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=15157&CF…

[Joerver]

!

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

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-latino1…

Latinos Now Top Minority
Census Bureau estimates group`s U.S. population at 38.8 million, ahead of blacks for the first time. Demographers see even more growth ahead.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Times Staff Writer

June 19, 2003

WASHINGTON — The Census Bureau on Wednesday formally declared Latinos to be the nation`s largest minority group, a much-anticipated milestone that demographers said is a sign of more rapid growth in years ahead.

"The official population estimates now indicate that the Hispanic community is the nation`s largest minority community," Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon told a convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens, meeting in Florida.

"This is an important event in this country — an event that we know is the result of the growth of a vibrant and diverse population that is vital to America`s future," he said.

Figures released in Washington placed the Latino population at 38.8 million in July 2002, an increase of nearly 10% from the 2000 census. The bureau estimated the African American population at 38.3 million. Each group accounts for a little more than 13% of the overall U.S. population.

In California, Latinos have long been the largest ethnic minority. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, in 1990 they made up 25.4% of the state`s population; Asian Americans were at 9.2% and African Americans 7.1%. By 2000, Latinos had grown to 32.4% of the state population; Asian Americans had increased to 10.9%, while African Americans declined to 6.7%.

In an indication of strong growth, Latinos accounted for half the increase of 6.9 million in total U.S. population since April 2000, Kincannon said.

The estimates also showed that the Asian population grew at almost as rapid a rate as Latinos. Asian Americans now number 11.6 million, or 4% of the U.S. total.

The Census Bureau considers Latinos an ethnic group whose members can be of any race or skin color. The racial identification issue created confusion this year when the Census Bureau released population estimates for 2001 that some said showed Latinos had numerically surpassed blacks. But when people who claimed more than one racial ancestry were counted, the number of African Americans was larger.

Others asserted that the turning point came in 2000, when more than 3.5 million Puerto Ricans living on the island should have been counted in mainland totals since they are U.S. citizens.

And some experts point to studies and data showing that Latinos underreport African ancestry and question whether numerical comparisons with the black population are valid.

The Census Bureau refrained from making a pronouncement until now.

The number of Latinos could reach 60 million by 2020, said Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Urban Institute, a public policy center in Washington. The increase is driven both by a surge in immigration and by births in what is a relatively young population.

"If current trends continue as far as immigration and fertility, Hispanics could account for 15.5% of the population in 2010 and 18% in 2020," said Passel, who estimates that the Latino population is growing by about 3 percentage points each decade.

Many of the changes that come with the growth in the Latino population are already evident, said Harry Pachon, president of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute at Claremont College.

"In foodstuffs, salsa and ketchup are neck and neck," Pachon said. "Big corporations that sell consumer goods are trying to figure out ways to reach this community. Political candidates [are] taking Spanish lessons and learning how to say `Necesito su voto` — `I need your vote.` "

The all-Democratic Congressional Hispanic Caucus hailed the news — and blasted the Bush administration for cuts in government programs that serve Latinos.

"With presidential and congressional slashes to the budgets that support our community`s essential programs, our outlook is bleak," said Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas), the caucus chairman.

Others noted polls that show Latinos are politically up for grabs, with a traditional preference for Democrats but a willingness to listen to Republicans.

"There are going to be over 6 million Latino voters in the 2004 election, and this administration has made no secret of reaching out to Latinos," Pachon said. "It`s politics, American-style. When a group reaches a certain critical stage, the political parties start going after it."

One possible source of awkwardness for Republicans: the cooling in the once-fraternal relationship between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox after Mexico opposed the Iraq war.

A detailed census report on the Latino population, also released Wednesday, showed that 60% are born in this country. About two-thirds claim Mexico as their ancestral home.

People of Central and South American origin compose about 14% of Latinos, those of Puerto Rican origin account for 9%, and those with Cuban ancestry almost 4%.

Latinos may be having a more subtle influence on social changes. A Census Bureau study released this week showed that the number of children with stay-at-home mothers had increased by 13% in less than a decade. Experts attributed some of that increase to the growing number of Latina mothers.

"The Latina labor force participation rate has always been lower than that of African American or white women," said Clara Rodriguez, a sociologist at Fordham University in New York. "There is a strong cultural sense of taking care of the kids."

As a whole, the Latino population is relatively youthful. The census figures released Wednesday show only 5% are 65 and older, compared with more than 14% of non-Hispanic whites. More than a third of Latinos are under 18, compared with just 23% of whites.

When it comes to families, more than a quarter of Latinos lived in families with five or more people, compared with 11% of whites. Among Latinos, those of Mexican origin were more likely to have large families, while Cubans had the smallest.

Latinos had lower educational attainment and lower incomes than whites. Fifty-seven percent of Latinos had at least a high school education, compared with 89% of whites. Among full-time, year-round workers, 26% of Latinos made $35,000 or more, compared with 54% of whites.

Although the Latino population is still heavily concentrated in the West, census and other studies have shown a trend toward dispersal around the country. Analysis of census data by the Rivera Institute showed that Latinos outnumber African Americans in 23 states.

Whether the Latino population growth will continue is unclear. Studies have shown that Latinos have high rates of marriage with people of other ethnicities. By the third generation in the U.S., about half of Latinos marry outside their group.

"All these trends are subject to a caveat that the way people identify themselves doesn`t change," said Passel of the Urban Institute. "The proportion of Hispanics married to non-Hispanics is likely to go up ... and who knows what their grandchildren are going to call themselves?"


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-wmd19ju…
EDITORIAL

Open Iraq Hearings Crucial

June 19, 2003

President Bush dismisses questions as to whether his administration misrepresented intelligence about Iraq`s possession of weapons of mass destruction, calling such accusations the product of "revisionist historians." But who`s revising what with this daily name-calling campaign over recent history? The only way the administration can put to rest questions about its actions is to give up its resistance to a thorough congressional investigation of the intelligence concerning Iraq.

This is not just a matter for the record or for partisan jousting, although a congressional investigation would serve both purposes. It goes to the crux of the conduct of American foreign policy, this country`s global credibility and the constitutional duties of the commander in chief. Polls indicate that most Americans are indifferent as to whether Iraq really had weapons of mass destruction. But the British are outraged over the testimony Tuesday of two former Cabinet ministers in a parliamentary hearing on Iraq that they believe Prime Minister Tony Blair twisted intelligence to exaggerate the danger posed by Saddam Hussein.

In Washington, the Senate and House are conducting closed intelligence hearings this week. But Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, balks at open hearings. Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, correctly seeks open hearings and a public report.

Committee member Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wants to publicly question CIA Director George J. Tenet. Levin contends Tenet misled Americans and believes the U.S. did not fully disclose to United Nations weapons inspectors full intelligence on possible Iraqi weapon sites; to have done so might have prolonged the push for inspections and disrupted the administration`s rush to war, Levin says. These and other such serious accusations — including whether the administration pressured analysts to come up with worst-case analyses of Iraqi weaponry — can best be answered in public hearings.

Bush officials may hope they can ward off such sessions, stalling in the hope that U.S. forces do find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Especially as the parties head into the 2004 presidential campaign, Democrats will be eager to hammer at this topic and anything else they can find to embarrass Bush. But something more than partisanship is at stake here now: Britain is conducting a real investigation into the intelligence it had about Baghdad, and the U.S. can too. If America must mobilize the world in the days to come about grave concerns such as the nuclear intentions of North Korea or Iran, it will need intelligence that isn`t under a cloud of doubt about what may, or may not, have happened with Iraq.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[rv_2011]

News, June 2003 , Al-Jazeerah.info

US Doesn’t Have to Name 9/11 Detainees
Ted Bridis • Associated Press

Arab News

WASHINGTON, 18 June 2003 — A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the Bush administration is not obligated to publicly identify the 762 foreigners it detained in the weeks and months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel from the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected arguments that the Justice Department should have publicly provided the names of detainees, names of their lawyers, dates they were picked up and the reasons why they were being detained.

The court affirmed that the information can properly be withheld from the public under an existing exemption from the Freedom of Information Act.

That provision exempts information from disclosure if it is compiled for law enforcement purposes and if revealing it “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The case was brought by the Center for National Security Studies and other public interest groups. Lawyers for the groups had objected to the Justice Department’s denial of their request for detailed information about the foreigners detained during the government’s investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks.

US District Judge Gladys Kessler last August ordered the government to release the names but delayed enforcing her order to give the government time to appeal. Kessler said the Justice Department could withhold other information under the Freedom of Information Act exemption.

The appeals panel, however, went further in yesterday’s ruling, permitting the Bush administration to withhold from public disclosure of even the names of the foreigners and the names of their lawyers.

[Joerver]

Bericht aus und über Syrien, weshalb die Amerikaner Syrien oder andere arabische Staaten noch nicht überfallen haben.

Report from Damascus on relations with America: occupation problems in Iraq reduced the crisis
Syria-USA, Politics, 6/18/2003

The Syrian leadership has restored back its calm often known of having it the face heated developments. This however, after the storm of direct threats made by the American administration upon launching its war of Iraq and continued for three months; Threats that all American officials took part starting from President George W. Bush until the last advisor at the US Pentagon.

The telephone call made last week by the US Secretary Of State Colin Powell with the Syrian foreign minister Farouk al-Shara can be considered as an indicator on the "change" in Washington`s position and the end of a phase of threats, yet despite this, it cannot eliminate the atmosphere of concern from "an administration which is not known for reason towards those who opposes its views."

Damascus does not hide its "dissatisfaction" for not being invited to Sharm Esh Sheikh summit which was held at a direct American request and for a certain American purpose which is to ensure the Arab coverage of al-Aqaba meeting, which intended to show the care of the US administration to fulfil its promises to the Palestinians to implement the Roadmap despite the announced Israeli opposition to it.

It is known that the Syrian leadership has committed to a concept that "we are not concerned with the roadmap, and the Palestinian brothers have their own right. Should they accept it, we will not oppose, and if they oppose it, we adopt their position."

Moreover, sides concerned said that Colin Powell was not obliged to contact Damascus which was not one of the guaranteeing sides in Sharm Esh Sheikh, and despite that Powell contacted Damascus and re-explained the positives of this Roadmap and Syria listened to him thoroughly and the known Syrian stand was reiterated to that " he peace process should include all sides of the conflict and that Syria and Lebanon are two involved and effective sides and there should be a Roadmap for them." However, the fear had dropped, but the concern is still continuous. However, Damascus is more comfortable.

One anonymous Syrian analysist said "the was is over.. During the war there were pretexts at any reason to expand the circle of the aggression to cover Syria.. from the issue of the Arab volunteers (fighters), to the open borders (with Iarq), to the resort of Iraqi leaderships to Syria, to smuggling certain weapons from Syria to Iraq.. However, now the fear is dropped but caution continues to exist."

It is understood that the feeling of danger escalated with the catastrophe of Baghdad`s fall in that dramatic manner in contrary to all estimates.

Today, the situation is much better.. the more the Americans get involved in Iraq, they are obliged to change their tone with "us and with others who oppose the war and the occupation against Iraq."

According to estimates of official sources in Damascus, the crisis of the Americans in Iraq will be increasingly escalated. Their inability to control the situation is clear. The US President George W. Bush has proved that he is the "man of war," but he has to prove now he is the "man of peace." And this might not be smoothly attained for him in Iraq nor in Palestine. And it is important for him ( President Bush ) to pass this exam successfully before launching his campaign for a second term of office. However, time is against him.

On how the Syrian leadership views the situation in Baghdad, the Syrian side expressed satisfaction and this is because of the fact that Damascus has good relations with most faces of the Iraqi opposition, with many of them stayed some times for long periods in Damascus. However, trade relations between the two sides have been reviving. There are now Iraqi delegations coming to Syria and finalizing trade deals, at the knowledge and permission of the occupation forces which bombarded in the beginning the border and tightened its closure.

It was proven to the American occupation that the relations between the Syrians and the Iraqis are necessary and indispensable, especially in light of the deadly living and economic crisis the Iraqi people suffer under occupation The Syrian official cited the story of al-Musil experience saying " in the beginning a delegation representing the people of al-Musil went to the leadership of the occupation forces asking for help to ensure food needs. In the beginning they got strong orders not to deal with the Syrians again.. However, the occupation leaders itself once again permitted such dealing because it found that the relations between al-Musil and Syria is the only solution to achieve certain living conditions."

On threats to enforce Syria`s accountability law. No Syrian official shows serious concern over this possibility. "what is in this law that they had not tried with us before? since a long time, they had placed us on the world terrorism states list, and despite that they continued to keep in touch with us. They never stopped visiting us, making consultation with us. And in certain cases asked out help."

About Lebanon and describing Syria`s presence in its as occupation, "the answer is ready, our relations with Lebanon are decided with Syria and Lebanon. We are not concerned over their moves, statements and remarks on Lebanon. The most important that certain professional politicians in Lebanon will not be deceived and their calculations mislead. There is no problem for Syria in Lebanon and no danger on the remarkable relations between Syria and Lebanon."

On the attempts to link between Syria and Iran and to "warn" them over interfering in Iraq`s affairs, official circles in Damascus see in that as an attempt to threaten and an indication of the "deep crisis the Americans are in following the occupation of Iraq."

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/030618/2003061817.…

[Joerver]

U.S. troops may be in Iraq for 10 years Defense officials reportedly seek up to $54 billion a year
By Tom Squitieri
USA TODAY


WASHINGTON -- Two top U.S. defense officials signaled Congress on Wednesday that U.S. forces might remain in Iraq for as long as a decade and that permanent facilities need to be built to house them there.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave no explicit estimates for the time U.S. forces would stay in Iraq, but they did not dispute members of Congress who said the deployment could last a decade or more. The comments were among the most explicit acknowledgements yet from the Bush administration that the U.S. presence in Iraq will be long, arduous, costly and a strain on the military.

Wolfowitz told the House Armed Services Committee that the Bush administration will eventually come to Congress to seek more money for the military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wolfowitz said the size of the supplemental funding request will be determined in the fall. But he did not dispute an estimate by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., that the military would need an annual budget of $54 billion -- $1.5 billion a month for Afghanistan, $3 billion a month for Iraq.

The money would be for costs in fiscal 2004, which starts on Oct. 1 of this year. Former White House budget director Mitch Daniels has said the major combat came in under budget and the administration will not seek additional funds for the Iraq war in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.

Pace told the committee that the U.S. force in Iraq is just under its peak of 151,000 combat troops and that the number will not be reduced in the foreseeable future. He said military officials want to build a 60,000-strong Iraqi police force to free U.S. troops for other duties. U.S. troops are now guarding 500 sites and conducting 2,300 patrols a night, Pace said.

Wolfowitz urged Congress to vote for money to train Iraqi and Afghan troops, both to ease the burden on U.S. forces and to free them for other duties, including ``a possible contingency in Korea.``

``We are still in a phase where we need some significant combat power to take on these remnants of the old regime,`` Wolfowitz said.

``I can`t predict how long they (U.S. troops) will be there,`` he said. ``It`s got to be driven by conditions and not the calendar.``

Wolfowitz and Pace said they believe the burden on U.S. servicemembers will ease as troops from other countries enter Iraq. But the arrival of those troops now does not appear likely to happen before September, Pace said.

Pace said about 12,000 non-U.S. troops from eight countries are in Iraq, almost all of them British. He said 17 nations have promised to send a total of up to 20,000 troops. He also said India and 48 other countries are being asked to send forces to boost that number to 30,000.
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030619/5256936s.htm

[Joerver]

June 17, 2003


Lying and Dying
Sex, Lies & WMDs
By Dr. SUSAN BLOCK

Perma-war pops as the dollar drops. Our leaders lie as people die. Of course, there are lies, and then there are lies. Four years ago, a President of the United States was impeached because he lied about details of his sex life. His enemies insisted: It`s not the sex that`s the impeachable offense-- although they couldn`t stop talking about the sex--it`s the lying! Though nobody died for those lies.

Now the mob that practically lynched President Clinton is running the country, with the major media as their handmaiden. And their President who would be King, George II, has been caught in a lie so big, Joseph Goebbels must be tipping his peaked cap in admiration from his grave.

Little Dubya told a lie, not about sex (unless he really does strap on a missile slathered with Crisco between his legs before mounting one of his beloved ranch animals). No, the Great Pretzel Swallower didn`t lie about sex, but about the basis for war. So far, this particular war has killed untold thousands of soldiers and civilians, including hundreds of Americans, as well as more than a few British blokes, cost us billions of dollars in the midst of the worst deficit in U.S. history, gotten our leaders charged with war crimes by a Belgian court, served as an Al Qaeda recruiting symbol beyond Osama`s wildest dreams, and shows no signs of being over, despite Top Gun Georgy`s costume-drama proclamation of the end of major fighting on board the U.S.S. Lincoln. Moreover, Gulf War II is but one part of the Perma-War condition into which the lies of the Bushites have submerged America.

So, which lie should be an impeachable offense? A personal fib to cover-up a blow-job, or an elaborately orchestrated web of deceit, forgery and Big Internationally Broadcast Whoppers about Vast Stores of End-Times Armaments, for the clear purpose of terrorizing Americans into supporting war, even when all the evidence showed us that Saddam, Evil-Doer that he was, hadn`t developed any major weapons since the Gulf War I.

So what if Saddam acted like he had something to hide? A lot of men do. Like I explained, almost a year ago in these pages, "Saddamis the kind of guy who brags he`s got nine inches, then won`t let you unzip his pants for fear you`ll laugh at his actual four and a half (and he`d have to kill you for that)."

So, now we all know Saddam is just that type of guy, and we can all see clear-as-a-day-without-bombs that our President and his henchmen lied to us. So which lie is worse-Clinton`s or Bush`s? The sexual sin or the war crime? The blow-job cover-up or the ruse for the rape of Iraq?

Obviously, covering up a blow-job is worse, according to Congress (also according to the TV pundits who are still after the Clintons, as evidenced by their enraged reaction to the blockbuster sales of Hillary`s memoir "Living History"). And oh, those awful semen stains! Much, much worse than the bloodstains across the ancient land of Mesopotamia, laid waste upon a Pack of Lies.

Hey now, there`s a pack of playing cards I`d like to see! Each card could have a different WMD that the Bushites lied about. The Ace of Hearts could be the 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent. The Queen of Diamonds could be the 25,000 liters of anthrax. The Jack of Clubs would be the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. The King of Spades would be the 500 tons of "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. And so on.

According to Dubya`s State of the Union Address, Saddam had enough weapons to blow us to the moon within 45 minutes. A lie like this shouldn`t even be protected by the First Amendment; it is the national equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Sure, many of us knew the Shrub was full of it. But some of us believed him (just like some of us believed that Billy Jeff "never had sexual relations with that woman"), and on the basis of that belief, we heaved ourselves and our loved ones into this major war that is just beginning, even as the scope of the lie comes clear.

For months, our troops have been bravely searching for these tons upon tons of horrible stuff from FrankenSaddam`s evil laboratory (and the search, along with the war, continues), and all to no avail. They can`t even find enough poison in those two Winnebagos to kill a rat. At this point, if anyone comes up with anything (a vat of lye? a really big can of Raid?), everyone will wonder if it`s a plant.

So, caught in a lie, what does our leader do? Remember what Clinton did? He came clean--cleaner than any other American president has had to come about his sex life. He was a man, a sexual man, and he apologized for his indiscretion and took his punishment, insanely overblown as it was.

And what does Bush do? He blames the CIA.

Of course, Clinton couldn`t blame the CIA. Ever since the Puritans invaded this land, Americans have been sticklers for making us all "take responsibility" for sex. Too bad we aren`t so hypercritical of our leaders when it comes to war.

On a positive notethough we can`t find Weapons of Mass Destruction, we do have some nifty Weapons of Ass Destruction (state-of-the-art strap-on butt-busters that take "blowing you to the moon" to new dimensions). Bush may want to try switching focus from WMD to WAD, of which he`s sure to find plenty, though he may have to share them with his "inclusive" buddy Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) who, judging from his commentary on "man-on-manman-on-dog" sex, would know exactly how to use weapons like these.

Dr. Susan Block is a sex educator, host of The Dr. Susan Block Show and author of The 10 Commandments of Pleasure. Visit her website at http://www.drsusanblock.com

If you`d like to contact Dr. Susan Block with questions, comments or contributions, please email [e-mail]

[Joerver]

Luck of the Irish
And the French and Canadians and Germans and so on

by Alan Bisbort - June 19, 2003

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:21239

Wouldn`t it be better to live abroad?

The World This Week
There will come a time, when and if George W. Bush wins the 2004 election, that many first-rate Americans will give serious thought to emigrating from the country of their birth, this place formerly known as the land of the free. If you haven`t at least given some fleeting thought to this possibility already, then you aren`t paying attention to what`s going on here. You are, shall we say, living in a fool`s idea of paradise.
This has never been more apparent to me than now, after a 10-day visit to Ireland, a grand, beautiful country with a civilized, healthy democracy and a free -- and freely skeptical -- press. Returning to these shores, I`m convinced that America is in the grip of a monstrous delusion, one that bears no resemblance to the rest of the world`s reality. The passive acceptance of corruption and lies that is the foundation of this current house of cards strikes me as a collective version of the go-along-to-get-along mentality that rules families victimized by abuse and addiction. It is easier -- and less dangerous in the short run -- to look the other way, to let the likes of Ashcroft, Delay, Scalia and Rove redefine the meaning of the Constitution, to let Rice and Fleischer and Cheney corrupt even the language we use to communicate. But a house of cards is just that, something that will in the long run collapse into nothingness.

To the Irish (and the rest of the world), for example, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are far from over, despite the fact that Americans collectively watched, in shock and awe, as the idiot prince, sporting a codpiece and helmet, landed aboard an aircraft carrier to declare the "mission" in Iraq was "accomplished." To the rest of the world, Bush is, at best, a laughingstock and, at worst, untrustworthy.

I certainly understand why anyone would hesitate before leaving the nation of their birth. Who the hell, after all, wants to toss in the towel on what was one of the greatest experiments in democracy in world history? To use the metaphor begun above, many a spouse has reconsidered, at the eleventh hour, taking the kids and running from an abusive mate.

And many have asked the police to drop charges and rescind restraining orders, after being physically beaten, psychologically assaulted and/or threatened, only to turn up dead or permanently maimed a few months down the line.

However, I would suggest taking a different, more pragmatic view of any such decision. Rather than see it as a defeat, a tossing in of the towel, see it as a rational reaction to irrational behavior. See it as a way to take yourself out of a place that is dangerous, violent and delusional and put yourself in a different place where a government -- however inefficient -- is in the business of caring about its people rather than crushing them underfoot in pursuit of an extremist ideological agenda.

Indeed, this same get-out-while-the-getting-is-good mentality swept through Germany in the late 1930s. The United States was the beneficiary of a wave of immigrants who went on to become some of the nation`s finest thinkers and doers, among them Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, George Grosz, and Thomas Mann. It only makes sense that, should America turn its own back on, if not openly threaten, the best and brightest among us -- simply because they oppose, with every ounce of their being, the usurpation and abuse of power exhibited by the White House -- then these gifted people will seek other places where their talents will be better appreciated. A place, for example, where their children won`t be shot at their high school desks, kicked by a demented Little League mom, brainwashed into becoming an obese adolescent by an unhealthy consumerist ethic, dulled in mind and body by television and pop cultural inanity, taunted and bullied by idiots who drape themselves in the Stars and Stripes.

Many people of my acquaintance have suggested Canada as a logical alternative. It`s clean, friendly, multicultural, and relatively near to hand. Allow me to suggest Ireland. Since there are 40 million Americans of Irish descent among us, going to Ireland is not a giant leap into cultural surrealism (give or take the driving on the left side of the road and the potatoes that come even with the Chinese takeout order).

One caveat: Be prepared to be kicked in the teeth, ass or nuts by your fellow Americans. Remember "love it or leave it" from the Vietnam War era? It still lives.

Consider this exchange, between readers of one of my recent columns for In These Times: One "Cat" from Virginia said,

"We are a society of bred enablers and consider ourselves to be entitled to whatever we can get by whatever means necessary (hence the new regime`s popularity). If I could talk my husband into it, I`d move to Canada ..." To which one "Tom" from points unknown responded, "Cat, please move to Canada. I, for one, don`t want you here and I can`t imagine that anyone else does either, unless they like being preached at and being generalized as stupid, lazy, and entitled assholes."

Look at it this way: Once the smoke clears above the ruins of the Bush Era, Americans will long for a state of democratic grace. Then they will gladly take you back, like exiles from Saddam`s reign of terror, and ask you to help rebuild the land of the free.

Until then, consider joining the rest of the world.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Anarchy spurs Afghan opium production

Associated Press

POSTED AT 3:54 AM EDT Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2003

War and lawlessness have helped make Afghanistan the world`s largest opium producer and a government ban is unlikely to make a significant dent in last year`s poppy production, the head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime said.

Antonio Maria Costa warned the UN Security Council Tuesday that the government`s commitment to eliminate drug production by 2013 and prohibit the drug trade will only succeed "if security and stability spread throughout the country."

"The task to rid Afghanistan of the drug economy requires much greater political, security and financial capital than presently available, to assist the rural areas affected by opium production and , above all, to improve the central government`s ability to implement its opium production ban," he said.

At an open council meeting focusing on the Afghan drug problem, UN Undersecretary-General for Peacekeeping Jean-Marie Guehenno said peace remains fragile and warned of fresh efforts to destabilize the country, including "an apparent marked increase" in infiltration in the south and southeast by supporters of Afghanistan`s former Taliban rulers.

Noting that security is so bad that one-third of the country is currently inaccessible to the United Nations, Mr. Guehenno warned that for some elements within Afghanistan the peace process "represents a threat, and it is their intent to subvert it and force the government and international community into retreat."

"They are relatively few in number, but the vicious technology of terror gives them a power that is disproportionate to their number," he said. "The aims of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and (rebel leader Gulbuddin) Hekmatyar are reasonably clear."

It`s more difficult to gauge if regional commanders and governors are truly committed to rebuilding the nation, he said.

He noted signs that a May 20 agreement between Mr. Karzai and 12 of the country`s most powerful governors and regional commanders to bring the provinces under central government control was already being violated by Herat`s Ismael Khan who refuses to resign one of his posts, as required.

Mr. Costa, the UN drug chief, noted that "drugs originating in Afghanistan provide resources to crime and terrorism" and "the drug dealers - among them the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda - have a vested interest in ensuring that the state remains weak."

He said his office estimated that 3,400 tons of poppy were produced in five provinces in the northern, eastern and southern parts of the country.

"What about 2003? According to our recent preliminary survey, current opium cultivation appears to have spread to new areas, while a decrease has taken place in the traditional provinces of Helmand, Qandahar, Nangarhar and Oruzgan. On balance, neither the surface under cultivation nor the volume of output are likely to change significantly," he said.

"War and lawlessness have been the forces that have driven opium production to present levels, and not the other way around," Mr. Costa said.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030618.…

[Joerver]

Thursday, June 19, 2003
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/127224_dowd19.html
W. and Hillary have a lot in common

By MAUREEN DOWD
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- Once toast in this town, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now the toast of the town. (Or at least the Venus part.)

At a Clintonista déjà vu party on Tuesday night, Hillary was honored for her sensational debut as the fastest-selling non-fiction author ever. (More than Howard Stern even.)

The Mars brigade stormed a Bush-Cheney re-election fund-raising kick-off at the Washington Hilton -- $2,000 a head for hot dogs, burgers and nachos. The White House wants fat cats to pony up $170 million for the run -- a small price to pay for the cut in taxes on dividend income.

The 1,200 Bush donors and White House motorcades snarled evening traffic downtown, perhaps a Machiavellian attempt to prevent Hillary doters from making their way out to the Maryland manse of Lissa Muscatine for Hillary`s party.

Muscatine was chief speechwriter for Hillary when she was first lady and part of the team that toiled for two years helping the senator stitch together her own account of her own life. With le tout hacks, flacks and Hill pols eager to munch on miniature sirloin burgers and champagne, many guests were discouraged from bringing spouses. (A celebration of a book about marital rifts should not cause them.)

Even with her "spouse problem," as she wryly refers to it in her book, Hillary`s polls have shot up since the publication of her sisterhood-is-powerful political manifesto, cleverly masquerading as confessional victim and self-actualization literature.

Once Hillary was in the White House, besieged with questions about deception and secrecy, and beset by cascading investigations.

Now, George W. Bush is in the White House, besieged with questions about deception and secrecy, and beset by cascading investigations.

This president has weapons of mass destruction problems, whereas the last president had weapons of mass self-destruction problems.

W. must persuade doubters why he knew Saddam was an imminent threat before he made a pre-emptive move on Iraq, even as Hillary must persuade doubters why she did not know that Monica was an imminent threat who made a pre-emptive move on Bill. (If only a drum of chemicals were as easy to spot as a black thong.)

With her book, Clinton is dropping a handkerchief in the 2008 race, signaling another amazing roundelay between the two first families of American politics, the fancy Republicans who strain to be common folk, and the Democratic common folk who strain to be fancy.

The Bushies dismissed the Clintons as "means justify the ends" types, who did as they liked and left a mess for others to clean up.

The Clintons saw themselves as audacious warriors for good, ingeniously grappling with intractable problems like health care.

Now the Democrats want to hold open hearings to see if the Bushies are "means justify the ends" types, who did as they liked and left a mess for others to clean up.

The Bushies see themselves as audacious warriors for good, ingeniously grappling with intractable problems like remaking the Arab world.

Just as the Bushies think Clinton dropped the ball on Osama and terrorism, the Clintons think the Bushies dropped it on the economy and the disenfranchised. And don`t get either side started on Whitewater and Halliburton.

In her book, Hillary writes that the right wing considered her husband illegitimate, then goes on to imply that Bush is, saying of William Rehnquist: "As the country would later learn in the election-deciding case of Bush vs. Gore, his lifetime tenure as a Supreme Court Justice did not inhibit his ideological or partisan zeal."

Just as Bushworld is a macho preserve with a tight uber-loyal circle, so Hillaryland is a female preserve with a tight uber-loyal circle.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Newt Gingrich and others have been trying to banish the if-it-feels-good-do-it, McGovernick, hippie ethos of the `60s. In her book, Hillary defends the era: "Some contemporary writers and politicians have tried to dismiss the anguish of those years as an embodiment of 1960s self-indulgence. In fact, there are some people who would like to rewrite history to erase the legacy of the war and the social upheaval it spawned. They would have us believe that the debate was frivolous, but that`s not how I remember it."

Yup, she`s running, and if you`re not part of the solution, you`re part of the problem.

Maureen Dowd is a columnist with The New York Times. Copyright 2003 New York Times News Service. E-mail: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

Irak

Untergrundkrieg gegen die Besatzer

Nur Wochen nach Kriegsende bricht im Irak ein neuer Kampf aus. US-Truppen werden fast täglich attackiert. Immer professioneller und koordinierter gehen die Partisanen vor. Von dem geplanten schnellen Abzug der Besatzer ist in Washington längst keine Rede mehr.

Berlin - Die militärische Bilanz liest sich fast wie die aus den Tagen des Kriegs gegen Saddam Hussein und seine Truppen. Zwei Angriffe auf die US-Truppen endeten am Donnerstag mit mehreren Toten unter den Besatzungssoldaten.

Zuerst attackierten Unbekannte in der rund 50 Kilometer südlich der Hauptstadt gelegenen Ortschaft al-Iskandarija ein Ambulanzfahrzeug und töteten einen Amerikaner. Wenig später meldete der arabische TV-Sender al-Dschasira, Iraker hätten auf einer Schnellstraße im südlichen Stadtteil al-Daura ein Militärfahrzeug unter Beschuss genommen und schließlich angezündet. Angeblich starben bei dieser Attacke drei amerikanische GIs. Die Zahl der bei Gefechten getöteten US-Soldaten seit dem Kriegsende Anfang Mai stieg damit auf 20.

Kurz vor den tödlichen Attacken waren am Mittwoch Hunderte von Irakern durch die Straßen Bagdads gezogen. Mit einem ganzen Arsenal von Kalaschnikows schossen sie aus Protest in die Luft und skandierten anti-amerikanische Parolen. "Niemand ist größer als Allah", riefen die Männer, "und Amerika ist der Feind unseres Gottes." Grund für die Demonstration war die Beerdigung eines von US-Soldaten getöteten irakischen Militärs, der an einer Kundgebung teilgenommen hatte.

Noch spielen die amerikanischen Militärs und US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld die Attacken der Iraker gegen die Besatzer herunter. Allerdings gestanden in den letzten Tagen mehrere Regierungsbeamte gegenüber amerikanischen Zeitungen ein, dass im Irak längst ein neuer Krieg begonnen habe. Wochen nach der Befreiung des Landes formiert sich zunehmend Widerstand gegen die Besatzungsmacht USA, der immer häufiger in gut geplanten und tödlichen Attacken endet. Anonym sprechen Militärführer aus, dass die neuen Angriffe den einst geplanten raschen Abzug der Besatzer unmöglich erscheinen ließen. "Wie schnell wir abziehen können, entscheidet nun wieder der Feind", so das Fazit eines Soldaten.

"Der nächste Krieg"

Die US-Zeitungen bereiten ihre Leser bereits auf ein wesentlich längeres Kriegsgeschehen im Irak vor. Bereits vergangene Woche schrieb der bekannte Autor Michael R. Gordon in der "New York Times" einen langen Essay mit der Überschrift "Der nächste Krieg". Im Gegensatz zu dem Sturm auf Bagdad werde der Kampf gegen den inneren Widerstand im Irak "Monate, wenn nicht Jahre" dauern, prophezeite Gordon und listete die zahlreichen Attacken auf US-Soldaten auf. Die Logik dieses neuen Kriegs sei von Aktion und Reaktion geprägt. Dieser Logik nach wären die Attacken vom Donnerstag die Folge der heftigen Militäroperation der USA in der vergangenen Woche. Es ist leicht auszumalen, dass eine solche Spirale der Gewalt sich über Monate fortsetzen kann.

Was die US-Militärs vor Ort besonders aufschreckt, ist der Grad an Organisation der neuen Gegner. "Was früher spontan und kaum koordiniert erschien, hat sich zu gut geplanten und professionell ausgeführten Anschlägen entwickelt", sagte ein hoher Befehlshaber schon vor den Angriffen vom Donnerstag der "Washington Post". Ganz gezielt würden schlecht zu schützende Ziele wie kürzlich ein Krankentransport oder humanitäre Koordinationseinrichtungen der US-Armee für Attacken ausgesucht. Diese würden nach altbekannten Guerilla-Taktiken angegriffen - immer häufiger mit Erfolg. Material für Anschläge brauchen die Täter nicht lange zu suchen. Automatische Waffen und sogar Panzergranaten sind im ganzen Irak trotz der Entwaffnungskampagne der US-Truppen noch immer leicht verfügbar.

Wer die Drahtzieher der Attacken sind, ist bisher unklar. US-Militärs vermuten Getreue Saddam Husseins als Auftraggeber. Willige Guerilleros dürften noch ausreichend im Land sein. So zum Beispiel die versprengten Gotteskrieger, die zu Hunderten für den Dschihad über Syrien, Iran und die Türkei in den Irak gekommen waren. Nach dem verlorenen Krieg könnten diese nun einen neuen Kampf eröffnen, um den US-Besatzern wenigstens noch maximal schaden, so die Vermutung. Außerdem dürften sich noch Tausende Saddam-Anhänger in den Metropolen und auf dem Land verstecken. Sie haben im neuen Irak wenig Chancen auf eine Zukunft und deshalb für gewagte oder gar selbstmörderische Anschläge bereit sein.

Freie Wahlen in weiter Ferne

Wie ernst die USA die neue Bedrohung nehmen, zeigte sich an der groß angelegten Militäroperation vergangene Woche. Zum ersten Mal seit Kriegsende fielen im Norden des Landes wieder Bomben. Hunderte GIs marschierten auf, um ein von Geheimdiensten identifiziertes Versteck von Saddam-Anhängern auszuheben. Bei den Kämpfen kamen nach offiziellen Angaben mehr als 70 Iraker ums Leben, Hunderte wurden verhaftet, darunter auch Dutzende ausländischer Kämpfer aus den benachbarten Ländern, die sich mit den regimetreuen Irakern verbündet hatten.

Geradezu absurd wirkte zwischen diesen Meldungen der letzten Tage die erste Umfrage im Irak nach dem Krieg. Forscher des neu gegründeten "Zentrums für Forschung und strategische Studien" hatten 1000 Menschen in Bagdad befragt. Demnach dulde eine knappe Mehrheit der irakischen Bevölkerung die Besatzung ihres Landes - wohlgemerkt bis zur Bildung einer Regierung. Gleichwohl glauben laut der Umfrage nur sechs Prozent, dass die Besatzer zum Wohle des Irak im Land sind. 59 Prozent äußerten sich überzeugt, dass es den Truppen um Interessen ihrer Länder gehe.


Seit die US-Regierung Paul Bremer als neuen Nachkriegsverwalter eingesetzt haben, ist die Wahl einer irakischen Regierung in weite Ferne gerückt. Erst kürzlich ließ Bremer in der für die Schiiten heiligen Stadt Nadschaf die freie Wahl eines Stadtparlaments verhindern. Obwohl die US-Armee bereits alles organisiert hatte, schaltete sich der ehemalige Terror-Berater der US-Regierung ein und setzte lieber von ihm favorisierten Iraker als Verantwortliche ein. Für Radikale eignen sich solche Geschehnisse prächtig zur Anti-USA-Propaganda und als Beweis, dass man gewaltsam gegen die USA vorgehen kann, um die Macht im Irak wiederzuerlangen.

Neue Feinde im Norden

Im Norden des Irak hat die US-Armee ein weiteres Problem. Durch die heftigen Militärschläge in den vergangenen Wochen drohen dem Militär die bisher verbündeten Kurdenführer von der Fahne zu gehen. Als nach der Operation Kundschafter der US-Armee durch das Gebiet reisten, mussten sie sich heftige Drohungen anhören, berichtet das Magazin "Newsweek" in seiner aktuellen Ausgabe. Demnach hätten mehrere Führer signalisiert, dass sie für die Loyalität ihrer Anhänger nicht mehr garantieren könnten. Ein Armeevertreter drückte es drastischer aus: Die Kurden seien nur für den Krieg "gemietet" gewesen.

Grund für die schwindende Treue könne laut dem Bericht auch das friendly fire auf einen hohen Kurdenführer sein, dessen Haus auf der Suche nach Saddam-Getreuen fälschlich bombardiert wurde. Er starb bei dem Angriff. Stimmt die Befürchtung, haben die USA durch diesen Fehler mehr als 700.000 neue Feinde gewonnen.

Matthias Gebauer


© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

`Either the people who did this must be brought to court or we should ask for the authority to kill them`
Rory McCarthy in Hilla
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian

Ali Abid Hassan has had 12 long years to consider the virtues of revenge and forgiveness. He has preserved in chilling detail the memory of the night in March 1991 when he should have been executed by Saddam Hussein`s firing squad - and how, badly injured but alive, he crawled out from under a heap of bodies and scrambled to freedom.

Immediately after the fall of the regime two months ago, he was filled with a bitter anger and a thirst for vengeance. Since then, like all Iraqis, he has wrestled with his conscience, and, like some, his temper has calmed.

While many still yearn for retribution, others are beginning the slow process of bringing to court the men responsible for three decades of unimaginable human rights abuses. "We need to see justice and sometimes we just need to forgive," said Ali, 39.

In March 1991, Ali and his brother Haider, who was then 19, were arrested during a crackdown against the nationwide rebellion that was encouraged by the then US president, George Bush, in the weeks after the first Gulf war.

They were taken with hundreds of other prisoners, blindfolded and with their hands tied behind their backs, to a muddy field about 15 minutes drive outside the small town of Hilla, 60 miles south of Baghdad.

"We were all in the army then and they told us we were returning to our units," he said. "Soon we started to get a feeling of what would really happen."

Ali can still find the exact spot by a canal filled with tall, green reeds where he was taken. At that point on the path today are the now familiar tokens of Iraq`s mass graves: some vertebrae, a rib bone, one button and 11 long, creamy-brown teeth.

"There were three of us and they told us to sit down there," he said pointing to the side of the path. A gunman with a Kalashnikov executed the man to his left and the man to his right. Inexplicably Ali was shot only in the right thigh; he was badly wounded but alive.

He lay silent in excruciating pain as a mechanical digger lifted their three bodies and dropped them among the tall green reeds in the canal. They were covered with dirt and left to rot, but Ali crawled free and escaped. "I was saved by God for a reason that I will never know," he said. His brother was executed that night and his body has never been found.

Immediately after the fall of the regime Ali and a group of other men in Hilla found one of the Ba`ath party officials who had been responsible for rounding up more than 3,000 Shia Muslims who were executed and buried in two mass graves at Hilla, the largest so far discovered in Iraq.

"We chased him and caught him," he said. "We were very angry. `What am I supposed to do with you after what you have done to us?` I said to him."

Ali and the others wanted to force a tractor tyre over his body and set it alight, in the same way that they had watched three prisoners executed during the 1991 crackdown.

"He was sitting on the ground and begging for for giveness and mercy. We really were about to kill him, but I stopped. We just couldn`t. We decided to let him go."

Most of the senior Ba`athists in Hilla have now fled. Several of their homes have been attacked, and in one case four children of a Ba`athist were apparently killed and his wife badly injured when a grenade was thrown over their wall.

But there are some in the town who are working to bring these men to court. Ahmed al-Barrak, a lawyer and an official at the town`s human rights as sociation, is working on the first cases.

Already an investigating judge has taken sworn testimonies from three witnesses naming several individuals in the area who are known to have taken part in the executions.

The documents are now carefully stored in the judge`s safe. Prosecutors have also found a secret Ba`ath party book titled In Order Not to Forget, which extols the 1991 crackdown and names several men from Hilla who took part in "repressing the rebellion in the chapter of treason and betrayal".

"These Ba`ath party members are still in our community and we must find a way to deal with them," said Mr Barrak. "Everyone who has killed must be brought to court."

First on the list will be Mohammed Jawad An-Neifus, an elderly and illiterate tribal leader who lived a few hundred yards from the mass graves and who played a vital part in organising the killings. He was arrested by US marines on April 26 but in a blunder was released from a detention camp in the southern town of Umm Qasr on May 18. The US military has admitted it is "solely responsible" for releasing him and has put out a $25,000 (£15,000) reward for his recapture.

Mr An-Neifus was one of the names mentioned in the Ba`ath party book, which described him as "distinguished" for his work in "eliminating the rebellion" in Hilla. Prosecuting lawyers in Hilla say he was rewarded with money and cars. He was also one of the individuals identified in the testimony of the three witnesses. His three sons, Saleem, Zaed and Basim, are being held by US troops, though several of his nephews still live in the large family compound in the village of al-Boualwan.

"My uncle is an old man and he is completely innocent," said Khadum Jasim Jawad, 41. "The crimes were committed by the military commanders not by him. All the people here know my uncle and they want him to return to his home."

Syed Jabbar Syed Mohsin, who owns the land in which Hilla`s largest mass grave was dug, is one of the chief witnesses who will be used in the case against Mr An-Neifus and others. He saw the tribal leader at the grave site during the month between March 7 and April 6, 1991, when the executions took place.

Syed Mohsin watched hidden in the bushes nearby as prisoners were brought in batches to the site, arriving regularly each day at 9am, 2pm and 5pm. It would take less than half an hour to throw the prisoners into trenches, women and children among them, shoot them and bury the bodies. "An-Neifus was there and he took part," he said. "I saw him with my own eyes."

Several hundred unclaimed bodies remain at the site today.

"For years, every time I went to my bed I thought what I could do for the dead," Syed Mohsin said. "I was waiting for the regime to fall so that maybe I could do something for them.

"The religious authorities have told us not to take revenge. Either the people who did this must be brought to court or we should ask for authorisation to kill them ourselves."

Before the war many Iraqis warned of how the collapse of the regime would be followed by weeks of bloodletting and lynching. There have been killings, but surprisingly few.

It is still unclear how easily communities will accept the Ba`ath party members, some of whom bear little guilt, others whose hands are stained with the blood of hundreds.

Ali Abid Hassan is still distraught about the death of his brother. Without the body the family have not been able to hold a funeral. Mr Hassan now carries in his top pocket a list of four Ba`ath party officials he saw taking part in executions.

"I have prepared this list because I want to give it to an American general," he said. "I want these people punished. I don`t want anyone to forget what happened to us."


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

MPs call Campbell over Iraq dossier
Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent
Friday June 20, 2003
The Guardian

Alastair Campbell, the prime minister`s communications director, faced a second call from the foreign affairs committee yesterday to give evidence over his role in the preparation of Iraqi intelligence dossiers.

The committee`s normally loyal Labour MPs backed the call for the first time after receiving further evidence of the extent of Mr Campbell`s involvement in September`s joint intelligence committee (JIC) dossier and the so-called dodgy dossier published in February by Downing Street but allegedly based on intelligence sources .

Mr Campbell could refuse and the committee could appeal to the Commons to vote to summon him.

In evidence yesterday, Ibrahim al-Marashi, the former Iraqi PhD student whose evidence was heavily plagiarised to form the basis of "dodgy dossier", demanded an apology from the government and said his life and that of his family had been endangered by Downing Street`s "reckless use" of his material. He said he had been "shocked" by Downing Street`s behaviour

Dr Marashi, who is a researcher at the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California, said Downing Street had perverted his work to imply that Iraq was backing terrorist groups outside Iraq.

He said his thesis had said Iraq was supporting foreign opposition groups. "By changing the words, they are distorting the meaning and it looks like they [Iraq] are supporting groups like al-Qaida."

He said the four government staff who put together the dossier had discovered his research by using a search engine and keying in the words "Iraq" and "intelligence".

"Mine was the top piece of information that came up," he said, adding: "I have already lost two relatives to the Saddam regime, and any mention connecting me and the UK, and the case for going to war could have disastrous effects on my family back home.

"Given that I think the least they owe me is an apology."

He said 90% of the dossier praised by Tony Blair in the Commons and hailed by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, at the UN had come from three published articles, each of which relied on open sources.

Andrew Gilligan, the defence correspondent for Radio 4`s Today programme, claimed that a senior intelligence officer responsible for the September file blamed Mr Campbell for transforming the JIC document.

Gilligan was questioned by MPs who pointed out that his allegations impugned the integrity of the JIC chairman, John Scarlett, and implied that the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was lying to parliament.

Sir John Stanley said: "What you are saying is the JIC and its chairman, under improper pressure from Downing Street, sexes up their original assessment at the last moment and introduces material which, according to your source, is unreliable. You are saying that the whole of the JIC connives in the embellishment of a JIC assessment for political purposes."

Gilligan insisted that his source was a mainstream intelligence figure.

Conservatives on the committee plan to question Mr Straw next Tuesday as to whether Downing Street officials had asked for the insertion of the claim that Iraq could deploy its alleged weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, and whether any complaint had been made to the JIC by MI6 officers.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Blair loses fight for `refugee protection` zones
By Andrew Grice and Stephen Castle in Porto Carras, Greece
20 June 2003


Tony Blair lost his battle to win EU funding and political support for pilot schemes to set up refugee "protection zones", but pledged to pursue the plans with like-minded nations.

At the start of a summit in Greece last night, Germany and Sweden blocked moves to give the initiative EU status, forcing Britain to seek an ad hoc group of allies with whom to pursue the project. Mr Blair wants to set up a pilot scheme by the end of this year, which would establish "zones of protection" to harbour refugees near their own country. The first trial was expected to be in the Horn of Africa.

In the face of outrage from human rights groups, and fierce opposition from Germany and Sweden, Britain has backed away from an earlier proposal to set up "transit camps" to process asylum-seekers before they entered Europe. But last night Germany, whose constitution lays down the right to seek asylum as a core value, made clear that it still had difficulties with the modified British ideas. Sweden, which has a long tradition of protecting human rights, had legal objections.

Under a compromise deal, all mention of the pilot projects was removed from the summit conclusion, although a reference to the "protection capacity of regions of origins" remained. Downing Street`s spokesman said: "Individual countries will go ahead with pilot projects with the European Commission and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Commission will report back next year. The important point is that work will continue."

The UK is hoping that a "coalition" of supportive countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark and possibly Austria will help the scheme to win backing. Although Mr Blair`s spokesman said that he believed "there is a possibility that we will get EU funding", that prospect remains doubtful.

Goran Persson, Sweden`s Prime Minister, said he did not think the British plan would gain any significant support. Earlier, German government officials expressed "severe doubts" about the plan. One EU diplomat said: "It is hard to see how this could be agreed as an EU plan." Another added that he "would be very reluctant to see a pilot project financed by the Community".

The proposed centres would be operated by the EU and the UNHCR. The Government has argued that, by allowing protection for people in areas where a humanitarian crisis is threatened, they would be able to return to their homes more easily. Failing that, asylum claims could be processed on the spot. That would prevent huge build-ups of would-be migrants within the EU.

EU leaders in the resort of Porto Carras also discussed plans to improve information sharing on visa applicants, greater co-operation among border guards and a refugee returns policy. Britain`s original plans for transit camps based in the Balkans or Ukraine, were strongly favoured by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary.

But they ran into strong opposition from Germany and Sweden, and refugee groups, because of the suggestion that asylum-seekers arriving in Britain could be deported to the camps. Other nations also argued that they might become magnets for would-be refugees. Mr Blair`s official spokesman said yesterday: "We are at the discussion stage, rather than the decision stage.

"But the idea is certainly worth looking at and discussing. Asylum is a global problem and it is appropriate to have long-term global solutions." A British government source admitted: "This is on the back burner for the time being. Other countries are nervous about anything that smacks of a camp. The word has unfortunate echoes in Germany. But we need to think outside the box on asylum because it is such a big issue."
20 June 2003 08:37


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

Bush `misled every one of us`, says rival for White House
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
20 June 2003


The leading Democratic presidential contender John Kerry has brought the Iraqi weapons controversy to the forefront of the White House race, accusing George Bush of "misleading every one of us" when he took the US to war against Saddam Hussein.

Senator Kerry said the President made the case for war based on at least two faulty intelligence findings - that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger, and that the Baghdad regime had drones able to mount biological attacks on the US. Mr Kerry, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, said Mr Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Saddam and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. "He misled every one of us," the Massachusetts Senator said. "That`s one reason why I`m running to be President of the United States."

Despite Mr Kerry`s robust language, it remains to be seen whether his broadside will ignite a political debate on Iraq`s missing weapons. The debate in the United States has been relatively low key compared with the controversy in Britain, despite the post-conflict turmoil which has seen several American soldiers killed by Iraqis.

One reason that Mr Bush has had an easier ride than Tony Blair is the continuing public support for the war. The divisions among the nine Democrats seeking to win his job in 2004 have also helped. Three of the main candidates, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator John Edwards and the former House minority leader Dick Gephardt, have strongly backed the war. Two other candidates, the former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Senator Bob Graham, have sharply questioned pre-war intelligence and the use made of it by the Bush administration.

But none of them has the stature on security issues of Mr Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who later became a vehement opponent of that war.

On Iraq, he has been somewhere in the middle. He supported the congressional resolution last autumn giving Mr Bush the right to use force against Saddam, yet has been a strong critic of how the President went about the job.

But he has not always judged the mood right, running into a storm of criticism on the eve of the war when he suggested that there was a need for regime change in Washington as well as Baghdad.

He is on safer ground now, with his call for a full-scale investigation on Capitol Hill. Mr Kerry said said that it was too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. But a congressional investigation into US intelligence on Iraq was essential.

He said: "I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America`s credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally."

He said that it was not clear whether Mr Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicised intelligence. "I don`t have the answer," Mr Kerry said. "I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this."

* Former vice-president Al Gore, once a newspaper reporter, may be returning to the media business.

Mr Gore has been meeting potential investors interested in establishing a cable television network, according to Time magazine`s online edition. Democrats are reportedly keen to launch a network to counter dominant Republican voices in the American media.
20 June 2003 08:39


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003

Be careful: too safe can too easily end up sorry
Simon Jenkins

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-719525,00.html

I am not paranoid. It is just that people out there are trying to scare me and I am not sure who they are. Some have Semtex and ricin, dirty bombs and dirtier intentions. Others have fragile budgets, turf wars and blame-aversion. I know that one is foe and the other friend, but their impact on my daily life is increasingly hard to distinguish.
Britain is on a “high” state of alert against an attack from Muslim terrorists. The threat is only one step below “imminent”. The security services claim to be deluged with material from agents and intercepts, suggesting that Britain is a leading target for an al-Qaeda set on death and destruction. This group was neither suppressed nor deterred, as some promised, by the Afghan and Iraq wars. As others feared, they appear no less dangerous.

Like many journalists, I am given occasional tastes of these threats. But neither I, nor any member of the public, has a way of giving them weight. We know that a rudimentary ricin plant has been discovered and a shoe-bomber caught on a plane out of London. We know that bombers attacked Western targets in Bali, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. There must be some danger of a repetition in London.

There is no science of risk assessment. We must rely on those we trust, but that depends on trust being plausible. Yesterday the Government published its Civil Contingencies Bill. It aims to update Britain’s emergency responses from a time when civil defence was on a par with Boy Scouts, Women’s Institutes and Dad’s Army. This makes sense. Yet if the al-Qaeda threat was as serious as is now implied, surely the Bill should have been raced through Parliament a year ago.

Tony Blair remarked in a grim Guildhall speech last year that government must beware of doing the terrorist’s job for him. One night last February I gather he was warned that next morning he would find a massive two-storey concrete barrier round the entire Palace of Westminster, protecting it from a car bomb. Nobody had dared countermand such a blatant publicity coup for al-Qaeda. Mr Blair had to countermand it himself.

The same week the London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, was summoned to a ministerial meeting and told that ministers wanted to stop a Tube train in rush hour under the Bank of England with 400 army cadets aboard playing dead, to see how long it would take to evacuate them. Incredulous transport staff said the answer was easy, it would take most of the day and create millions of pounds worth of chaos. Talk about doing the terrorist’s job for him. Yesterday Whitehall floated the madcap idea again, to show “something being done”.

When President Eisenhower left office in 1960 at the height of the Cold War, he gave the Western world a remarkable warning. It was not against the might of the Soviet Union but against the “unwarranted influence . . . of a military-industrial complex” which he had watched emerge during his time as soldier and President. With access to the vast resources of the State, that complex could lead to “a disastrous rise of misplaced power”. The warning has echoed down the ages.

A similar power is emerging today. It is of the “terrorist-security complex”. It smothers public life in risk-aversion and spends hundreds of millions of pounds on buildings, consultants and human protection. Downing Street has become a concrete bunker. The entire current increase in London police, 1,000 officers, has been diverted to counter terrorism.

Now the complex is acquiring its own political dimension. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, demands new powers by the month. The security agencies are being drawn into the open. On Monday the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, made an astonishing speech for a body whose essence used to be discretion and the nuancing of judgment. She warned the public that it was “only a matter of time” before al-Qaeda launched an attack, which “could be” chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear.

Bizarrely denying “undue alarmism”, Ms Manningham-Buller declared with all the pomp of her office that al-Qaeda “poses significant new challenges for government and society in general”. It was capable of doing “real harm to our way of life”.

At this point I long for a Joint Intelligence Committee of my own, to assess the jumbled signals and other espionage emanating from Whitehall. The murmur is that all hell is going to break loose when Parliament’s two committees on Iraq intelligence complete their reports, cross-checked with their US counterparts. It is abundantly clear that someone sold Downing Street duff goods about Iraq’s weapons programme last year. Whatever the conduit, this probably originated in highly suspect émigré sources linked to the Iraqi National Congress. No 10 may have “cherry-picked” the intelligence — Robin Cook’s colourful phrase — but there had to be cherries for the picking. Who grew them?

Whitehall agencies are instinctively drawing their wagons into a circle. Friendly journalists are briefed. Alarmist speeches are given. Up goes the hysteria meter. Hence the concrete barriers creeping across London. Hence the ubiquity of police with machineguns. Mr Blair is about to win his presidential jet. The terrorist-security complex goes where even egotism fears to tread.

The British citizen is left completely in the dark. The threat may be real, but the jockeying for position yields no “news you can use”. Does Ms Manningham-Buller want me to go to work in a decontamination suit or with syringes in my bag? I do not know. Do the past six months of stories amount to agencies crying wolf, or should I really avoid Heathrow and the Tube and advise all tourists to head home? Of course, I want to be safe rather than sorry, but how safe is sensible and how sorry is stupid?

Last week, while No 10 and its feuding agencies were hogging the headlines, a 1,600lb car bomb was seized outside Londonderry. It probably belonged to the Real IRA and was destined for London, where its impact would have been catastrophic. The seizure was the outcome of good policing and intelligence. The IRA threat remains real and the forces of law and order coped with it: no fuss, no alarmism. That is what I call security.

I have no doubt that the al-Qaeda threat is also real. Muslim extremism is ruthless, gives no warning and uses suicide as a means of delivery. I expect the Government to protect me from this, as it protects me from the all too evident Real IRA. So far I have been protected. But that cannot have derived from the relentless scaremongering, which rather boosts my sense of insecurity. As Mr Blair himself suggests, such scares merely give terrorists the running bonus of publicity. They are products of the terrorist-security complex.

Ms Manningham-Buller claims to know of a threat that “challenges government and society in general” and would do “real harm to our way of life”. I do not believe her. AlQaeda commits acts of violence, sets off bombs and kills people. But this is not the Cold War. It is not an enemy that had enslaved half Europe and threatened the West with nuclear winter. Even Whitehall’s latest “threat of the week”, a radiological caesium chloride bomb in Bishopsgate, would kill only those next to it and cause a one-in-seven “increased risk of cancer” at 200 yards downwind. This is nasty but hardly “massive destruction”.

The weapons at present marshalled against us do not conceivably “challenge British government or society” let alone threaten “the British way of life”. What a miserable view Ms Manningham-Buller and her colleagues must have of British democracy and society to think so. I have more faith in their resilience, and suspect the motives of those who publicly doubt it.

What threatens the British way of life at present is not terrorism but the public response to it. The terrorist-security complex is driving forward a hyperbolic, risk-averse, “health-and-safety” culture that infuses every British home and workplace, every enterprise and relationship. It is dangerous. According to the police, street crime in London is now rising again because so much police time and effort are being diverted from normal duties. Hyper-safe is unsafe. It distorts priorities and confuses leadership.

I pay my taxes to be kept secure, not to get a lecture on insecurity. Last week in Londonderry I got value for money. This week in London I am not so sure.




Join the Debate on any of these articles at [e-mail]

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003
Hussein Is Probably Alive in Iraq, U.S. Experts Say
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID JOHNSTON


WASHINGTON, June 19 — American intelligence analysts now believe that Saddam Hussein is much more likely to be alive than dead, a view that has been strengthened in recent weeks by intercepted communications among fugitive members of the Saddam Fedayeen and the Iraqi intelligence service, according to United States government officials.

The officials said the recently obtained intelligence had re-intensified the search for Mr. Hussein along with his sons, Uday and Qusay. The search is being led by Task Force 20, a secret military organization that includes members of the Army`s highly specialized Delta Force and of the Navy`s elite counterterrorism squads, with support from the Central Intelligence Agency.

The intercepted communications between some of Mr. Hussein`s supporters have included credible discussions indicating that the former Iraqi president is alive and must be protected, two Defense Department officials said. Military officials indicated tonight that new operations in the hunt for him were under way.

If Mr. Hussein is alive, the prevailing view among intelligence analysts is that he is still in Iraq. These officials said they suspected that he would feel safer seeking refuge among his supporters in familiar surroundings, rather than risk fleeing to another country, where he could be at greater risk of discovery by American intelligence.

Beyond the intelligence officials, aides to President Bush have begun to express less certainty about the question, saying they do not know whether he is dead or alive. They include those aides who in the immediate aftermath of the war said Mr. Hussein was probably dead.

Increasingly, other officials in the United States and Britain have said publicly that Mr. Hussein probably survived the war. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Fox News last weekend that "probably the majority opinion is that he is alive." The British defense secretary, Geoff Hoon, said in Australia this week that "my judgment and the judgment of the coalition remains that he is almost certainly still in Iraq."

His fate is a factor in the civil unrest in Iraq, endangering American soldiers, some officials say, as Hussein supporters try to organize a continued resistance.

On Monday, the arrest of Mr. Hussein`s closest confidant, Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti, who was No. 4 on an American most-wanted list, raised some hope of obtaining more conclusive information about the former Iraqi leader. The presumption was that Mr. Mahmoud was more likely to have detailed knowledge about what happened to him than almost anyone else in the former government.

At the same time, American officials` optimism about Mr. Mahmoud`s capture, near Mr. Hussein`s stronghold of Tikrit, has been mixed with disappointment that he was not found to have been hiding with the former president, as some intelligence analysts had suspected.

Mr. Mahmoud`s success in eluding capture for nearly two months in a country occupied by nearly 150,000 American soldiers underscored what intelligence officials said was the reality that Iraq still offered many hiding places — even for a figure of of Mr. Hussein`s prominence.

Also contributing to the belief that Mr. Hussein may be alive is that the authorities have so far failed to recover specific physical evidence, like his body or DNA material, from the sites of two American bombing raids that tried to kill him.

A number of intelligence analysts said they now believed that he had escaped the two air strikes, on March 20 and April 7. But because they have no conclusive evidence one way or the other, they said they had stopped short of drawing any firm conclusions about his fate.

It was known that Task Force 20 has led the hunt for chemical and biological weapons. But its role in trying to determine the fate of Mr. Hussein had not been previously disclosed. Some officials have suggested that the efforts are linked and that he or his sons left power with a precise knowledge of Iraq`s weapons program.

Task Force 20, the military organization that defense officials said had been charged with conducting the search, reports to the Central Command and its leader, Gen. Tommy R. Franks. The Central Command has only recently acknowledged the existence of Task Force 20, and a spokesman for the command, James Wilkinson, said he would not comment on it or its mission. But other American officials said it was being supported by several intelligence agencies, including the C.I.A., and was organized so it could act quickly on intelligence gathered by satellites and electronic eavesdropping.

The uncertainty about Mr. Hussein has complicated American efforts to stabilize Iraq. Administration officials said conviction that he may be alive appears to be an important factor in the surge of armed opposition against American forces.

Although the resistance has been sporadic and localized, some of the fighters appear to have been coordinated at local levels by the fugitive members of the Saddam Fedayeen, a paramilitary organization, and remnants of the former Iraqi intelligence service, American officials said.

"These guys are growing in resistance, and they`re still being troublesome, and you have to ask what`s motivating them," a defense official said. The officials said recent intelligence reports had indicated that Mr. Hussein and his inner circle were trying to garner support inside the country.

The whereabouts of Mr. Hussein`s two sons also remains a mystery. The second son, Qusay, is believed almost certainly to be alive, American officials said. They described that view as being much stronger than the theories about Mr. Hussein himself.

But they said debate continued about Uday Hussein, the elder son, with some intelligence officials believing that he had been killed, possibly in the first American raid.

In the weeks since the end of the war, the White House and the Pentagon have tried to shift attention from the question of their inability to find Mr. Hussein. They said that the open question would have no impact on the American troops in Iraq and that the most important thing was that he had been removed from power.

White House officials have said it may take months or longer to resolve the uncertainty about Mr. Hussein`s fate, a time frame they have compared to the six months needed to confirm Hitler`s death at the end of World War II.

"Of course, the search for all senior Iraqi regime figures is important, and is getting all sorts of effort," the Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke, said in an interview today. "But what is really important is the fact that Saddam is no longer running the country — and he won`t be."

But some American military and intelligence officials in Washington and Iraq have begun to argue that the question of whether Mr. Hussein is alive or dead is increasingly relevant. The new American administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, acknowledged this month that the coalition`s inability to capture him or recover his body was helping to fuel a resistance movement led by Baath Party members.

"I would obviously prefer that we had clear evidence that Saddam is dead or that we had him alive in our custody," Mr. Bremer said. "It does make a difference because it allows the Baathists to go around in the bazaars and in the villages, as they are doing, saying: `Saddam is alive, and he`s going to come back. And we`re going to come back.` "

Asked about efforts to find Mr. Hussein and his sons, Mr. Wilkinson said only: "We don`t comment on our specific efforts on this front, but clearly the search for the leadership is one of several key priorities. And as others have said, if they`re dead, we`ve got them, and if they`re alive, we`ll get them."

American forces have tried to get answers to the puzzling question of whether Mr. Hussein was killed in the air attacks. American military engineers equipped with bulldozers and backhoes began excavation work at a restaurant in the Mansur district of Baghdad, the target of the April 7 strike. But intelligence officials in Washington said the search had turned up empty.

The status of excavation efforts at the second site, known as Doura Farms, south of Baghdad, is less clear. The site was reported to have been the target of the March 20 air raid that began the war with an attempt to kill Mr. Hussein and his sons, but its exact location has never been specified by American officials. Reporters who have visited a suspected site recently said it had been graded over.

Precise information about Mr. Hussein has been very difficult for the government to obtain. Defense Department officials said Iraqi officials in American custody had told interrogators that he was not at the site of the April 7 attack, contradicting claims in earlier intelligence by what they said were two independent sources that prompted the strike on the restaurant.

Overall, American officials said that the most senior Iraqi officials now in custody were proving to be highly trained in resisting American interrogation techniques, even if they were coercive, and that they had provided little information of value about Mr. Hussein.

Interrogators have reported that detainees appeared to provide detailed information only about subjects they believed the authorities already were aware of and provided rambling answers to specific questions without revealing the extent of their information about Mr. Hussein or Iraq`s weapons programs.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003
Uneasy Iran: New Strains
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR


TEHRAN, June 15 — The jokes crop up all over town.

Since the Americans could arrive any day, muses the corner grocer, he had better start improving his English. A demonstrator running from truncheon-wielding riot police officers yells, "We need the Americans to come here to give us freedom!"

A taxi driver, no friend of the government, frets that North Korea is too belligerent about acquiring nuclear weapons and may prompt American forces to skip Tehran and head for Pyongyang, North Korea`s capital.

Ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution, tensions have fluctuated between the United States and Iran. These days, the tension level is rising, not least because some Bush administration officials and members of Congress have suggested that American actions in Iraq could serve as a blueprint for Iran.

Over the last month, the two governments have skirmished verbally almost daily over everything from Iran`s nuclear program to American allegations that Tehran is meddling in Iraq and supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations to Iran`s opposition to a Middle East peace settlement. [On Wednesday, President Bush said the United States "will not tolerate construction of a nuclear weapon" in Iran.]

Strains are increasing at a time when events have pushed the sides closer together — at least geographically — than ever before. American forces are just 300 miles from Tehran on the Iraqi border and flank Iran to the east in Afghanistan.

Proximity is fraught with danger and opportunity. Washington and Tehran will have to find a way to work together to achieve some stability in the region or they will have to come to blows, analysts believe.

"Over the past 24 years, Iran has viewed the United States as a hostile power that is only pursuing the Islamic regime," said Sadeq Zibakalam, a Tehran University political science professor. "Likewise, the U.S. perceives Iran as nothing but a troublemaker, a state that ultimately must be dealt with, primarily by talking to it, but ultimately by toppling it, getting rid of it."

"The only point left as far as the Bush administration is concerned is whether to attack it from outside or undermine it from inside," he added. "But neither of the perceptions are true for either country."

The founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, made hostility toward the United States a building block of his revolution. Iran`s actions, starting with the seizure of the American Embassy in November 1979, ensured that it became a pariah nation for years. The United States still maintains economic sanctions against the country.

The reformists around President Mohammed Khatami recognized the need for Iran to move out of isolation. Under his tutelage, the "Down with U.S.A." signs came down.

But the reformists have always had to contend with the conservatives concentrated around the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who have jailed those who even suggest reconciliation.

Yet political analysts find a subtle shift in Iranian views for reasons of both domestic politics and international relations. Domestically, the popularity of renewed relations with the United States could make whoever achieves it a national hero. Some analysts believe that is why former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has recently broached the topic. Internationally, the American successes at toppling governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have made Iran`s ruling clerics take notice.

"The conservatives see the destiny of Saddam, they see the destiny of Mullah Omar in Afghanistan," said Hamidreza Jalaipour, a reformist publisher and political scientist. "They realize they can`t fight the U.S. The Imam Khomeini could fight the U.S. because when he spoke, two million people came out onto the streets. But these days there is no mass movement like that."

On the other hand, many believe that voices of support for an American intervention would reverse in the face of an actual attack. One veteran of the Iran-Iraq war who expressed hatred for the clerics said he would volunteer to fight again if American forces tried to cross into Iran.

Political analysts here divide conservative opponents of any relations with the United States into three groups: the pragmatists, who would accept renewed ties if it won the country enough advantages; the die-hards who would never accept it as it would probably spell their doom; and those somewhere in between.

What the conservatives want, and what some reformists and other opponents fear, is for the United States to accept Iran as a stabilizing force in the region and ease the pressure for domestic liberalization. Opponents of the clerics dread the idea that Washington will begin dealing with the people they would like to see pictured on a deck of cards, like the former Iraqi leaders.

The United States and Iran had entered into talks focused on mutual interests in Iraq and Afghanistan but broke them off after Washington accused Tehran of harboring the Qaeda operative who planned three bombings in Saudi Arabia on May 12.

Iran has dug in its heels, waiting for the day when its support in the fight against terrorism, the ambiguities in its nuclear program or its influence with Shiites in Iraq could become bargaining chips in talks with Washington.

Privately, officials here say important issues in Iraq and Afghanistan make the resumption of talks inevitable, probably within weeks.

Many reformists and conservatives in Iran dread the idea that the United States may be tempted to inspire a violent change in government. They expect that their new proximity to American forces will prove more of an opportunity than a danger.

"We believe we need to have relations with America for the sake of progress in the country," said Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, President Khatami`s spokesman, arguing that Iran cannot just be shoved aside given its Persian Gulf location and its 65 million people. "They know they need us. Our geographic position and our high population ensures a role for us in the future of the region. The whole world knows that."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003
Censorship on Global Warming

hen it comes to global warming, the Bush administration seems determined to bury its head in the sand and hope the problem will go away. Worse yet, it wants to bury any research findings that global warming may be a threat to human health or the environment.

The latest example of this ostrichlike behavior involves some heavy-handed censorship of a draft report that is due out next week from the Environmental Protection Agency. As described by Andrew Revkin and Katharine Seelye in yesterday`s Times, the report was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about environmental problems and what gaps in understanding remain to be filled. But by the time the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget finished with it and hammered the E.P.A. into submission, a long section on the risks posed by rising global temperatures was reduced to a noncommittal paragraph.

Gone is any mention that the 1990`s are likely to have been the warmest decade in the last thousand years in the Northern Hemisphere. Gone, also, is a judgment by the National Research Council about the likely human contributions to global warming, though the evidence falls short of conclusive proof. Gone, too, is an introductory statement that "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment." All that is left in the report is some pablum about the complexities of the issue and the research that is needed to resolve the uncertainties.

This is the second shameful case of censorship involving global warming in less than a year. Last September, a whole chapter on climate was deleted from the E.P.A.`s annual report on air-pollution trends. That deed was done by Bush appointees at the agency, with White House approval, possibly because the White House had been angered by a previous report from the State Department suggesting the dire harm that could come from climate change. President Bush had dismissed that report as "put out by the bureaucracy."

The justifications offered for such censorship are feeble. One excuse is that global warming has been discussed in other reports and thus need not be dealt with again. But surely reports billed as comprehensive reviews should be comprehensive.

Another excuse is that the administration`s new climate research plan will grapple with the issue. But given what we know about this administration, it seems almost inevitable that the experts who are mobilized to study the question will wind up focusing on uncertainties and the need for further research rather than facing up to the policy implications of the existing data.

Christie Whitman, the E.P.A. administrator, is putting on a brave face after her agency`s capitulation. She says she feels "perfectly comfortable" issuing the broader assessment of land, air and water quality without waiting to resolve differences over climate change, where the evidence is less solid. But this sorry trampling of her agency`s best judgment suggests that Congress, in confirming a successor after she steps down next week, will need to look hard at how free that person will be to offer the best scientific judgment on environmental issues.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003
Saving Private Jessica
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


NASIRIYA, Iraq
I`ve been roaming Iraq, turning over rocks in my unstinting effort to help the Bush administration find those weapons of mass destruction. No luck yet.

But I did find something related, here in the city where it seems (contrary to early Pentagon leaks) that Pfc. Jessica Lynch did not mow down Iraqis until her ammo ran out, was not shot and apparently was not plucked from behind enemy lines by U.S. commandos braving a firefight. It looks as if the first accounts of the rescue were embellished, like the imminent threat from W.M.D., and like wartime pronouncements about an uprising in Basra and imminent defections of generals. There`s a pattern: we were misled.

None of this is to put down Private Lynch, whom her Iraqi doctors described as courageous and funny in the face of unrelenting pain; they said that she told Abdul Hadi, a hospital worker who had befriended her, not to take risks for her because he was needed by his 17 children. Ms. Lynch is still a hero in my book, and it was unnecessary for officials to try to turn her into a Hollywood caricature. As a citizen, I deeply resent my government trying to spin me like a Ping-Pong ball.

Staff members of Nasiriya`s main hospital told me, as they have told other reporters, how surprised they were when military officers brought an American woman by ambulance. Private Lynch was unconscious, with broken legs, a head wound and other injuries, apparently sustained in a vehicle accident during a firefight.

"She was nearly dead," recalled Saad Abdulrazak, the deputy hospital director, who received her.

The Iraqi doctors were enchanted by this blonde warrior, who as she recovered spent her time alternately crying and joking. I don`t know how much to credit the Iraqis` claims that they gave her the best room in the hospital, that they went to the market to buy orange juice for her with their own money, that they brought clothes so that she would have something to wear. But they didn`t minimize Iraqi brutality. Indeed, they told of an execution of a handcuffed American male. (I`ve put a fuller account of this execution and of Ms. Lynch`s saga at nytimes.com/kristofresponds.)

The hospital staff also said that on the night of March 27, military officials prepared to kill Ms. Lynch by putting her in an ambulance and blowing it up with its occupants — blaming the atrocity on the Americans. The ambulance drivers balked at that idea. Eventually, the plan was changed so that a military officer would shoot Ms. Lynch and burn the ambulance. So Sabah Khazal, an ambulance driver, loaded her in the vehicle and drove off with a military officer assigned to execute her.

"I asked him not to shoot Jessica," Mr. Khazal said, "and he was afraid of God and didn`t kill her." Instead, the executioner ran away and deserted the army, and Mr. Khazal said that he then thought about delivering Ms. Lynch to an American checkpoint. But there were firefights on the streets, so he returned to the hospital. (Ms. Lynch apparently never knew how close she had come to execution.)

By the morning of March 31, all of the Iraqi military at the hospital had fled. The hospital staff members said that they then told Ms. Lynch they would take her to the Americans the next day. That same night, the American special forces arrived.

"I met the Americans at the hospital entrance," said Dr. Hussein Salih, adding that Mr. Abdulrazak then led the Americans to Private Lynch. The staff members all said that there was no resistance, and that they welcomed the Americans.

Is this account the truth? I don`t know, but every time I voiced skepticism, the doctors and staff all insisted: "Go ask Jessica! She`ll tell you." The U.S. military has refused to make Private Lynch available, although that may be out of respect for her privacy; in any case, she is said to have no memory of her capture.

My guess is that "Saving Private Lynch" was a complex tale vastly oversimplified by officials, partly because of genuine ambiguities and partly because they wanted a good story to build political support for the war — a repetition of the exaggerations over W.M.D. We weren`t quite lied to, but facts were subordinated to politics, and truth was treated as an endlessly stretchable fabric.

The Iraqis misused our prisoners for their propaganda purposes, and it hurts to find out that some American officials were misusing Private Lynch the same way.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 20, 2003
Still Blowing Bubbles
By PAUL KRUGMAN


The big rise in the stock market is definitely telling us something. Bulls think it says the economy is about to take off. But I think it`s a sign that America is still blowing bubbles — that a three-year bear market and the biggest corporate scandals in history haven`t cured investors of irrational exuberance yet.

Or, to put it another way: it`s hard to find any real news to justify the market`s leap. Instead, investors seem to be buying stocks because they are rising — which is pretty much the definition of a bubble.

Before the Iraq war, optimists attributed the economy`s weakness to prewar jitters. They predicted a great postwar economic surge: oil prices would plunge, reassured consumers would open their wallets and businesses would start investing again.

We`re still waiting. Oil prices are off their prewar highs, but they`re still higher than they were last fall. Consumers seem to be spending a bit more, but we`re talking about fractions of a percent. And businesses are still more interested in cutting costs and laying off workers than buying new capital goods.

There have been some pieces of good news — a not-too-bad manufacturing survey here, a pretty good housing-starts number there. But there has also been bad news, especially regarding employment. Payrolls are still contracting; since the U.S. economy has to create 80,000 jobs a month just to keep up with a growing working-age population, the already miserable job market continues to get worse.

Don`t tax cuts and low interest rates create the conditions for an economic rebound? Well, interest rates have been low for a while. And everything that has happened since 2001 suggests that Bush-style tax cuts — which, because they are targeted on the very affluent, basically give people with plenty of cash to spare even more cash to spare — provide very little employment bang per deficit buck. Meanwhile, desperate state and local governments are continuing to slash services and, in a growing number of cases, raising taxes, undoing much or all of the stimulus from the federal government.

Does the collective wisdom of the investor class perceive an imminent, vigorous recovery that is invisible in the data? The market isn`t always right. It wasn`t right when it sent the Nasdaq to 5000; it wasn`t right in the fall of 2001, the summer of 2002 or the late fall of 2002 — three would-be bull markets that fizzled. And selling by corporate insiders hit a two-year high in May.

Meanwhile, the average stock is selling at 31 times earnings, twice the historical norm. And if you take into account pension liabilities and the cost of stock options, that number goes above 40.

A few months ago, some analysts began to argue that because interest rates were so low, even today`s very expensive stocks were a good buy. I don`t agree, but that`s a long discussion. What`s clear, however, is that investors` big move back into the market has been driven not by careful comparison of returns, but by the fact that stocks are rising — and the fear that if you don`t buy stocks, you`ll miss out on a good thing. The new bull market isn`t forecasting anything; it`s just feeding on itself.

Could the story I`m telling be wrong? Of course. Maybe a vigorous, though still invisible, economic recovery will deliver the sustained, double-digit earnings growth that analysts — apparently not chastened at all by recent history — are once again predicting.

But even if that happy scenario comes to pass, it`s hard to justify current stock prices — because if the economy booms, the low interest rates that might conceivably make stocks worth buying at 30 times earnings will soon go away. If and when businesses start borrowing again, they`ll have to compete for funds with the federal government, which will be running $400-billion-plus deficits as far as the eye can see. Meanwhile, foreigners won`t keep lending us $500 billion each year; in fact, private investment inflows into the United States have already dried up.

Oh, and the banana-republic policies now being followed in Washington won`t just drive up interest rates; they`ll probably generate a full-blown fiscal crisis one of these years. That can`t be good for equity prices.

In short, the current surge in stocks looks like another bubble, one that will eventually burst.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
U.S. Troops Frustrated With Role In Iraq
Soldiers Say They Are Ill-Equipped For Peacekeeping

By Daniel Williams and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 20, 2003; Page A01


BAGHDAD, June 19 -- Facing daily assaults from a well-armed resistance, U.S. troops in volatile central Iraq say they are growing frustrated and disillusioned with their role as postwar peacekeepers.

In conversations in a half-dozen towns across central Iraq, soldiers complained that they have been insufficiently equipped for peacekeeping and too thinly deployed in areas where they are under attack from fighters evidently loyal to deposed president Saddam Hussein. Others questioned whether the armed opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq may be deeper and more organized than military commanders have acknowledged.

"What are we getting into here?" asked a sergeant with the U.S. Army`s 4th Infantry Division who is stationed near Baqubah, a city 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn`t in power anymore. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?"

Today, a soldier from the 804th Medical Brigade was killed when a rocket-propelled grenade struck a military ambulance carrying a soldier wounded in another incident, said Capt. John Morgan, a military spokesman here. The attack, about 20 miles south of Baghdad, produced the third U.S. fatality from hostile fire in four days. Two other soldiers were wounded in today`s ambush.

Most armed assaults on U.S. military personnel have occurred in an arc of towns and cities to the north and west of Baghdad, where support for Hussein was deepest. U.S. forces also have mounted a massive counterinsurgency drive in the region. Areas south of the city, where no such counterattack has been launched, had been quiet until today.

The weapons used against the Americans also have been increasing in power. In Samarra, a city about 70 miles north of Baghdad, U.S. troops killed an Iraqi today and captured another after they fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a tank. On Wednesday, three mortar shells rained on a U.S.-run civil administration office in the city, killing an Iraqi bystander, military spokesmen said.

Some soldiers are vexed by what they see as a contradictory reception from Iraqis. Sometimes the public appears welcoming, sometimes actively hostile. The problem recalls other military U.S. deployments, including in Afghanistan, where it can be difficult to distinguish friends from enemies.

"The way it seemed is, once Iraqis got over being grateful for getting rid of Saddam, they found out quickly they don`t want the Americans, either," said Sgt. Nestor Torres, a military policeman with the 3rd Infantry Division in the restive town of Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad. "Everyone is blending in with everyone else, so you can`t tell the friendly ones from the hostile."

Torres is a bodyguard for the division commander, Maj. Gen. Buford C. Blount III. "When I look around, I`ve got to wonder who wants to shoot my boss," Torres said.

Peacekeeping duty in Iraq has made soldiers particularly vulnerable. Troops at police stations and on guard duty at banks, electrical installations and fuel stations are frequent targets of sniping. Soldiers have been fired on when delivering propane gas. Bystanders throw stones at them when they are constructing soccer fields or fixing schools.

By contrast, no American has been killed during the recent armed raids in northern and western Iraq, during which U.S. troops have tried to apprehend suspected Baath Party militiamen, fighters from Saddam`s Fedayeen and other Hussein loyalists.

Some soldiers complain they are playing roles for which they are ill-prepared. In Baqubah, the domain of the 4th Infantry`s 2nd Brigade, combat engineers who specialize in weapons demolition and building bridges have been given a new mission: to drive around in their M113 armored personnel carriers to fight crime.

"I don`t know why they`re keeping us around here," said Cpl. Anthony Arteaga, 25, of Hammond, La., who is assigned to the 588th Engineer Battalion. "We`re not peacekeepers. We`re heavy-combat engineers."

As Arteaga`s M113 roared out of a parking lot to conduct a patrol, the noise of the engine drowned out nearby conversations, prompting Pvt. Dan Sullivan, 21, of Gainesville, Fla., to complain that the vehicle was ill-suited for catching criminals.

"They hear you from two miles away," he said. "By the time we get there, the bad guys are gone."

Sullivan also said that the armored vehicle was too wide to travel down some of Baqubah`s narrower streets. "This wasn`t made for patrolling a city," he said.

But that is what the battalion has been doing for the past six weeks. Assigned to squelch the lawlessness that followed the downfall of Hussein`s government and confiscate illegal weapons, the unit`s M113s rumble through the city for hours at a time, even under the blazing afternoon sun. Soldiers decked out in full combat attire, including heavy flak jackets, poke out of the hatch, their M-16 rifles at the ready.

When the battalion first arrived in Baqubah in late April, "every single person was waving at us," said 2nd Lt. Skip Boston, 24, of Marshalltown, Iowa. Now, he said, "they just stare."

"A man told me the other day that we`ve been here for two months and nothing`s changed," Boston said. "That`s not really true, but all they see is us riding up and down the roads and being a nuisance for them."

The focus on crime fighting has annoyed Boston and his men, who said they would rather be blowing up ammunition caches. "It`s getting really frustrating," Sullivan said. "We took the city, but what was it for? We took one bad guy out, but now there are lots of bad guys here."

After President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat in Iraq was finished, many soldiers assumed they would be returning to the United States in a matter of weeks. But withdrawal plans have been placed on hold. Not only have military units have been reassigned to street patrols, many are still living in the same spartan camps they pitched two months ago, where they eat rations and sleep in dusty tents.

The inability to unwind outside their camps or interact with Iraqis in a non-military setting has added to soldiers` frustration, several said. Soldiers are prohibited from leaving their compounds without a weapon, body armor and a specific mission. Although they are encouraged to talk to Iraqis while on patrol, they have been urged not to eat local food, and alcohol consumption is prohibited by a general order applying to all military personnel in Iraq.

At a checkpoint on the outskirts of Baghdad set up to search for illegal weapons, a soldier sweating in the 110-degree heat told a reporter, "Tell President Bush to bring us home." On a skylight atop Fallujah`s city hall, a soldier has scrawled in the dust: "I`ll kill for a ticket home."

Elements of Blount`s 3rd Infantry Division have been away from their home base at Fort Stewart, Ga., since September, when they were deployed to Kuwait to prepare for the invasion. After spearheading the race to Baghdad and the conquest of the capital, many in the division expected to be sent home. Instead, they were dispatched to Fallujah to put down a budding revolt.

"Fatigue could come," Blount, the division commander, said in an interview. "They are getting tired. But morale is still pretty good."

Others contend spirits already are slipping, particularly among reservists who did not anticipate staying in Iraq for more than a few months. "It`s a cliche, but winning the war is easy," said Master Sgt. Steven Quick, a reservist and police officer from Severn, Md. "Winning the peace is difficult. For future recruitment and retaining of reservists, there has to be a clear idea of when we can go home in situations like this."

Even relatively simple projects designed to show goodwill can turn sour. Military engineers recently cleared garbage from a field in Fallujah, resurfaced it with dirt and put up goal posts to create an instant soccer field.

A day later, the goal posts were stolen and all the dirt had been scraped from the field. Garbage began to pile up again. "Is this animosity, crime or both? What kind of people loot dirt?" said Capt. Allen Vaught, from the 490th Civil Affairs Battalion. "We can`t build stuff and then have everyone just help themselves. We don`t get anywhere that way."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Time to Let Iraqis Step Up


By David Ignatius

Friday, June 20, 2003; Page A25


PARIS -- Iraq is set to resume oil shipments on Sunday, at firmer prices than it could command during the regime of Saddam Hussein. That`s a small sign that the global marketplace is ready to welcome Iraq as a modern and dynamic nation.

The United States should be encouraging this transformation, as rapidly as possible. Instead, occupation czar L. Paul Bremer`s go-slow, crisis-management style is impeding the Iraqization of the new Iraq. In the process, he is turning what was a war of liberation into a war of occupation.

The firm but cautious Bremer recently canceled a local mayoral election in Najaf, presumably fearing that candidates hostile to the United States would win. Earlier, he abandoned plans for a "big tent" meeting of 300 Iraqi political leaders in July, preferring instead to appoint a 30-member council.

"If they don`t give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for a long time," said Asad Sultan Abu Gilal, the man some had expected to win the Najaf election, in an interview with the New York Times.

Bremer`s delays are understandable, given the ragged security situation in Iraq. But they are a mistake. The more slowly political change goes in Iraq, the more headlines you`re likely to read about U.S. soldiers being gunned down in a grinding war of pacification.

Success in Bremer`s case should be measured by his ability to give up control to the Iraqis, not by his ability to gain more control for the Coalition Provisional Authority he heads.

The Iraqi oil industry is a good case study of how U.S. occupation policy is working against itself. The Iraqis badly need foreign investment to exploit their vast oil reserves. But investors need to be confident they are dealing with a legitimate Iraqi government so their commitments will be protected. Bremer`s occupation government has no more authority to make long-term deals than did Hussein`s during U.N. sanctions.

Consider the structural dilemma facing the Iraqi oil industry: Some analysts argue that it should be denationalized and privatized, so it can compete aggressively the way privatized Russian firms are beginning to do; others argue that rapid expansion can best be achieved by production-sharing agreements with Western companies that are pumping Iraqi oil; still others favor a continuation of Iraq`s traditional policy of state ownership and control, with service and development contracts for Western firms.

What`s the right choice? Hard to say, but the point is that the decisions must be made by Iraqis. No U.S.-imposed solution will be seen as legitimate -- least of all by Western oil companies.

"No one in his right mind would invest in Iraq today, because of the looting and shooting and the lack of an Iraqi government," notes Walid Khadduri, an Iraqi-born analyst who runs the authoritative newsletter Middle East Economic Survey.

Iraqis must also decide what to do with development deals signed by the previous regime. The most important was in 1997 with the Russian firm Lukoil for development of the West Qurna field, which could produce 600,000 to 700,000 barrels a day. Lukoil announced recently that it was reopening its office in Baghdad and is said to be planning to send technicians to West Qurna.

The problem is that some experts believe the Lukoil deal was illegal because it was signed while United Nations sanctions were in place. Whether Lukoil stays or goes is for Iraqis to decide.

But instead of encouraging Iraqi experts to reassert control of their industry, Bremer`s team is concentrating on de-Baathification. That`s a mistake, argues Raad Alkadiri, an Iraqi-born analyst with the consulting firm PFC Energy who recently returned from a trip to Baghdad. Top energy experts may have been forced to join the Baath Party to get ahead, he notes. But they have oil on their hands, not blood.

The arrest of Hussein`s closest aide, Abid Hamid Mahmud, should remind all decent Iraqis that things are slowly getting better. Mahmud`s rise from bodyguard to political confidant epitomized the increasing brutality of a regime in which well-educated diplomats and technicians were shoved aside by people who were little more than thugs.

Another development that should embolden Bremer is the announcement that at least 20,000 troops from a dozen allied countries will begin arriving in mid-August. This "internationalization" of the occupation should make U.S. forces less isolated and vulnerable. And it was good to see Germany agree to help with reconstruction.

Now it`s time for Iraqis to create their own modern government, in which people like the despised Mahmud will have no place. Even Ahmed Chalabi, long the Pentagon`s favorite Iraqi opposition leader, wants Bremer to move more quickly. "Bremer needs more Iraqi assistance to be successful," says Chalabi`s top U.S. aide, Francis Brooke. "We need to get moving toward democracy."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Untethered to Reality


By Michael Kinsley

Friday, June 20, 2003; Page A25


Why are we even bothering to keep looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? At this point, what difference does it make whether we find them? Trying to find them serves two ostensible purposes: One is to prevent them from being used, and the other is to settle the argument about whether they exist. But neither purpose really applies any longer.

As we are belatedly noticing, other nations are closer to having usable nuclear weapons than Iraq. The claim was that nuclear and other weapons were especially dangerous in the hands of a malevolent madman like Saddam Hussein. Now Hussein is gone. Iraq is not quite yet the gentle, loving democracy promised by Bush administration propaganda. But its government, or lack of one, is hardly the rogue nuclear power we must fear the most.

As for settling the argument about WMD as a justification for the war, that argument is already settled. It`s obvious that the Bush administration had no good evidence to back up its dire warnings. And even if months of desperate searching ultimately turns up a thing or two, this will hardly vindicate the administration`s claim to have known it all along. The administration itself in effect now agrees that actually finding the weapons doesn`t matter. It asserts that the war can be justified on humanitarian grounds alone and that Hussein may have destroyed those weapons on his way out the door. (Exactly what we wanted him to do, by the way, now repositioned as a dirty trick.) These are not the sorts of things you say if you know those weapons exist. And if it doesn`t matter that they don`t seem to exist, it cannot logically matter if they do.

The general citizenry doesn`t seem to care whether those weapons are discovered. Americans tell pollsters they do not mind that WMD haven`t materialized and are not even withholding judgment while the search goes on. Some now believe the war was justified on other grounds. Some believe the weapons exist despite the lack of evidence. Some actually believe that WMD have been discovered. And some even believe that the Bush administration outright lied about WMD, but they don`t care.

According to a Harris poll out Wednesday, a majority of Americans still think the Bush administration was telling the truth before the war when it said it had hard evidence of WMD. A Knight Ridder poll released last weekend reports that a third of the populace believes the weapons have been discovered. A Fox News poll last week found that almost half of Americans believe that the administration was "intentionally misleading" about Iraq`s weapons, but more than two-thirds think the war was justified anyway. A Gallup poll released Wednesday concludes that almost 9 out of 10 Americans still think Hussein had or was close to having WMD.

By now, WMD have taken on a mythic role in which fact doesn`t play much of a part. The phrase itself -- "weapons of mass destruction" -- is more like an incantation than a description of anything. The term is a new one to almost everybody, and the concern it officially embodies was on almost no one`s radar screen until recently. Unofficially, "weapons of mass destruction" are to George W. Bush what fairies were to Peter Pan. He wants us to say, "We DO believe in weapons of mass destruction. We DO believe. We DO." If we all believe hard enough, they will be there. And it`s working.

The most striking thing about polls such as these isn`t how many people believe or disbelieve some unproven factual assertion or prediction but how few give the only correct answer, which is "Don`t know." In the Fox News poll, vast majorities expressed certitude one way or the other about the existence of WMD in Iraq, the likelihood of peace in the Middle East and so on. Those who voted "not sure" (an even more tempting cop-out than the pollsters` usual "don`t know") rarely broke 20 percent and usually hovered around 10. Four-fifths or more were sure about everything.

As someone who manufactures opinions for a living, it is my job to be sure. And my standards for the ingredients of an opinion are necessarily low. There may be a few ancient pundits such as George Will who still follow the traditional guild practices: days in the library making notes on index cards, a half-dozen lunches at the club with key sources, an hour spent alone in silence with a martini and one`s thoughts -- and only then does a perfectly modulated opinion take its lovely shape. Most of us have no time for that anymore. It`s a quick surf around the `Net, a flip of the coin and out pops an opinion, ready to go except perhaps for a bit of extra last-minute coarsening.

Still, even the most modern major generalist among the professional commentariat likes to have a little something in the way of knowledge as he or she scatters opinions like bird seed. The general public, or at least the part of it that deals with pollsters, is not so cowardly. Most people, it seems, will happily state a belief on a question of fact that nobody knows the answer to, then just as happily do a double back flip from that shaky platform into a pool of opinions about which they are "sure."

Pollsters themselves, and the media that report their findings deadpan, are partly responsible for this. Every news report about a poll result reinforces the impression that opinion untethered to reality is valid or even patriotic (and to be "not sure" is shameful). The modern pundit culture is also partly to blame, I suppose, with its emphasis on televised argumentation. Viewers do not always grasp the difference between low standards and no standards.

Are there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Sure there are -- in every sense that matters, reality not being one of them.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-fg-…

Scoffing at the U.S. in Hussein Country
As Americans search for signs of the deposed leader in the Tikrit area, Iraqis say they wouldn`t part with information even if they had it.
By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer

June 20, 2003

TIKRIT, Iraq — When a friend brought Saddam Hussein`s secretary to Wamidh Ahmad Rija`s simple home and asked him to take care of the man, how could he refuse?

He couldn`t, he says.

"According to our Arab tradition, we have to receive him," the 22-year-old said with a slight shrug.

So he showed his guest into the family reception room, bare except for thin mats for visitors to sit on and a television tuned to Al Jazeera, the leading Arabic satellite channel.

That was Sunday.

At 1 a.m. Tuesday, 30 to 40 U.S. soldiers stormed the house and seized Abid Hamid Mahmud Tikriti, Hussein`s right-hand man and No. 4 on Washington`s list of the 55 most-wanted Iraqis.

The capture comes in the midst of intensifying sweeps of the Tikrit area, including neighboring villages such as Qadisiyah, where Mahmud was seized, and Al Auja, Hussein`s birthplace, where every resident is proud to declare that he is a cousin of the former dictator.

While the Americans don`t always tell the Iraqis who or what they are looking for, interviews with Iraqis who have been interrogated and released — among them Mahmud`s erstwhile host, Rija — suggest that U.S. forces are hot on the trail of Hussein himself.

This part of Iraq is Hussein country: tribal, Sunni Muslim and heavily Baath, the party the former president counted on for support. Most people here worked for the regime, and almost everyone would like to see it return to power.

It is the part of Iraq where Hussein could find shelter in almost any house he approached and be assured that his hosts would not betray him.

Even the graffiti, much of it freshly painted in green Arabic lettering on the low walls that border Tikrit`s main street, tell the story. "Congratulations on your birthday, sir, despite the new situation," reads one sign. Another reads, "Saddam still exists, you dog Bush." And one: "Anyone who deals with the Americans should be killed."

Although a local resident almost certainly played a role in Mahmud`s capture, the Americans` questioning of people here seems futile to Hussein loyalists.

"They are asking silly things. `Have you seen Saddam Hussein?` `Where did you see him?` And the answer they get is, `No, I haven`t seen him.` And that is reality," said Marwan Adnan Nasiri, a 37-year-old lawyer who said six or seven of his cousins have been detained. Some of them have been released.

"If I knew where Saddam was, I would never tell you," he said with a pleasant smile, "because you are an American."

Nasiri`s view, widely shared in Tikrit, is that the "the ex-regime is the best. The majority of Iraqis liked Saddam. He has kept our dignity."

Rasheed Mamoud Mohammed, 40, spoke warmly of Hussein from a bed in the well-equipped Tikrit Hospital, which was built by the previous government.

Mohammed was recovering from an attack by would-be carjackers that left him with four bullet wounds. His affection for the former president seems to have been unaffected by his brief imprisonments by members of the ruling family.

He likes the Americans too. The local commander of the U.S. base in Tikrit visited him in the hospital.

But Hussein, he`s family. "Yes, of course I would invite him if he came to my house," Mohammed said as he smiled broadly and waved his hands expansively, yanking the intravenous line in his hand as he did so.

"All the people in Tikrit like Saddam," he said. "They don`t like his relatives because they did bad things in his name."

In the same neighborhood where Hussein`s secretary was caught, the three houses belonging to Nasiri`s extended family were searched just hours before Mahmud was captured. The U.S. soldiers found nothing, not even weapons, and apologized for the inconvenience, but the incident only deepened Nasiri`s disdain for the Americans and his loyalty to Hussein.

"The Americans promised us liberty, but now there is an absence of security, and we are deprived of our liberty when they come into our houses in the middle of the night and frighten our children," he said as he sat in his family`s well-furnished reception room, dark because the curtains were drawn to keep out the June heat. As the electricity went on and off, an air conditioner sporadically rumbled.

In the dirt streets of Aldorat, a hamlet about 20 minutes north of Tikrit, Americans are also asking questions, said Nafa, a worker in the local water treatment plant who was detained by U.S. forces for 23 days and who would give only his first name.

A slight man, with skin weathered by the sun, he speaks reluctantly about his detention, but he clearly was puzzled by his interrogators` queries, whose wide range suggested the breadth of U.S. interests during this post-conflict period.

"They asked me: `Do you know anybody who came from Iran to Iraq? Do you know anybody entering Iraq from Syria? Do you know anybody in the Badr Brigade?` " he said. The Badr Brigade is the armed support of Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr Hakim, a Shiite leader who recently returned from exile in Iran and is based in the holy city of Najaf in southern Iraq.

But for most of those detained in the Tikrit area, the questions focus either on Hussein`s whereabouts or that of the Fedayeen Saddam, the deposed leader`s fiercest fighters, who are now believed to be one of the forces behind the recent assaults on U.S. troops.

One soldier was killed Thursday and two were injured in a grenade attack on an ambulance from the 804th Medical Brigade, near the town of Al Iskandariyah, about 40 miles south of Baghdad. The ambulance was taking a patient to a combat support hospital, according to a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command.

Such attacks underscore the importance Washington places on determining the fate of Hussein and his sons, because it is believed that the failure to capture them encourages their supporters to make a stand against the U.S.-led occupation.

But for Tikritis like Rija and a cousin who was detained with him when the Americans captured Hussein`s secretary, the unfolding events felt beyond their control.

When they opened their front door to the neighbor who brought Mahmud, they saw a man they barely recognized from the television images, where he usually appeared in a military uniform and black cap.

Here was a bearded man in a simple ankle-length robe wearing the traditional white Arab headdress.

"He just had two suitcases and a pistol. Nothing else," Rija said.

The suitcases were stuffed with U.S. dollars.

Mahmud spent the first night in the reception room, sleeping on the floor.

The second night, he went to the top-floor bedroom, with scuffed walls and a bed, a vanity, a wardrobe and a plastic coatrack, the whole thing illuminated by a single bare bulb.

He put his suitcases on top of the wardrobe.

"He seemed relaxed, you know, because he didn`t have a big job anymore. He watched television, he ate with us," Rija said.

Early Tuesday morning, however, Rija realized it was all over, even before the soldiers entered the house.

"I knew when I heard the helicopters overhead that they were coming for him," said Rija, a former soldier who worked as a secretary in a military hospital. He reached for his shirt and pants so he would be ready, and moments later the soldiers broke through the door, grabbed him and threw him to the ground.

Did he try to protect Mahmud? Rija shook his head. "How could I protect him?" he said, gesturing as if the soldiers were still surrounding the house.

As the soldiers raced upstairs to the room where Mahmud was staying, they threw stun grenades, which exploded with loud bangs, leaving the tile floor blackened.

"They asked me again and again: `Where are Saddam`s sons? Do you know Abid Hamid al Tikriti? Why didn`t you tell us about him, about where he was hiding?` "

After asking the same questions repeatedly, the Americans apparently determined that Rija was innocent and released him and his cousin. Five other relatives remain in detention.

When Rija returned home, the first thing he did was check for the suitcases, hoping the Americans had left them behind, but they were gone. "We were sorry about that," he said. It would have been at least a little compensation for the family`s trouble.

Does he have any idea where Hussein is now? Rija smiled broadly and shrugged.

"We never knew where he was when he was the president," he said. "He was always in hiding, always moving."


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

Stop The Gay Canadians!
First icky legalized homosexual marriage, then the apocalypse. Conservative America trembles
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, June 20, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



Hordes of quivering GOP lawmakers and vast throngs of proudly homophobic right-wing Christian Americans fell into an adorable tizzy the other day as the entire really, really big country of Canada announced it will change its law to allow full-on homosexual marriage anywhere in the whole country including Vancouver and Toronto and even "that weird province with all the gay French people."

Hysteria and open weeping and panicky looks accompanied the uncontrollable overeating of many stale Ding-Dongs, as millions of sexually confused Bush-ites and members of self-righteous Bible-icious anti-everything groups like the American Family Association, along with entire towns such as Colorado Springs, were absolutely certain the world was coming to an end, like, immediately. I mean, Canada`s right next door!


Moreover, they fear, Canada`s decision means the God-given sanctity of tepid hetero missionary-position marriage is utterly doomed and our innocent children are sure to become fans of modern dance and maybe even old Barbra Streisand movies, and all of this will undoubtedly result in the introduction of a pair of wacky gay Canadian neighbors on "Everybody Loves Raymond."

"I don`t really know what this means, what it represents, what it entails, what gay people stand for, where they come from or what they do or why they do it or how they become that way in the first place or even if they`re allowed to vote or fly in airplanes," announced a very trembly George W. Bush at a hastily arranged press conference in the Super Mega Hetero Gun Room of the White House.

"But I do know we won`t stand for it, and if these gul-dang furriner evildoers think they can get away with these kinds of tender unions and hand holdings and loving smiles and beautiful intimate commitments, well, they haven`t seen America`s righteous firepower!" he shouted, pounding his cute little fist on the podium. "We shall prevail!" Then he fainted.

Karl Rove, Bush`s master strategist and known devourer of live puppies and breeder of the administration`s swarms of evil flying monkeys, briefly waddled into the sunlight to quickly introduce the bitchin` catchphrase "Wussies of Mass Destruction" into the GOP lexical armament.

Rove also pointed out, just before the tiny demon leeches sucked away what remained of his shriveled soul, how Canada`s wicked WMD decision probably meant there were similar latent gay terrorist revolutions ready to burst all over Antarctica and Poland and probably Latvia like some sticky-smooth lubricating substance, and they must be stopped before the world is "converted" and we all end up getting regular pedicures and drinking white wine and belting out the words to "Cabaret" as we cruise around in our purple Miatas.

"As far as I`m told, Canada actually borders our fine upstanding nation," Bush managed to continue, after being hoisted upright, as a paler-than-usual Dick Cheney whispered desperately into Bush`s ear while Lynne frantically tried to dissuade their secret lesbian daughter from splitting for Saskatchewan with her lover on the next flight out.

"This means we as a country are actually touching a bunch of gay married people right this very minute! Look at this map! It`s like an adjacency thing! Like some sort of weird tidal wave of gay Canadian people in love, just waiting up north to ride big pink buses down here and open chains of well-appointed little erotic chocolate boutiques and buy up all the Cher Farewell Tour tickets. This will not do!"

Already, America`s perspective has been affected. In a shocking new poll, fully 41 percent of Americans now believe the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 tragedy were, in fact, gay married Canadians.

Similarly, 23 percent are now convinced Saddam Hussein was either "somewhat" or "almost totally" Canadian. Or gay. Or a member of Loverboy.

AG John Ashcroft, no stranger to uptight asexual homophobic hyper-Christian puling and all too familiar with looking exactly like he just swallowed a pleasure-ribbed condom filled with boiling road tar, was seen running around the Hall of Justice smacking a heavy King James Bible against his skull and dousing himself with buckets of holy anointing oil, just before running smack into the bronze left nipple of the swathed statue of Lady Justice and knocking himself cold.


Bills were proposed. Sanctions were recommended. Emergency precautions were instilled. Bush vowed to cut Canada out of the will. Dick Cheney demanded a restriction on imports of Canada Dry and Canadian maple syrup and an outright ban on the sale of all Aldo Nova greatest-hits compilation records, countrywide.

Donny Rumsfeld, feeling that a nice brutal unprovoked "regime change" in Canada was, of course, long overdue, immediately called for an insanely violent air assault to be quickly followed by an exhaustive deadly ground invasion on Canadian lumberjacks, one that positively reeks of bogus misinformation and lies and pain and hate and a wildly expensive military probe into the whole hockey thing.

"A really, really long metal fence is what I endorse," oozed Senate majority leader and noted closet Village People megafan Tom DeLay, between tongue baths from his personal herd of mildly narcotized French poodles. And Dennis Hastert.

"You know, a big strong fence studded all over with those really sharp barb-wire stickler thingies? Like the kind they use on those leather dog collars? The thick black ones with the snaps that feel all tight around your ankles? And you can`t help but squirm and moan and get all giddy?" he continued before falling into a fit of uncontrolled swooning.

In the state of Texas except for Austin which everyone knows is surprisingly cool despite how it`s in, you know, Texas, where you still cannot legally buy a dildo or engage in homosexual sex but they pretty much hand you a nice big phallic shotgun as a welcome gift when you visit, the legislature immediately passed a law requiring each and every male to smack any other male they see really hard on the back and buy him a pitcher of bad beer in a manly gesture of football-lovin` patriotic homoerotically repressed solidarity.

Reaction was heated. Viewpoints clashed. Families bickered. Birds flew. Countries sighed. The U.N. napped. Belgians shrugged. Macy`s had a big sale. Love exhaled.

The air was thick with tension. Conservatives were stupefied. The religious right, so accustomed to viewing big scary cities like San Francisco and Amsterdam as debauched hedonistic Sodom-a-raffic pleasure palaces to be avoided like a good book or a genuine orgasm or an original thought, suddenly took one look at a map of the world and noticed the size of Canada and went, holy crap.

Pat Robertson quietly dreamed of marrying Jerry Falwell. Everyone openly dreamed of pimp-slapping Franklin Graham. Wal-Marts in Canada were forced to carry issues of Bust and Honcho. Strangely, sales of Jackhammer Jesus dildos increased a hundredfold. Mostly in Texas.

Meanwhile, the rest of the largely benevolent and open-hearted and divinely attuned polyamorous universe just laughed and nodded very, very approvingly at Canada and said, well Jesus with a riding crop and a rainbow flag, it`s about goddamn time, you know?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joerver]

Weißes Haus

Scott McClellan - Bushs neues Sprachrohr

Ari Fleischer, eine der markantesten Glatzen des Weißen Hauses, wird am 14. Juli durch einen Mann mit vollem Haar ersetzt. Scott McClellan wird neuer Pressesekretär von George W. Bush.

Hamburg - Selbstverständlich gilt auch der 35 Jahre alte bisherige Stellvertreter von Fleischer als loyaler Anhänger des Präsidenten. McClellan arbeitete schon unter Bush, als dieser noch Gouverneur von Texas war. Im Laufe von zehn Jahren hat er sich in den engsten Zirkel von Bush hervorgearbeitet.

Sein Vorgänger Fleischer wuchs dem Präsidenten so ans Herz, dass Bush ihm bei seiner Kündigung verständnisvoll auf die Glatze küsste. Der 44 Jahre alte Fleischer hatte erst vor einem halben Jahr geheiratet - und bevorzugte (offenbar vor allem deswegen) ein weniger stressiges Leben als noch weiter Sprachrohr und Feuerwehrmann des Präsidenten sein zu wollen.

Dass es Verstimmungen zwischen ihm und Bush gegeben habe, wie zunächst kolportiert wurde, wies Fleischer vehement zurück. Vielmehr, so sagte er, wolle er sich nach 21 Jahre Politik neuen Aufgaben stellen. Dazu gehöre, dass er nun erst einmal Vorträge halten und vielleicht ein Buch schreiben wolle.

Obwohl hin und wieder auch andere Kandidaten für den Job des neuen Leiters des Pressestabs des Präsidialamtes genannt wurden, war es eigentlich keine Frage, dass es letztendlich auf McClellan zulaufen wird.

Sein Bruder ist Chef der US-Gesundheitsbehörde

Wie Bush stammt er aus einer typischen texanischen Politikerfamilie. Schon McClellans Großvater war Dekan der juristischen Fakultät der University of Texas in Austin. Seine Mutter war drei Amtsperioden Bürgermeisterin dieser Stadt und ist noch heute Schatzmeisterin der Republikaner in Texas.

Und auch sein älterer Bruder Mark ist seit rund einem Jahr ein enger Berater von Bush. Ende vergangenen Jahres berief der Präsident den Professor für Medizin und Wirtschaftswissenschaften zum neuen Chef der US-Gesundheitsbehörde FDA. Ein Job, der mit viel Macht ausgestattet ist: Schließlich entscheidet diese Behörde in Amerika über die Zulassung von Medikament. Und da sie diese auch ablehnen kann, ist sie letztendlich über den Erfolg oder das Scheitern vieler Konzerne der weltweit operierenden US-Pharmaindustrie verantwortlich.

Scott McClellan hingegen wird demnächst nur über rund ein Dutzend Mitarbeiter verfügen. Das Nachrichten-, Medien- und Kommunikationsteam wird er von einem geräumigen Büro im Westflügel des Weißen Hauses leitet, in dem derzeit noch Fleischer residiert. Die Mitarbeiter der Presseabteilung können über diese Berufung freuen. Denn nach Angaben von Regierungsmitgliedern plant McClellan keine weit reichenden personellen und inhaltlichen Änderungen.

Unter den Journalisten in Washington wird McClellan wegen seines einnehmenden Humors geschätzt. Und ebenso wie Fleischer ist er ein begnadeter Künstler im wortreichen Nicht-Sagen. So etwa als er einmal eine kurzzeitige Verstimmung zwischen Bush und der Waffenlobby NRA erklären musste. "Es gibt Zeiten, in denen wir übereinstimmen, und es gibt Zeiten, in denen wir verschiedener Meinung sind."

Und noch eine Kostprobe: "Der Präsident trifft seine Entscheidung auf der Basis dessen, was er für die richtige Politik für die Amerikaner hält." Lars Langenau



© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Published on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Will House Republicans Call for Bush`s Impeachment?
by Steve Pittelli

It has now become clear that President Bush lied to the American people in order to promote a war. That war continues and has already led to the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians, hundreds of U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi soldiers. In truth, Bush’s lies are more than just lies. They are high crimes and the President should now be subject to impeachment.

There are those who say that the President’s current popularity or the Republican majority in the House and Senate preclude the possibility of his impeachment. Perhaps they are underestimating the moral integrity of our Republican congressmen. In fact, some of them have already publicly stated their opinions on this subject. They did so in February of 1999 when they served as Impeachment Trial Managers for the Senate Impeachment Trial of former President Clinton. Let’s look at what they had to say then:

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Illinois),

“There is a visibility factor in the president`s public acts, and those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug...They reverberate, they ricochet all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people.”

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin)

“The truth is still the truth, and a lie is still a lie, and the rule of law should apply to everyone, no matter what excuses are made by the president`s defenders…We have done so because of our devotion to the rule of law and our fear that if the president does not suffer the legal and constitutional consequences of his actions, the impact of allowing the president to stand above the law will be felt for generations to come…laws not enforced are open invitations for more serious and more criminal behavior.”

Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)

“It would be wrong for you to tell America`s children that some lies are all right. It would be wrong to show the rest of the world that some of our laws don`t really matter.”

Steve Buyer (R- Indiana)

“I have also heard some senators from both sides of the aisle state publicly: I think these offenses rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, to state publicly that you believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have occurred but for some reason you have this desire not to remove the president -- that desire, though, does not square with the law, the Constitution, and the Senate`s precedents for removing federal judges for similar offenses.”

Rep. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina, Now Senator)

“The president of the United States sets atop of the legal pyramid. If there`s reasonable doubt about his ability to faithfully execute the laws of the land, our future would be better off if that individual is removed. And let me tell you where it all comes down to me. If you can go back and explain to your children and your constituents how you can be truthful and misleading at the same time, good luck.”

These, of course, are just a few examples. It is likely that most of those who voted to impeach Clinton are on record as to the high ethical standards they were following. Certainly, they must follow these same standards when considering Bush’s egregious lies and the consequences of those lies. It is time to draft the Articles of Impeachment and let those who oppose them state why this case deserves more leniency than was given to former President Clinton.

Steve Pitelli is a physician and peace activist living on the Central Coast of California. He can be reached at [e-mail]

###

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0617-09.htm

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

Randolph T. Holhut: `Bushonomics and the coming economic disaster`
Date: Wednesday, June 18 @ 10:00:50 EDT
Topic: Economic Policy


By Randolph T. Holhut

DUMMERSTON, Vt. - With each day`s revelations of the various lies and deceptions employed by the Bush administration to get its long-desired invasion Iraq, it`s quite clear that America`s foreign policy has been hijacked by a group of madmen.

Unfortunately, the same can be said about America`s economic policy. The same tactics that got us into war are being used to mask the true intentions of the Bush administration.

Most of the world saw through the lies of President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the now apparently non-existent stash of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons in Iraq. Many of the nations who opposed Gulf War II are looking at President Bush`s economic policies and are coming to the same conclusions that they made regarding his conduct of foreign policy. In the words of the Financial Times, the world`s leading business newspaper: "The lunatics are now in charge of the asylum."



The FT recently came to that conclusion after looking at President Bush`s latest set of tax cuts - a $350 billion package which will eventually cost more that $800 billion if you figure in the various fiscal sleight-of-hand and gimmickry that Congress used to camouflage the true cost.

The slight-of-hand goes beyond this tax cut. The FT also revealed that the Treasury Department was ordered by the Bush administration to shelve a report that shows that the U.S. faces a future of chronic budget deficits that total at least $44 trillion in current dollars.

Most of that indebtedness stems from the cost of covering the future retirement and health care costs of the Baby Boomers. The $44 trillion is nearly 10 times bigger than the present publicly held national debt and is the equivalent of more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets.

Its no secret that Social Security and Medicare will need more money to meet its obligations in the coming decades. But the federal government is currently running massive budget deficits while enacting equally massive tax cuts. The ceiling on the national debt recently had to be increased by nearly $1 trillion - to $7.4 trillion - just keep up with the accelerating deficits.

Then throw in into the mix what economist Dean Baker calls the "three unsustainable bubbles" that pumped up the 1990s economic boom:

* The stock bubble. With the collapse of the 1990s bull market, more than $8 trillion of paper wealth disappeared. The result was that billions of dollars of capital gains tax revenue disappeared on both the state and federal levels. The states have especially been hard hit. Since nearly all state governments are mandated to maintain balanced budgets, they can`t go out and borrow money. They must raise taxes or cut services.

* The housing bubble. Since 1995, home prices have risen 30 percentage points higher than the rate of inflation - creating more than $3 trillion in new housing wealth. As mortgage rates have reached 40-year lows, many have tapped into this wealth. The ratio of mortgage debt to home equity is now at an all-time high.

* The dollar bubble. Much of the 1990s economic boom in the U.S. was financed by foreign capital. The dollar has plunged more than 30 percent against the Euro in the last two years. Foreign investors are increasingly seeing the U.S. under President Bush as an economically unstable banana republic whose debt is growing faster than its revenues.

In a piece in the June 9 issue of In These Times, Baker maintains that "the triple bubble economy of the late `90s presents the most difficult set of economic problems since the Great Depression."

We`ve already seen the effects of the bursting of the stock bubble. The housing bubble may be next to pop. People who bought their homes at the top of the market or borrowed against the inflated equity value of their homes could find themselves in a real jam if housing prices fall.

This could be particularly bad for first wave of retiring Boomers. Having already lost much of their 401(k) wealth in the stock bubble collapse, they could find themselves with homes that are worth less than they expected.

Here in New England, the collapse of the housing market in the early 1990s brought a new term into the lexicon: negative equity. This is where you owe more on your mortgage than what your house is worth. It took almost a decade for house values to recover. Now, they are even higher than they were back during the last New England housing bubble in the mid 1980s.

Then there is the dollar bubble. The Clinton administration`s fiscal policy was built on a "strong dollar," meaning it`s value was higher compared to foreign currency. This resulted in cheap imports and low inflation. But the U.S. has become so dependent on imported goods, it now borrows more than $550 billion a year from foreign sources because it is buying far more goods than it`s selling. This trade deficit isn`t getting smaller and the ultimate result could foreign ownership of nearly all American financial assets.

The Bush administration is hoping that the housing and dollar bubbles can stay inflated until after the 2004 election. That`s why the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates to the lowest levels since the early 1960s.

But the bill will eventually come due.

The value of the dollar will have to fall in order to reduce the trade deficit. That means prices will go up and the Federal Reserve will start raising interest rates to prevent inflation. Once the interest rates go up, over-mortgaged and over-indebted households will hit the financial wall. Foreclosures will increase. Consumer spending will decrease. Unemployment will rise still higher, as will the federal deficit.

Congress will then have to choose between raising taxes and rescinding the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts or slash social welfare spending and privatize Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.

Given the expressed desire of the Republican Party to keep cutting taxes until government is, in the words of right-wing strategist Grover Norquist, reduced "to the size where I can drag into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub," you can bet that taxes won`t be increased - except for the working poor and the middle class.

Just as the Bush administration lied and hyped a non-existent threat to lead the U.S. into Gulf War II, it`s now embarked on a policy to create a fiscal train wreck to create the conditions to achieve the goal that eluded Ronald Reagan - to eliminate the social safety net and turn back to the economic policy clock to 1900.

You won`t hear President Bush singing the praises of William McKinley or acknowledging the Republican Party`s goal to repeal the Twentieth Century. But it`s hardly a secret. It`s out there in the open for all to see. The question is whether - unlike the invasion of Iraq - this plan can be stopped before the worst of the damage is done.

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=11881

[Joerver]

Antiwar groups turn their focus to Bush
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/171/nation/Antiwar_groups_…
By Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff, 6/20/2003

WASHINGTON -- Not even military victory could silence the antiwar movement.

More than two months since the Pentagon declared major combat operations in Iraq complete, the activist groups that preemptively mobilized to oppose the war continue to fight a rear-guard action to win the peace. Their latest focus: Whether President Bush, in the run-up to the war, misled the country by asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The Win Without War coalition and MoveOn.org, two of the biggest antiwar groups, kicked off their new campaign yesterday with a full-page ad in the New York Times that labeled Bush a ``misleader`` and demanded an independent commission to determine the truth about US intelligence on Iraq. ``It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie,`` the ad concluded.

Organizers say that the groups` members have reacted strongly to the ad, with more than 100,000 people going to MoveOn.org`s website to sign up to help and more than $100,000 being raised to support the new campaign.

``This strikes a raw nerve to people involved in our coalition,`` said Tom Andrews, Win Without War`s director and a former Democratic congressman from Maine.

Andrews` former colleagues in Congress have been more reticent. Democrats say privately they are angry at being allegedly misled about what evidence the administration had of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have been cautious, however, about criticizing the president on foreign policy issues and say there is a possibility that chemical or biological weapons may yet be found. A few members of Congress have privately stated that they may seek a public inquiry into what the administration knew and when.

``One president said `I did not have sex with that woman` and he got impeached,`` said Representative Jose E. Serrano, Democrat of New York. ``Another president lied to the American people, to Congress, and to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction, bombed a country and killed many people, [and] in the process we lost some of our own brave folks. And he`s some sort of hero. What gives?``

The president made no mention of the debate over weapons of mass destruction yesterday during an appearance in Fridley, Minn., to promote his economic policy. He has stood by his warnings about Iraq, and consistently said he believes such weapons will eventually be there.

``The regime of Saddam Hussein is no more, America is more secure, the world is more peaceful, and the long-suffering people of Iraq are now free,`` Bush said.

No members of Congress have publicly asked for an independent investigation, though Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who is running for president, has suggested that one may be necessary if the congressional intelligence committees continue to hold their hearings behind closed doors. The Senate Intelligence Committee yesterday held its first closed-door hearing on weapons of mass destruction.

Andrews` group wants an independent commission, he said, because ``people are angry and suspicious, frankly, of the Congress and not confident by any means that Congress will do what is necessary.``

In April, representatives from most of the 40 groups that compose Win Without War held a retreat at a conference center in Rhinebeck, N.Y., to chart the movement`s future. ``We came out with a very clear direction, that we wanted to oppose the continued occupation of Iraq and we wanted to redefine what smart security would be, smart foreign policy, and we wanted to have an electoral plan, and as time went on . . . we wanted to hold Congress and this administration accountable for this war,`` said Susan Shaer, executive director of the Boston-based Women`s Action Network for New Directions and a cochair of Win Without War.

In addition to the 100,000 who backed MoveOn.org`s campaign, 71,000 faxed their members of Congress through TrueMajority.org, an organization backed by Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry`s ice cream. And more than 73,000 people e-mailed Senators Bill Frist of Tennessee, leader of the chamber`s Republican majority, and Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Democratic leader, through Working Assets, a long-distance telephone company.

The group plans more print ads, as well as radio and television spots and demonstrations around the country, Andrews said, all aimed at pushing members of Congress to support an independent investigation into whether Bush lied about the causes of the war. The New York Times ad cited five Bush quotes from Sept. 12, 2002, to March 17, 2003, asserting that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons, or both.

``These quotes were used as the basis of an invasion of Iraq,`` Andrews said.

But critics of Win Without War say the group is on shaky ground by accusing Bush of deception, because the Clinton administration voiced similar charges against Iraq. The difference, they say, is how the facts as they were known were interpreted.

``For [Bush] to have lied presumed that he knew an alternative reality, an alternative truth, that he dismissed it, he hid it,`` said Daniel Goure, a military specialist with the libertarian Lexington Institute who worked on Bush`s transition team on defense issues. ``What they`re complaining about is the president looked at the evidence and said, `It`s black, not gray -- certainly not white,` . . . This is an absolutely transparent administration that was very clear about its analytical approach, how they were going to judge these threats. It was absolutely transparent: `For the axis of evil, we`re going to assume evil.` ``

Robert Schlesinger can be reached at [e-mail]. Susan Milligan of the Globe staff contributed to this report.


This story ran on page A3 of the Boston Globe on 6/20/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Joerver]

Für alle, die es ein wenig deftig mögen.
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2003/06/20/120-print.html

Friday, June 20, 2003

Global Eye -- Cry Freedom

By Chris Floyd


They were digging mass graves in Iraq last week.

No, not the mass graves that George W. Bush now reflexively invokes to justify his murder of up to 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and the needless deaths of more than 200 American soldiers in the aggressive war he launched on the basis of proven lies and outright fabrications. Those mass graves, containing victims of Saddam Hussein`s dictatorship, were dug years ago, back when powerful U.S. officials like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz were pursuing "closer ties" to the Saddam regime at the signed, insistent order of another president named George Bush.

They were also being dug all over Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld was eagerly pressing Saddamite flesh as Ronald Reagan`s special envoy, restoring diplomatic ties with the CIA-supported killer. Oh, to have been a fly on that wall as Rumsfeld squinted tenderly into Saddam`s beady eyes and pledged to lavish him with American money to build his war machine, American technology to fuel his internal repression and American military intelligence for his poison gassing of Iranian troops and missile attacks on Iranian civilians. How many thousands of lives were sacrificed in that moment of explosive power-guy passion! It must have been a real bodice-ripper.

We`re now told that those mass graves are bad mass graves, although they were perfectly acceptable at the time. (Then again, fashions change, don`t they? Remember when presidential deceit was an impeachable offense? When military aggression was a war crime? Ah, those silly fads of yesteryear.) But the new mass graves being dug in Iraq today -- for the innocent collaterals killed during the American military sweeps last week -- are good mass graves, you see, because the aged farmers, retarded teenagers, young fathers and fleeing women now being shoveled into fetid desert pits were killed by the bombs and bullets of liberation!

Yes, we know that Bush`s viceroy in Iraq, the preppy-monikered L. Paul Bremer III, has forbidden the liberated Iraqi people from using their liberty to verbally oppose the occupation of their land by a foreign power. Stifling dissent by force of arms might seem a counterintuitive expression of freedom, but it chimes perfectly with the Bush Regime`s masterful use of Zen paradox in statecraft. After all, this is the same crew that introduced the American people to such mind-bending concepts as loser-take-all democracy, charity for the rich, and prosperity through bankruptcy. Do the noble Iraqis deserve any less?

And yes, it`s true that Bushist Party bosses in Baghdad have announced plans to start "privatizing" the county`s assets -- which, as you doubtless recall, are being "held in trust for the Iraqi people" -- before said Iraqi people can form a government and make their own decisions about it, Agence France Presse reports. But is that so wrong? Indeed, hath not the Leader himself proclaimed, in the official National Security Policy of the United States, that unbridled crony capitalism is "the single sustainable model of national success?" Since there is no real choice, why bother to let the locals decide? [Memo to the Leader: possible strategy for 2004?]

And so the villagers of Al Hir, where an entire family was raked to death by machine-gun fire while they cowered in their wheatfield -- a "mistake," the Pentagon said -- joined hundreds of other survivors in burying their collateral dead last week, The New York Times reports. Some of the corpses were bullet-chewed beyond recognition; others were charred "like burned meat," Knight-Ridder reports. How many civilians were killed -- sorry, liberated from this mortal coil -- during the full-bore assault? A Pentagon spokesman put it in the proper perspective: Such trifles, he said, are "just not significant information."

Equally insignificant, apparently, are the U.S. soldiers who keep dying, week after week, in a war whose triumphant "end" was announced nearly two months ago by the Dear Leader during his million-dollar photo-op on an aircraft carrier. This week, stung by mounting evidence -- including prewar reports from the Pentagon`s own intelligence service -- that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war and thus no casus belli, Bush struck back. The president, whose family fortune was built in part on profits from the Auschwitz death camp, denounced his critics as "historical revisionists," Reuters reports. Wisely ignoring the WMD issue altogether, Bush offered up his last remaining line of defense: "This is for certain: Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States."

Oh, really? Who then is killing Americans by the dozens in Iraq? The Dear Leader`s own spokesmen tell us it is "Baathist die-hards," who are likely being paid if not directly supervised by the still-alive, still-free dictator himself. Saddam, it seems, enjoys considerably more liberty than the liberated Iraqi people. And he is a much greater threat to Americans now -- as a free agent, with nothing to lose, operating in secret -- than he ever was as the struggling head of a crippled country crawling with UN inspectors, Kurdish armies and Allied warplanes controlling his skies. From 1991 to 2003, not a single American death can be tied to Saddam Hussein; but in the seven weeks since Bush declared "mission accomplished," his partisans have killed more than 40 Americans.

But for Bush, the loss of a little cannon fodder here and there obviously represents "no threat" to real Americans: you know, the pious hypocrites who profit from lies and murder, the well-guarded cowards who gorge themselves on the "burned meat" in Iraq`s mass graves -- past, present and future.

[Joerver]

The great Iraqi gold rush
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

06.19.03 - AUSTIN, Texas -- My, my, my, the great Iraqi Gold Rush is on, and who should be there at the front of the line, right along with Halliburton and Bechtel, but our old friends at WorldCom, perpetrator of the largest accounting fraud in American history.

WorldCom, shortly to become MCI, has been given a contract worth $45 million in the short term to build a wireless phone network in Iraq. I learned via The Associated Press that Washington Technology, a trade newspaper that follows computing-related sales to the U.S. government, "found WorldCom jumped to eighth among all federal technology contractors in 2002, with $772 million in government sales." And that is only counting the deals in which WorldCom is the primary contractor. It is actually getting much more as a subcontractor.

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently reached a settlement with WorldCom, fining the company $500 million for its $11 billion defrauding of investors. The company did not have to admit any guilt. "The $500 million is in a sense laundered by the taxpayers," Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, told AP.

WorldCom got the Iraq contract without competitive bidding, to the anger of rival companies AT&T, Sprint, etc., which actually have experience in building wireless networks, according to the AP. A WorldCom spokesman "also stressed the company`s deep, overall relationship with the U.S. military and government."

Among those continuing to make a good thing out of the Iraqi war is Richard Perle of the Pentagon`s Defense Policy Board. According to the Los Angeles Times, last February Perle and the board received a classified briefing on the potential for conflict in Iraq and North Korea, including information on new communications networks. "Three weeks later, the then-chairman of the board, Richard N. Perle, offered a briefing of his own at an investment seminar on ways to profit from possible conflicts with both countries," wrote reporters Ken Silverstein and Chuck Neubauer.

It`s a subject on which Perle is fully qualified. He was forced to resign as the Policy Board`s chairman (though he did not resign from the board itself) in late March after it was learned he had been employed as a consultant by Global Crossing Ltd., then trying to get Pentagon clearance to sell itself to an Asian concern. Perle also serves on the board of several defense contractors and is co-founder of Trireme Partners, a venture capital firm that invests in the defense and homeland security industries.

Also according to Silverstein and Neubauer, Perle`s partner at Trireme, Gerald Hillman, has been put on the Defense Advisory Board, despite having no background in national security or defense.

One has to scramble to keep up with the Gold Rush and its players. Tim Shorrock has an excellent article in the June 23 issue of The Nation detailing the state of play: Hundreds of major corporations are interested in getting a piece of this pie. Meanwhile, the invaluable Rep. Henry Waxman of California is keeping an eye on Halliburton. He is raising questions about the company`s ties to countries that sponsor terrorism, specifically Iraq, Iran and Libya.

As President Bush begins his two-week, $20 million "shock and awe" campaign fund-raising sprint, we will naturally keep an eye on the connections between the campaign contributions and government contracts. And if you think that`s too cynical, boy, have you not been paying attention.

One of the many horrors Shorrock found was a statement by Martin Hoffman, former secretary of the Army and close adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, on the privatization of Iraq. He told Shorrock his strategy is like that of the strategic hamlets program in Vietnam. "That was basic economic development," Hoffman said.

Ooops. The only problem is that the strategic hamlet program was a colossal failure, producing untold damage, chaos and hatred. It was a key reason we lost that war.

Another player with business interests in all this is Paul Bremer, the American viceroy in Iraq. Bremer`s company is Crisis Consulting Practice, set up after 9-11 to advise multinationals on how to handle terrorism. Naomi Klein concludes in The Nation: "Many have pointed out that Bremer is no expert on Iraqi politics. But that was never the point. He is an expert at profiting from the war on terror and at helping U.S. multinationals make money in far-off places where they are unpopular and unwelcome. In other words, he`s the perfect man for the job."

Other efforts to abruptly introduce a capitalist economy into a state-run system have had awful results. The "shock therapy" applied to Russia after the Soviet Union broke up almost destroyed the country, and it still hasn`t recovered. Argentina went through a similar process.

So where`s a president like Franklin D. Roosevelt when we need him? "I don`t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster," he said during World War II.

© 2003 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=15181

[Joerver]

Publication Date: 19 June 2003

Eamonn McCann: Do as I say . . . not as I do

By Eamonn McCann
email: [e-mail]
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/story.jsp?story=41…

All the world`s a staging post to George W. Bush. Iraq is a stop-over en route to Iran. Which in turn will be a launch-pad for taking out North Korea.

It`s the road-map Bush laid out in last year`s "Axis of Evil" State of the Union address. As for who comes next....Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan?...we must wait and see.


Bush must believe it`s all going according to plan. Yesterday, he called upon "the world" to make it clear it won`t tolerate Iran developing nuclear weapons. Which sounds familiar.


There was a reminiscent ring, too, to the International Atomic Energy Agency`s (IAEA) response - a plea to Teheran to allow unrestricted short-notice inspections of the country`s nuclear power facilities. "For God`s sake do what he wants," we might translate. "If he doesn`t get his way, there`s no telling what he`ll do." Or rather, there is.


What has become of political logic that Bush is able to call upon the world (!) to take action against Iran for allegedly planning to develop nuclear weapons - which the Iranians vigorously deny - without attracting howls of derision and anger from all corners of the earth?


The US currently has armed combatants operating in about a dozen countries around the globe. More appositely, it possesses a nuclear arsenal greater than the rest of the planet combined. It remains the only country ever actually to have used nuclear weapons. Yet to suggest that its vast nuclear facilities be subjected to international inspection, much less demand that they be decommissioned, would be to risk seeming utterly ridiculous. Is this not itself a ridiculous state of affairs?


Iran is surrounded by countries which are not alleged to be planning to acquire nuclear weapons but which indisputably already possess nuclear weapons.


Israel to the west routinely defies UN resolutions and maintains an illegal occupation of a neighbour. It has at least 80 nuclear warheads and the missiles to deliver them - as far as Teheran according to some accounts. Does Bush demand that the Sharon regime divest itself of these weapons mass destruction? Of course not. Indeed, it is a settled element of US foreign policy to refuse to countenance inspection of Israel`s nuclear capability.


To the east lies Pakistan, ruled by the dictator Musharraf, who overthrew a democratically-elected government three years ago and now maintains himself in power by military might. Musharraf openly glories in his possession of nuclear weapons and has publicly threatened to use them against a neighbour, India. But there`s no suggestion from Bush, or for that matter from Tony Blair, that the world should be in any way concerned. Musharraf arrived in London this week for "friendly" talks with New Labour.


To the north lies Russia. The former KGB man who now heads the Moscow administration, Vladimir Putin, will be in London next week on a state visit. His forces back home will meanwhile be continuing the onslaught against the people of Chechnya. The Putin regime controls - although that may be putting it complacently - the world`s second largest nuclear arsenal. Will the question of Russian renunciation of these devices arise? Hardly. Putin might turn the question back on Blair.


So how come the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons at some point in the future can be presented to the world as a dreadful threat while these clear and present dangers are ignored? We shouldn`t have to ask. Were we not given sight of the script of the scenario in advance?


The truth is that if you are with Bush in building the New American Century - or at least taking care to stand out of the way - you can invade your neighbours, defy the UN, slaughter your own people, acquire weapons of mass destruction, and there`ll be no comeback from the Bush administration or its ally, the New Labour government.


It`s because the Iranian regime won`t go along with Bush`s master-plan that it`s vilified as evil and subjected to threat.

[Joerver]

Bush to NGOs: Watch your mouths


By NAOMI KLEIN
Friday, June 20, 2003 - Page A15


The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it`s not Iran, Syria or North Korea -- not yet, anyway.

Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of: It is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations that are helping to turn world opinion against U.S. bombs and brands.

The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is in charge of handing out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think tank in Washington, D.C., is wielding the sticks.

On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, gave a speech blasting U.S. NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn`t realize they had been assigned: doing public relations for the U.S. government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs that hosted the conference, Mr. Natsios was "irritated" that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn`t realize that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George W. Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of linking their humanitarian assistance to U.S. foreign policy and making it clear that they are "an arm of the U.S. government." If they didn`t, InterAction reported, "Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners."

For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to U.S. dollars. USAID told several NGOs that have been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media -- all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands "unprecedented," and says, "It looks like the NGOs aren`t independent and can`t speak for themselves about what they see and think."

Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as "an arm" of government; most see themselves as independent (that would be the "non-governmental" part of the name).

The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren`t afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Médecins sans frontières standing up to the White House and the European Union over AIDS drug patents, or Human Rights Watch`s campaign against the death penalty in the United States. Mr. Natsios himself embraced this independence in his previous job as vice-president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, he didn`t hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration`s response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense."

Don`t expect candour like that from the aid groups Mr. Natsios now oversees in Iraq. These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big "brought to you by the U.S.A." logo attached -- in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course.

That is the message of NGO Watch, an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the Web site, launched on June 11, is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs."

In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.

This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about "unelected" groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies," the site claims.

Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony. As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out, "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil." As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, the looniest ideas of which have a way of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon`s Defense Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president; the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows.

As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February, "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds." In other words, the AEI is more than a think tank; it`s Mr. Bush`s outsourced brain.

Taken together with Mr. Natsios`s statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the good-hearted charity wing of the military, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate for policy solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and fair-trade movements pushing for real political change.

The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. (Last month U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick said that the United States would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered "co-operation or better on foreign policy and security issues.") Next, they made sure the press didn`t ask hard question during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control.

Now they are attempting to turn relief workers in Iraq and Afghanistan into publicists for Mr. Bush`s Brand U.S.A., to embed them in the Pentagon, like Fox News reporters.

The U.S. government is usually described as "unilateralist," but I don`t think that`s quite accurate. The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs.

This is not a lone wolf we are dealing with, it`s a sheep-herder. The question is: Which of the NGOs will play the sheep?

Naomi Klein is the author of No

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Penn Schoen & Berland Associates for the New Democrat Network. June 8-15, 2003. N=1,001 likely voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

.

"If the election for president were held today and the candidates were a Democratic candidate or Republican George W. Bush, for whom would you vote?"

Bush Democrat NotSure
% % %
6/03.............. 45... 36.... 19

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.pollingreport.com

[Joerver]

One measure of how deeply the issue is felt on Capitol Hill came at a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz was appearing on a different matter. Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) said that he voted to support the war only after speaking to Wolfowitz, but that now he needed to know whether the intelligence was wrong.

"A person is only as good as his word," Taylor said. "This nation is only as good as its word. And if that`s the reason why we did it — and I voted for it — then we need some clarifications."

Wolfowitz replied, "If there`s a problem with intelligence it doesn`t mean that anybody misled anybody. It means that intelligence is an art and not a science."

[Joerver]

http://harpers.org/online/trillion-dollar_hustle/trillion-do…
Freedom from Want" was how Franklin Roosevelt described it. And for a good piece of the American public during World War II, Social Security-understood in the broadest sense-was among the country`s noblest war aims. For them the connection between the common struggle of war and the common struggle of everyday life was self-evident. In 1944, Roosevelt proposed an "Economic Bill of Rights" for the postwar era; echoes of the idea could be heard in the G.I. Bill of Rights, the U.N.`s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and President Truman`s plan for a national health program. In Britain the war`s ferment brought the Beveridge Report, a set of comprehensive social-security proposals so resoundingly popular that they became the foundation of the British welfare state. Both at home and abroad the Allies believed they were building a better world.

The horror is upon us again these days, but we are having trouble with the nobility thing. Even as our leaders exhort us to steel our nerves, buy war bonds, and go about our everyday business; even as they ask us to emulate the sacrifices and selflessness and common effort of the "Greatest Generation," they are preparing to dismantle-to privatize-what`s left of Roosevelt`s Social Security program. September 11 may have moved the story off the front pages, but it lessened the Bush Administration`s enthusiasm for privatization not one whit. Freedom from Want my ass, runs the slogan this time around. Bring want back!

Nearly any way you evaluate it, the administration`s determination to press ahead with Social Security privatization at such a time has to rank high in the "Ironies of American History" record book. But the sudden arrival of war is hardly the only irony at work here. Even before September 11 the plan seemed spectacularly divorced from reality: In July, when the President`s handpicked Commission to Strengthen Social Security issued its preliminary pro-privatization report, the country had just lived through a catastrophic plunge in one of its two major stock-market indices, its newspaper columnists were calling for the heads of the Wall Street celebrities whose acrobatics they had cheered only a short time before, and practically every day brought word of the failure or bankruptcy or 90 percent decline in revenue of some former "New Economy" favorite. Nonetheless, that was the time the commission chose to clear its throat, raise its solemn bipartisan voice, and declare that what the nation was suffering from was a "crisis of confidence" in its Social Security system, a program it characterized as a relic of a benighted age when people doubted markets . . . and that just might run into problems some thirty-seven years in the future.

How is one to explain such a perverse reaction to contemporary events? I propose that we understand the commission`s relentless hammering of Social Security as just a very late addition to the "New Economy" genre, the exuberance papered over with modest commissionese but otherwise with all the reality-defying reasoning intact. Calculating and argumentative in virtually its every statement, the commission`s indictment of Social Security is determined to prove that the stock market, not any government program, is the rightful champion of the little guy`s quest for financial security. You`ve heard this many times before, of course: from the Beardstown Ladies to the Raging Bull website, this was the ideological fantasy of the last decade. This time, though, it is being replayed not to sell us on some mutual fund or hot tech issue but to convince us to bet it all-to liquidate what remains of the welfare state, head down to the great casino, and put our trust in Greenspan. Social Security privatization is to be the trillion-dollar hustle, Wall Street`s final joke on those who just can`t shake the free-market superstition.
Although the term is never mentioned in the document, it`s hard to avoid thinking about social class when reading the commission`s report. For your standard dot-com millionaires, savoring Wired`s latest government-damning manifesto from the capacious multimedia room of their options-bought McMansion, the arrival of a day when they will no longer be able to work for wages isn`t too great a concern. But for blue-collar workers, people intimately familiar with the deadliness of the free market`s ups and downs, Social Security`s guarantee of income in old age and disability is a cornerstone of democracy itself. This is why Social Security`s most dedicated constituency has traditionally been organized labor, and also why Social Security commissions in the past always took pains to include labor representatives.

This time labor has no seat at the table at all. This time President Bush, as his own press secretary has admitted, chose as commissioners only people who were pro-privatization. This time representatives to the Social Security commission from the CEO community are balanced out by representatives from the Wall Street community, from the libertarian think-tank community, from the neoclassical-economist community, and by a few odd consultants and members of "Business Roundtables." Labor and its concerns are as invisible here as they are on CNBC.

Don`t worry, though. Early on in the report this group of prodigiously like-minded individuals-closer, really, to a week`s worth of contributors to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page than to a real government commission-informs the world that what they really are is diverse. African-American CEOs and Latino vice presidents have come together with female economists and traditional white conservatives in selfless dedication to high ideals. And, of course, the group is bipartisan, with little (D)s or (R)s duly affixed to the name of each university professor or Wall Street executive. Just like the people who brought you NAFTA and welfare "reform," this bunch looks like America.

The commission itself is clearly much taken by the airtight legitimacy such credentials are believed to confer. With labor excluded-with everyone excluded, in fact, who could possibly diverge from the privatization faith-the commission frames its pronouncements in the classic consensus tones of "New Economy" cocksureness. Addressing the history of Social Security, they write only as people can who truly believe that they possess the answers to all the big questions. "Social Security was created," they declare, in "a world in which markets were perceived to have failed and faith in the individual had ebbed." Ah, but today we have recovered from such misguided, if not un-American dogma. Today "[w]e better understand the power of markets than Americans did during the shock of the Great Depression." Specifically, what we understand better is that markets are a friend of the common man. "The stock market and personal investing," the commissioners write, "are no longer solely the prerogative of the rich and privileged," a line so ideologically pat and so oblivious to what`s happened in the last two years that they might well have drawn it from a TV commercial for Ameritrade.

And that`s not the only advance we`ve made since the dark decade of the 1930s. "We" are also said to be "more strongly committed to equitable treatment of all our nation`s people, regardless of race, income or gender." Although this is surely true in a very general sense, it is also wildly misleading. The implication is that reforms passed in the 1930s-indeed, in any previous decade-are inherently tainted by the racism, sexism, poverty, and generic badness of that age, whereas present-day efforts to repeal those reforms are automatically on the side of the angels simply because we live in a more tolerant time. What a useful sophistry this could prove to be! Others could use it to argue, say, that it`s time to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since back then people like Orval Faubus and George Wallace were running loose in the land.

As we shall see, however, a great deal depends on this passage, with all its insinuations of present-day goodness and the general venality of the old days, so let us remind ourselves of some basic American political history before we proceed. Although there were plenty of bigots in the 1930s, the commission surely knows that New Deal culture was suffused with the sort of diversity-celebrating that would be derided as "P.C." today: Paul Robeson singing "Ballad for Americans," the multicultural books of Louis Adamic, not to mention Hubert Humphrey`s famous speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948 and that party`s subsequent history as the champion of civil rights. The Social Security Act itself was largely the work of Frances Perkins, the first female cabinet officer, and for years its enemies fought Social Security (and welfare too) on the grounds that it pandered to racial minorities. Meanwhile, let us not forget, it was the enemies of the New Deal who, several decades later, made the most spectacular political use of racism: Richard Nixon`s "Southern Strategy," George Bush senior`s Willie Horton com- mercial, and Jesse Helms`s "white hands" commercial.

The bulk of the commission`s report is a discussion of the looming solvency "crisis" that Social Security is said to face in the years to come. You`ve undoubtedly heard this song before, in either its square`n`earnest or its hip-hop versions, so I will summarize. The baby boomers are due to retire one of these days. There are so many of them that when this happens there will be fewer active workers per retiree than ever before. Payments to retirees, therefore, will outstrip Social Security tax income as soon as 2016.

Many, many millions have been spent to persuade the public that this scenario spells doom. Prestigious think tanks have been founded and funded to establish just this point. Generation X "movements" obsessed with privatization have been bankrolled and outfitted for pundit production; generational "leaders" whose one concern is privatizing Social Security have been selected and celebrated to the skies.

The solid stone wall into which this doubt-building industry collides is the Social Security Trust Fund. Anticipating the retirement of the baby boomers, Congress raised payroll taxes in 1983 well beyond where they needed to be to pay for the current group of retirees. Thus Social Security currently runs a sizable surplus, investing its surpluses in government bonds, which should enable Social Security to meet its obligations until 2038-and probably for the rest of the century, given slight adjustments way down the road.

This is where the doom gang gets inventive. Pouring on generous helpings of antigovernment rhetoric, they insist that it is somehow illegitimate for a government agency to hold government bonds. While the front page of the Wall Street Journal might report on political battles over the Trust Fund-i.e., should it or should it not be used to pay for other government expenses?-it is stated bluntly in editorials that these moneys "don`t really exist," that they are "nothing but accounting

[Joerver]

http://harpers.org/online/trillion-dollar_hustle/trillion-do…
Freedom from Want" was how Franklin Roosevelt described it. And for a good piece of the American public during World War II, Social Security-understood in the broadest sense-was among the country`s noblest war aims. For them the connection between the common struggle of war and the common struggle of everyday life was self-evident. In 1944, Roosevelt proposed an "Economic Bill of Rights" for the postwar era; echoes of the idea could be heard in the G.I. Bill of Rights, the U.N.`s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and President Truman`s plan for a national health program. In Britain the war`s ferment brought the Beveridge Report, a set of comprehensive social-security proposals so resoundingly popular that they became the foundation of the British welfare state. Both at home and abroad the Allies believed they were building a better world.

The horror is upon us again these days, but we are having trouble with the nobility thing. Even as our leaders exhort us to steel our nerves, buy war bonds, and go about our everyday business; even as they ask us to emulate the sacrifices and selflessness and common effort of the "Greatest Generation," they are preparing to dismantle-to privatize-what`s left of Roosevelt`s Social Security program. September 11 may have moved the story off the front pages, but it lessened the Bush Administration`s enthusiasm for privatization not one whit. Freedom from Want my ass, runs the slogan this time around. Bring want back!

Nearly any way you evaluate it, the administration`s determination to press ahead with Social Security privatization at such a time has to rank high in the "Ironies of American History" record book. But the sudden arrival of war is hardly the only irony at work here. Even before September 11 the plan seemed spectacularly divorced from reality: In July, when the President`s handpicked Commission to Strengthen Social Security issued its preliminary pro-privatization report, the country had just lived through a catastrophic plunge in one of its two major stock-market indices, its newspaper columnists were calling for the heads of the Wall Street celebrities whose acrobatics they had cheered only a short time before, and practically every day brought word of the failure or bankruptcy or 90 percent decline in revenue of some former "New Economy" favorite. Nonetheless, that was the time the commission chose to clear its throat, raise its solemn bipartisan voice, and declare that what the nation was suffering from was a "crisis of confidence" in its Social Security system, a program it characterized as a relic of a benighted age when people doubted markets . . . and that just might run into problems some thirty-seven years in the future.

How is one to explain such a perverse reaction to contemporary events? I propose that we understand the commission`s relentless hammering of Social Security as just a very late addition to the "New Economy" genre, the exuberance papered over with modest commissionese but otherwise with all the reality-defying reasoning intact. Calculating and argumentative in virtually its every statement, the commission`s indictment of Social Security is determined to prove that the stock market, not any government program, is the rightful champion of the little guy`s quest for financial security. You`ve heard this many times before, of course: from the Beardstown Ladies to the Raging Bull website, this was the ideological fantasy of the last decade. This time, though, it is being replayed not to sell us on some mutual fund or hot tech issue but to convince us to bet it all-to liquidate what remains of the welfare state, head down to the great casino, and put our trust in Greenspan. Social Security privatization is to be the trillion-dollar hustle, Wall Street`s final joke on those who just can`t shake the free-market superstition.
Although the term is never mentioned in the document, it`s hard to avoid thinking about social class when reading the commission`s report. For your standard dot-com millionaires, savoring Wired`s latest government-damning manifesto from the capacious multimedia room of their options-bought McMansion, the arrival of a day when they will no longer be able to work for wages isn`t too great a concern. But for blue-collar workers, people intimately familiar with the deadliness of the free market`s ups and downs, Social Security`s guarantee of income in old age and disability is a cornerstone of democracy itself. This is why Social Security`s most dedicated constituency has traditionally been organized labor, and also why Social Security commissions in the past always took pains to include labor representatives.

This time labor has no seat at the table at all. This time President Bush, as his own press secretary has admitted, chose as commissioners only people who were pro-privatization. This time representatives to the Social Security commission from the CEO community are balanced out by representatives from the Wall Street community, from the libertarian think-tank community, from the neoclassical-economist community, and by a few odd consultants and members of "Business Roundtables." Labor and its concerns are as invisible here as they are on CNBC.

Don`t worry, though. Early on in the report this group of prodigiously like-minded individuals-closer, really, to a week`s worth of contributors to the Wall Street Journal op-ed page than to a real government commission-informs the world that what they really are is diverse. African-American CEOs and Latino vice presidents have come together with female economists and traditional white conservatives in selfless dedication to high ideals. And, of course, the group is bipartisan, with little (D)s or (R)s duly affixed to the name of each university professor or Wall Street executive. Just like the people who brought you NAFTA and welfare "reform," this bunch looks like America.

The commission itself is clearly much taken by the airtight legitimacy such credentials are believed to confer. With labor excluded-with everyone excluded, in fact, who could possibly diverge from the privatization faith-the commission frames its pronouncements in the classic consensus tones of "New Economy" cocksureness. Addressing the history of Social Security, they write only as people can who truly believe that they possess the answers to all the big questions. "Social Security was created," they declare, in "a world in which markets were perceived to have failed and faith in the individual had ebbed." Ah, but today we have recovered from such misguided, if not un-American dogma. Today "[w]e better understand the power of markets than Americans did during the shock of the Great Depression." Specifically, what we understand better is that markets are a friend of the common man. "The stock market and personal investing," the commissioners write, "are no longer solely the prerogative of the rich and privileged," a line so ideologically pat and so oblivious to what`s happened in the last two years that they might well have drawn it from a TV commercial for Ameritrade.

And that`s not the only advance we`ve made since the dark decade of the 1930s. "We" are also said to be "more strongly committed to equitable treatment of all our nation`s people, regardless of race, income or gender." Although this is surely true in a very general sense, it is also wildly misleading. The implication is that reforms passed in the 1930s-indeed, in any previous decade-are inherently tainted by the racism, sexism, poverty, and generic badness of that age, whereas present-day efforts to repeal those reforms are automatically on the side of the angels simply because we live in a more tolerant time. What a useful sophistry this could prove to be! Others could use it to argue, say, that it`s time to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, since back then people like Orval Faubus and George Wallace were running loose in the land.

As we shall see, however, a great deal depends on this passage, with all its insinuations of present-day goodness and the general venality of the old days, so let us remind ourselves of some basic American political history before we proceed. Although there were plenty of bigots in the 1930s, the commission surely knows that New Deal culture was suffused with the sort of diversity-celebrating that would be derided as "P.C." today: Paul Robeson singing "Ballad for Americans," the multicultural books of Louis Adamic, not to mention Hubert Humphrey`s famous speech at the Democratic Convention in 1948 and that party`s subsequent history as the champion of civil rights. The Social Security Act itself was largely the work of Frances Perkins, the first female cabinet officer, and for years its enemies fought Social Security (and welfare too) on the grounds that it pandered to racial minorities. Meanwhile, let us not forget, it was the enemies of the New Deal who, several decades later, made the most spectacular political use of racism: Richard Nixon`s "Southern Strategy," George Bush senior`s Willie Horton com- mercial, and Jesse Helms`s "white hands" commercial.

The bulk of the commission`s report is a discussion of the looming solvency "crisis" that Social Security is said to face in the years to come. You`ve undoubtedly heard this song before, in either its square`n`earnest or its hip-hop versions, so I will summarize. The baby boomers are due to retire one of these days. There are so many of them that when this happens there will be fewer active workers per retiree than ever before. Payments to retirees, therefore, will outstrip Social Security tax income as soon as 2016.

Many, many millions have been spent to persuade the public that this scenario spells doom. Prestigious think tanks have been founded and funded to establish just this point. Generation X "movements" obsessed with privatization have been bankrolled and outfitted for pundit production; generational "leaders" whose one concern is privatizing Social Security have been selected and celebrated to the skies.

The solid stone wall into which this doubt-building industry collides is the Social Security Trust Fund. Anticipating the retirement of the baby boomers, Congress raised payroll taxes in 1983 well beyond where they needed to be to pay for the current group of retirees. Thus Social Security currently runs a sizable surplus, investing its surpluses in government bonds, which should enable Social Security to meet its obligations until 2038-and probably for the rest of the century, given slight adjustments way down the road.

This is where the doom gang gets inventive. Pouring on generous helpings of antigovernment rhetoric, they insist that it is somehow illegitimate for a government agency to hold government bonds. While the front page of the Wall Street Journal might report on political battles over the Trust Fund-i.e., should it or should it not be used to pay for other government expenses?-it is stated bluntly in editorials that these moneys "don`t really exist," that they are "nothing but accounting devices." This view is widely shared on the right. "I come to you as managing trustee of Social Security," Secretary of the Treasury Paul O`Neill recently told a Wall Street lunch gathering. "Today we have no assets in the Trust Fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow."1 Dutifully parroting this line, the bipartisan commission reports that the Trust Fund money is "not truly saved," that its Treasury bonds-usually thought to be the safest investment on earth-are "not an asset." At one point the term "Trust Fund" is even rendered in quotation marks, as though the thing didn`t really exist.

This is loony stuff any way you look at it. It can only make sense, economist Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times, if you engage in "a truly Orwellian exercise in doublethink": that is, by including the Trust Fund in general government revenues when you want to, say, balance the budget and then excluding it when you want to make Social Security look weaker. When the Trust Fund accumulates bonds, they are said to be worthless since they are just IOUs given by one government agency to another, all of them working under one big budget. "But when it runs deficits," after 2016, Krugman continues, "Social Security is on its own," a logic that effectively steals the Trust Fund from the public. And when the Treasury Secretary himself makes the claim that the Trust Fund holds "no assets," something even more unsettling is going on: the highest financial official in the land is talking about defaulting on U.S. government bonds, something that has never happened before. Were the global financial industry to take O`Neill or the commission at their word-to believe that the Bush Administration actually puts zero value on the "good faith and credit" of the issues of the Treasury Department-the world would be thrown into a financial crisis that would make 1933 look like a mildly stormy meeting of the Junior Savers` Club.

Strangely, while the commission frets over such a hallucinatory threat to Social Security, it downplays one of the system`s most obvious problems: low wage growth. Social Security taxes, as everyone knows, are paid as a percentage of wages. Wages, though, were stagnant to declining through most of the 1990s, as "New Economy" forces channeled productivity gains into the stock market and the bank accounts of top management.2 So critical is wage growth to Social Security revenues that slight changes can cause massive revision of budget projections. Economist Dean Baker of the Economic Policy Institute estimates, for example, that "if real wage growth increased by 1 percentage point more than currently projected (the rate actually seen in the fifties and sixties) it would make the [Trust] Fund fully solvent until 2060 and eliminate about 60 percent of the projected shortfall." The commission, though, refers to the wage issue only in passing, and then dismisses it by announcing that no foreseeable increase in wages will possibly be enough to solve the system`s very-long-term problems all by itself. As with the Nasdaq bubble, they`d rather just look the other way. Thinking about what really went wrong with the nineties would mean aban- doning the reverence for the corporation and Wall Street that underpins this whole farcical scheme.
he commission imagines itself to be the rescuer of Social Security. What it actually proposes, though, is that Social Security be replaced by a system of compulsory saving in which everyone`s payroll taxes will go to his own account alone and be invested however he chooses.3 As the report puts it, in a criticism repeated again and again throughout the document, Social Security is "a system utterly devoid of options for building a net worth that reflects the dynamism of the American economy. . . ."

A nation in which everyone owns stock, though, is not the same thing as a nation with social insurance. Social Security`s goal is not to furnish citizens with a shot at dynamic "net worth"-leave that to the authors of Dow 36,000 and to the Illinois state lottery. Social Security is about minimizing the catastrophic possibilities that are unavoidable in a free-market system. Owning shares of stock might give you a secure retirement or permit you to ride out a period of disability, but only if you`re lucky. If you pick lousy stocks, or if you don`t earn enough to buy very many, or if the market _doesn`t go up and up and up forever, a privatized system won`t work. Social Security, on the other hand, uses money contributed by all working members of society to insure each of them against economy-wide events-like, say, a stock-market crash-that, by definition, can be insured against only by government. By covering so many people it also provides services that private insurers will simply never make available at an affordable price. It isn`t a radical, subversive institution; in most lands, and for most of the last century, social insurance has been regarded as a fundamental aspect of democracy.

Social Security is, however, also the foundation of the welfare state. It redistributes society`s wealth, taking from some and giving to others. And it is the single most successful government program of all time, the bedrock on which the New Deal and Johnson`s Great Society were built. Its existence is a constant reminder that the free market once failed monumentally to provide Americans with the basic stuff of life. It is also a tantalizing suggestion that human intelligence can sometimes order things more effectively than market forces.

Social Security has thus traditionally annoyed the country`s owners far out of proportion to its subversive content. Those who prosper the most from laissez-faire capitalism have an objective interest in making Social Security seem to be in perpetual crisis, in constantly undermining it, in mocking it, in mystifying it, in spending its surpluses, in giving its Trust Fund away as tax cuts to the very rich. So has it been since the very beginning. During the presidential campaign of 1936, Republicans charged that the Social Security system, what with its identification numbers, was a step toward totalitarianism. Newspapers supporting Alf Landon, the Republican candidate, tried to sow panic by claiming that the Social Security system would require workers to wear numbered dog tags. Management left notes in workers` pay envelopes alerting them to the imposition of the payroll tax and warning them that there was "no guarantee" they would ever see any benefits at all. "You might get this money back," one of these notes read, "but only if Congress decides to make the appropriation for this purpose."

Landon`s resounding defeat in 1936 helped to make Social Security the sacrosanct program it eventually became. Men of the far right, however, hammered obsessively at these charges for years. Assailing the welfare state as the first step on the road to Communist dictatorship was, by the late 1940s, an editorial standard in publications such as Reader`s Digest and The Saturday Evening Post. The other, somewhat contradictory, argument-that maybe government will just take all that tax money and then do nothing-proved equally durable. Carl T. Curtis, a Nebraska senator who only took breaks from his forty-year war on the welfare state to fight the labor movement and defend Nixon during Watergate, was fond of pointing out that "what Social Security benefits are to be paid, and on what terms, depend on the will of the federal government." Which, to Carl T. Curtis, was a fickle and malignant will indeed.

Today paranoia about big government is wholesome fun for the entire family, not a dark disorder of the far right. And distinct echoes of the Landon campaign can be detected throughout the commission`s report. Under the existing system, "workers and beneficiaries have no legal ownership over their Social Security benefits," the commission steams. "What they have is a political promise that can be changed at any time, by any amount, for any reason." And changing that promise, ironically, is precisely what this commission urges us to do.

This logical morass is as good an example as any of what might be called the train-wreck ideal: the right`s belief that it can persuade the public that government is bad by giving us spectacularly bad government. Just as Republicans in the Reagan era ran up towering federal deficits in order to discredit deficit spending, just as congressmen of the Gingrich era let government services grind to a halt in order to show just how irresponsible congressmen could be, just as Republicans of our own day have taken to electing cretins to positions of great public authority in order to discredit the very notion of public authority, so the present Social Security commission uses the possibility that politicians might try to do away with Social Security as a justification for doing away with Social Security. Of course, the real solution to this puzzle is refreshingly simple and straightforward: abolish this wretched commission at once and send the privatizers the way of Alf Landon.

The single innovation for which the commission will be remembered is its effort to peel off the traditional constituencies of the left and enlist what it benevolently calls "Vulnerable Americans" in the fight against Social Security. The war on welfare sometimes used a barely concealed racism to advance the cause; here it is recommended that we scrap Social Security because it provides poor service to African Americans, women, Hispanics, and "Low-Income Americans"-to everyone, in fact, except the middle-class "angry white males" who so recently made up the rank and file of the right.

Those accustomed to understanding conservatism as Strom Thurmond writ large might be surprised by the exotic species of racial grandstanding that this new thinking has unleashed among the privatization set. Mere-dith Bagby, a strident young privatizer who testified before the commission in October,4 looks forward in her book, Rational Exuberance, to a day when a largely nonwhite young America rebels against Social Security because its benefits go mainly to a still-white-and thus deeply and correctly hated-elderly America. Better to get rid of the whole thing now. Then there is Wade Dokken, CEO of the American Skandia mutual-fund firm, whose book, New Century, New Deal, insists, first, that Dokken is the staunchest sort of Democrat imaginable (even though his book was published by Regnery and blurbed by Republican presidential candidate Steve Forbes) and, second, that Social Security has to be privatized at once because it is clearly racist: whites receive more in benefits from it than blacks. "Workers of the world, unite!" writes this banker with a proletarian heart. "It`s time to make Social Security choice a glittering reality for every worker and every family!"

The language used by the commission is more discreet, but the argument is essentially the same. Social Security is unfair to African Americans, the report maintains, since blacks "have shorter life expectancies than other groups" and therefore collect less in retirement benefits on average than others.5 Although the commission doesn`t mention it, this is because so many black people die young. And when the mortality rates are broken down by socioeconomic factors, it becomes clear that, in fact, African Americans live about as long as the average for their socio-_economic level. Middle-class blacks have nearly the same life expectancy as middle-class whites; poor blacks have nearly the same life expectancy as poor whites. The tragedy of black America is largely a tragedy of poverty: so many African Americans die young because so many African Americans are poor.

For many this fact would naturally indicate that we need to renew the War on Poverty; through sheer reactionary bravado, the commission tries to turn it into an indictment of the Social Security system. On every real issue concerned with the spectacular, disproportionate victimization of African Americans-the death penalty, mandatory drug sentencing, screwy voting practices in Florida, etc.-the Bush Administration and its appointees have gone out of their way to absolve the authorities of all blame. But on Social Security they cynically heap the most far-fetched innuendos. Having rolled back welfare, having stopped every effort to win national health insurance, having taken massive steps toward eliminating affirmative action, the right now looks out at the world it has created and finds in the raggedness of its cruelty a mandate for abolishing the welfare state altogether.

It only gets worse. In order to sell privatization as the solution for "Low-Income Americans," the commission professes to be worried that Social Security "is not nearly as redistributive as many people believe" and ticks off a list of legal quirks that prevent the system from benefiting the poor as well as it was intended to do. But, of course, any privatized system is going to magnify this problem, not solve it. Social Security pays out proportionally more to the poor than it does to the well-off; privatization, on the other hand, will offer the poor only as many turns at the great roulette wheel as they can afford from their tiny savings. For bankers, brokers, and existing shareholders, though, it promises a stock-market boom of dot-commian proportions as the forced savings of middle America puff their portfolios on into the endless empyrean. For the well-to-do, privatization means free money.

What are we to make of such a parade of cognitive dissonance? Why are so many willing to affix their signatures and good names to such a dishonest document? Why push such a pro-plutocrat scheme when, in every other field, patriotic "unity" is the order of the day? Why set out on such stormy seas in so flimsy a craft? Can it really be worth it?

Evidently so, given the prizes at stake. There is, first and most obviously, a stupendous windfall in the works for Wall Street if privatization actually takes place. Bush`s commission has already ruled out the kind of semi-_privatized system proposed to solve this non-problem during the Clinton years wherein the government would itself invest the Social Security Trust Fund in private securities. Such a strategy, it is thought, would "politicize the markets," giving those never-to-be-trusted politicians too great a power over the companies in which the money is invested. The only option left, then, is individual accounts, hundreds of millions of them, each one generating the attendant commissions and fees for the nation`s brokers.

Just as enticing are privatization`s potential effects on the labor force. With Social Security`s guaranteed benefits, workers are able to look forward to a time of leisure, to a time of complete freedom from the boss. Under privatization, all guarantees are off. Your retirement is tied solely to the size of your portfolio, which in turn is tied to your willingness to work-longer hours, and on the boss`s terms. The new economics of retirement will thus pay dividends in increased workforce discipline and will also force millions to continue working well into their retirement years, enlarging the labor force and helping to keep wages down. "The response to higher-risk retirement income is more labor force participation," economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the University of Notre Dame explains. "Women are already working, we`re going to run out of immigrants, children are out of the question, so we have only one pool of labor remaining, and that`s retirees."

"The idea that the poor should have leisure has always been shocking to the rich," Bertrand Russell wrote in 1932, and the idea clearly still shocks many. "That`s the argument I`m hearing from Washington," Ghilarducci continues. "`What does the working class want with retirement? They ought to work.`"

An even shinier reward also looms just over the privatization horizon. The Social Security reformers profess concern over the politicization of markets, but what they have in mind might be described as the marketization of our politics, the coronation of Wall Street as the nation`s protector and benefactor. What the stock market has clearly failed to do on its own-establish itself as the reliable friend of the small investor and establish its political agenda as that of the common people-the commission now proposes to do by law. With our Social Security money entrusted to Wall Street, its priorities will become the nation`s priorities; its demands for deregulation, de-unionization, low wages, and generous "stimulus" packages whenever the Dow looks a little weak will be recast as the demands of little old ladies in Beardstown and blue-collar workers in Providence. Who would dare to legislate for higher minimum wages, say, or stricter protections for arctic wildlife, when such a move could be construed as an attack on the nation`s beloved retirees? Although we can only glimpse the possibilities now, this mind-boggling reconfiguration of economic politics is the real promise of privatization, the thing that makes it worth the insane gamble: instantly, privatization would reverse the polarity of the famous "third rail of American politics," transforming Social Security from the bane of the business community into its most potent weapon, an argument-ending current that would crackle through the fingers of every P.R. man and corporate lobbyist. Touch Wall Street and you`re dead.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Blair`s babe
Did love turn Orwell into a government stooge?

John Ezard
Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

George Orwell, venerated as "the wintry conscience of a generation", gave the British government a list of 38 suspected or actual communist sympathisers, the Guardian reveals today.

A carbon copy of the document - which the government still treats as secret 54 years later - is reproduced for the first time in today`s Review.

The find confirms evidence first raised seven years ago. Among those singled out for suspicion by the author of Animal Farm and 1984 in the late 1940s, sometimes highly tentatively, were the comedian Charlie Chaplin, the bestselling novelist JB Priestley, the actor Michael Redgrave, the Soviet historian EH Carr, the historian of Trotsky, Isaac Deutscher, and the leftwing Labour MP Tom Driberg.

The list is revealed in a 4,000-word article in Review by the political historian and commentator Timothy Garton Ash. He says that what brought the creator of Big Brother and the foe of bureaucratic power into the hands of a real-life bureaucracy was the love of a beautiful woman - "or at least his quest for her affection".

The woman was Celia Kirwan, a friend of Orwell`s who worked in 1949 for a secretly funded Foreign Office section, the information research department (IRD).

She asked his help in countering waves of communist bloc propaganda in the intensifying cold war. Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, offered to compile from his notebooks a list of those "who should not be trusted as propagandists [for the west]".

The writer, already terminally ill with tuberculosis and desperate about the then Soviet Union, died in 1950. When Kirwan died last autumn, her daughter, Ariane Bankes, found among her papers a carbon of the list which Orwell had finally sent her. Ms Bankes asked Garton Ash to write about it.

Conclusive evidence appears to exist that the typescript is genuine. It has a Foreign Office document number, with the words Not Released written in red ink, indicating it was thought too sensitive to be made public when the carbon was sent to Ms Kirwan, apparently in 1994.

Its discovery proves Orwell, after conscientious second thoughts and deletions, did send the Foreign Office some names from his notebook drafts.

The existence of these drafts was first disclosed in Peter Davison`s 20-volume edition of the author`s complete works in 1998. Prof Davison does not doubt the list`s authenticity.

It contains 38 names of journalists, scholars and actors who "in my opinion are crypto-communists, fellow-travellers or inclined that way and should not be trusted as [anti-communist] propagandists".

Some of the most famous names including Chaplin, Carr, Priestley and Redgrave, have only questions marks or brief remarks against them. Lesser known names include three Guardian journalists active in the 1940s.

Subsequent evidence has lent weight to the view that Orwell was spot-on with one suspect, and probably right about two others including Tom Driberg, a one-time Labour party chairman and longstanding member of the Labour national executive.

The Daily Express journalist Peter Smollett has been identified as a Soviet agent, recruited by Kim Philby, by study of the Mitrokhin archive of documents revealed by a senior KGB librarian. Smollett headed the Russian section in Britain`s wartime information ministry.

In a twist of fate, Garton Ash writes that he was "almost certainly" the civil servant on whose advice the London publisher Jonathan Cape rejected Orwell`s Animal Farm as an unhealthily anti-Soviet text. The rejection was a severe blow to the author. Driberg is identified in the Mitrokhin archive as recruited by the Soviets in 1956 after a homosexual indiscretion in Moscow. He was a "doubtless deeply unreliable agent", Garton Ash says.

One man on the list, Alaric Jacob, later had his BBC pension rights suspended for two years but no evidence has so far emerged that Orwell`s naming of him caused this.

Yet - says Garton Ash - nobody knows how IRD staff used Orwell`s information in their contacts with MI6. "What remains unsettling about the actual list sent to Celia is the way in which this symbol of political independence and journalistic honesty is drawn into collaboration with a bureaucratic department of propaganda, however marginal the collaboration".

Orwell had earlier proposed to Celia Kirwan. In 1949 he ended a letter to her "with much love".

Yesterday Garton Ash said: "To me, Orwell`s reputation is barely blemished. It is a tremendously human story. If if he had recovered from TB, and you and I had been sitting with him five years later, I think he might have said `It was a mistake`."

The author`s suspects
Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

The author`s suspects

Michael Redgrave 1908-1985

Actor. Educated at Cambridge where he was an acquaintance of Anthony Blunt, who became a communist spy. Redgrave was close to the communist party. Appeared in Hitchcock movies. Father of political activists Vanessa and Corin.

JB Priestley 1894-1984

Novelist and playwright. Born in Bradford, went to Cambridge after military service in WW1. Radio broadcaster on BBC during the blitz. A 1957 article by him in New Statesman, "Britain and the Nuclear Bombs", led to the formation of CND.

Charles Chaplin 1889-1977

Film star and director. London vaudeville actor who left for Hollywood in 1913. 1940 masterpiece, The Great Dictator, mocked Hitler and earned Chaplin reputation as anti-fascist and communist sympathiser. FBI kept file on him for 50 years, and he left US.

Hugh McDiarmid 1892-1978

Scottish nationalist poet. Journalist and JP. Initially joined Independent Labour Party; became Communist party member in 30s. Expelled from National party of Scotland for Marxist views; later expelled from Communist party for his nationalism.

Naomi Mitchison 1897-1999

Novelist. Prolific author who wrote 70 books. Women`s rights and birth control campaigner. Socialist and member of Labour party; her husband was an MP. Political hostess who lived in Scotland for latter half of her life until she died at age of 101

Kingsley Martin 1897-1969

Journalist. Pacificist and conscientious objector in the first world war. He was made editor of the left-wing New Statesman magazine in 1930 after working on the Manchester Guardian. Continued editing NS for more than 30 years

Isaac Deutscher 1907-1967

Journalist and biographer of Stalin and Trotsky. Born in Poland and joined Communist party in 20s but was expelled for being critical of Stalin. Moved to England when Hitler invaded in 1939, where he later worked on the Observer and the Economist.

Professor EH Carr 1892-1982

Historian. Classics scholar at Cambridge. Seconded to Foreign Office during first world war where Bolshevik revolution kindled interest in Russia. Wrote book appeasing Hitler in 1939. On the Times during second world war.

Alaric Jacob 1909-1995

Journalist and novelist. Attended same prep school as Orwell. Moscow correspondent for Daily Express during war. Believed the society created by Soviets was `basically a just one`. Joined BBC monitoring service at Caversham in 1948

Tom Driberg 1905-1976

Journalist and MP. Joined Communist party when 15. Recruited as MI5 agent after reporting on Spanish civil war. Expelled from CP in 1941 after Anthony Blunt exposed him as an informer. Became MP in 1942, first as an independent, then Labour

Walter Duranty

Awarded the US Pulitzer prize in 1932 as Moscow correspondent of the New York Times. The Pulitzer board is now reviewing the award following complaints that he deliberately ignored information about the Ukrainian famine of the early 1930s that killed millions.

Alexander Werth

Fluent in Russian, he was the Guardian`s Moscow correspondent from1946-49. A history of the paper says: "He was kept at arm`s length by the Russians."

Having been Paris correspondent in the 1930s, he was posted there again after Moscow.

John Beavan

A Manchester Evening News reporter who rose to be editor in 1943, London editor of the Guardian from 1946-55. He was made a life peer as Lord Ardwick in 1970

John Anderson

Assistant editor of Manchester Guardian from 1948-67, and former labour correspondent. He reported on first strike after coal nationalised by living with miners. Former editor Alastair Hetherington wrote: "Extraordinary man; thin, tense, moody but outstanding journalist."


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

What the world needs now
Michael Meacher is convinced by George Monbiot`s radical argument to reform trade and finance systems in The Age of Consent

Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

The Age of Consent
by George Monbiot
288pp, Flamingo, £15.99

This is an extremely important book. The biggest single geopolitical issue today is the overweening power of the US in a unipolar world and the problem of how it should be handled by all other nations. No political leader can be said to have satisfactorily resolved this problem.

George Monbiot offers a searchingly rigorous analysis of the sources of American power and presents a package of proposals that would radically redraw the present world order. It is breathtaking in its radicalism, but for anyone who is serious about tackling the current US hegemony, it is difficult to fault the logic.

His basic thesis is that the institutions set up in the past 50 years to run the world in a democratic fashion are in fact deeply undemocratic. The UN General Assembly is dominated by the Security Council`s five permanent members, who can veto whatever they don`t like. If any attempt is made to remove their dominance, they can veto any attempt to remove their veto.

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are dominated by the G8 nations, which hold 49% of the votes, though that suggests that if all the other 176 nations voted together, they could still overturn the richest nations. However, all major decisions require an 85% majority, so the US, which alone possesses 17% of the votes, can veto any significant resolution it wishes, even if the resolution is supported by every other single country.

The World Trade Organisation has an aura of democracy in that every nation belonging to it has one vote. However, before a new round of trade talks begins, the agenda is fixed by the "Quad" - the US, EU, Canada and Japan. Together with a small and variable number of poorer countries, they decide all the main business of the new trade round in a series of "Green Room" meetings. The WTO is therefore as exclusive as the UN, with the Green Room acting as the WTO`s Security Council and the Quad its permanent membership.

The consequences of this system are clear for all to see. The US goes to war with Iraq without a second resolution in the Security Council, defying three of its per manent members and most of its temporary members.

The World Bank and IMF have become the bailiffs of the world economy, putting the whole burden of maintaining the balance of international trade on the poorest debtor nations. Sub-Saharan Africa paid twice the sum of its total debt in the form of interest between 1980 and 1996, yet still ended up owing three times more in 1996 than it did in 1980.

Equally, the WTO enforces free trade on weaker nations according to rules with which the richer countries, especially the US, do not comply. Debtor nations are required to remove barriers to trade and capital flows, to liberalise their banking systems, reduce government spending on everything except debt repayments, and privatise assets for sale to foreign investors. By contrast, the US, after the so-called Doha development round in 2001 aimed to liberalise trade and increase access to western markets, raised farm subsidies to its own farmers by 80%, thus massively cutting world prices and bankrupting tens of millions of farmers in the poor world.

Monbiot`s solution to this behemoth of growing world inequality in wealth and power is not tinkering with the existing institutions but replacing them wholesale. The key to his proposals is a return to the brilliant innovative insight of John Maynard Keynes in 1943 in preparation for the Bretton Woods conference, which determined the postwar international economic architecture that has prevailed ever since.

Keynes`s idea was a new global bank called the International Clearing Union (ICU) with its own currency, the bancor. Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account no more than half the average value of its trade over the previous five years. The system he devised gave a strong incentive to both deficit and surplus countries to clear their bancor accounts annually, ending up with neither a trade deficit nor a surplus.

Deficit countries would be charged interest on the overdraft, rising as the overdraft rose; they would have to reduce the value of their currency by up to 5% to promote exports and would have to prevent the export of capital. Keynes`s innovation was to apply similar pressures to surplus countries too. Any such country with a bancor credit balance more than half its overdraft facility would be charged interest (or demurrage) at 10%. It would also have to raise the value of its currency and permit the export of capital. But if this was not enough and its credit balance at the end of the year exceeded its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated.

Keynes`s system would, quite simply, maximise worldwide prosperity and level the power of nations. The ICU would entail no forced liberalisation, no penal conditions on the poorest countries, no engineered opportunities for predatory banks and multinational corporations, no squashing of democratic consent. But the obvious question remains: how can the rich nations, especially the US, be made to accept it?

Monbiot`s answer is to turn the instruments of rich nations` power against themselves. The poor world`s debt to the commercial banks and IMF and World Bank, at some $2.5 trillion, is nearly twice the combined reserves of all the world`s central banks. In effect, as Monbiot himself puts it, "the poor world owns the rich world`s banks". But he is not recommending a mass default. Rather, he proposes that the indebted nations, which can never repay their debt, should demand a conditionality for their compliance - exactly as the rich nations do - namely the replacement of the institutions causing the problem (IMF and World Bank) by arrangements that automatically achieve a balancing of trade (the ICU). Blackmail, of course, but if well orchestrated it might just conceivably work.

He rounds off this central theme with two other radical proposals. One is that a Fair Trade Organisation (FTO) is needed to govern the rules of trade very differently from the market fundamentalists of the WTO. Following the precedent of the rich countries, which in nearly all cases (certainly in the case of the US) got rich initially through protectionism, the FTO would permit the poorest countries to defend infant industries with tariffs, other import restrictions and export subsidies. Foreign investors would be required to leave behind more wealth than they extract and to reimburse for any destruction, environmental or otherwise, that their trading produces. Rich nations would be required to remove all barriers to trade - tariffs, import restraints and perverse subsidies that keep out imports from poorer nations.

Again, what hope in hell is there of such a radical (and utopian) system beng accepted? Monbiot`s reply is unequivocal: a fair trading system should be added to an ICU as a condition of refraining from a mass coordinated default.

Linked to this is Monbiot`s final major proposal - a democratised UN General Assembly where votes are weighted by size of population and in accordance with a global democracy index, to incentivise high standards of governance. This restructured assembly would also take over the functions of the UN Security Council which, as Monbiot says, has already largely been sidelined by US actions over Iraq.

Again, there is a breathtakingly radical sweep to all this. But before it is dismissed as the rabid fantasising of the Global Justice Movement, certain caveats are in order. This is not a whinge, but a very well argued statement of a positive alternative agenda. And if it is far too radical for some tastes, can they suggest any lesser options that will produce the same vast improvement in world justice and prosperity? The floor is theirs.

· Michael Meacher was environment minister from 1997-2003, and is MP for Oldham.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US believes Saddam is still alive and active in Iraq
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Saturday June 21, 2003
The Guardian

Ten weeks after the end of the war Saddam Hussein and his two sons are probably alive and in Iraq, their presence fuelling resistance to 150,000 US troops, US intelligence officials now believe.

The latest thinking on Saddam`s location expressed with increasing frankness by US officials has been strengthened by intercepts of communications between fugitive members of the regime and Iraqi intelligence officials, the New York Times reported yesterday.

Some officials in the Bush administration had expressed certainty during the conflict that Saddam had been killed by US bombing raids, either during an attack on April 7 on an upper class neighbourhood of Baghdad or the strike on a supposed leadership compound in the war`s opening hours.

Officials are now reportedly convinced that Saddam`s anointed heir, Qusay, is also alive, although there remains some debate about the fate of his elder brother, Uday.

They also believe the former ruling troika has remained inside Iraq, preferring to entrust their fate to their fellow citizens rather than risk betrayal to US forces in a foreign country.

Despite the failure, so far, to locate either Saddam or the weapons of mass destruction which were the Bush administration`s stated reason for its invasion of Iraq, US officials insisted to the paper that the war had accomplished its goal.

Victoria Clarke, a Pentagon spokesman, said: "Of course, the search for all senior Iraqi regime figures is important, and is getting all sorts of effort. But what is really important is the fact that Saddam is no longer running the country and he won`t be."

The newspaper quoted intelligence officials as saying that the fresh intercepts had intensified the hunt for Iraq`s former ruling family by the CIA, the army`s Delta Force, and an elite navy counter-terrorism unit. The same unit, known as Taskforce 20, has also been charged with finding Saddam`s chemical and biological weapons.

Continued resistance by Iraqis to the US, which officials believe may be driven by a degree of centralised command, was made apparent to US forces once again yesterday after troops came under fire in Falluja, a centre for Saddam loyalists, injuring two soldiers. It was the fifth attack on US forces in 48 hours.

The casualty rate among forces in Iraq has climbed steadily since President George Bush made his dramatic appearance on a US aircraft carrier last month to declare victory over Saddam`s regime.

Since then more than 50 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq in guerrilla ambushes and accidents, according to the Pentagon.

The special forces hunting for Saddam have failed to elicit fresh information on his location after the arrest of his personal secretary and closest confidant outside his immediate family.

Abed Hamid Mahmoud was the fourth most important member of the regime, a status recognised by the US when it named him the ace of diamonds in the deck of cards distributed to US troops.

Newspaper reports since his capture was announced this week suggested his arrest had elicited more disappointment than triumph.

Intelligence officials were quoted as saying they had hoped to find him with Saddam or that he would cooperate with his interrogators once in custody.

Such hopes have been thwarted repeatedly by Iraqi officials - and Saddam`s relatives - with those captured proving adept at supplying vague or circuitous answers, according to intelligence officials.

Ordinary Iraqis do not appear to be forthcoming either. Nor are they impressed with the search methods employed by the Americans.

A man in Tikrit, Saddam`s hometown, told the Los Angeles Times: "They are asking silly things. `Have you seen Saddam Hussein? Where did you see him?` And the answer they get is: `No, I haven`t seen him.` And that is reality."

He added: "If I knew where Saddam was I would never tell you because you are an American."

Taskforce 20 has also been unable to establish any significant leads from the bomb sites left by the US strikes against the dictator, despite excavating the huge conical crater left by the April 7 attack.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US sends warning to Libya over `pursuit of WMD`
By Kim Sengupta
21 June 2003


Libya has been "aggressively pursuing" the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction since the United Nations sanctions against the country were suspended after the Lockerbie trial, America claimed yesterday.

John Bolton, under secretary of state for arms control and international security, signalled that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi`s regime was once again in Washington`s sights.

Although the alleged nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea have both been in the headlines, the Bush administration is closely monitoring developments in other countries such as Libya and Syria. According to diplomatic sources, America is investigating whether the Gaddafi regime has recruited Iraqi scientists who had previously worked for Saddam Hussein.

Mr Bolton said during a visit to London yesterday: "Since the sanctions were lifted, Libya has been able to exploit the normalisation of the economy to be more aggressive in pursuing weapons of mass destruction. For example, Libyan agents are trying to acquire dual-use technology. That in itself is very worrying."

The UN sanctions against Libya were lifted after Colonel Gaddafi`s regime co-operated over the extradition of two men charged with the Lockerbie bombing. A separate set of US sanctions remains in place.

A CIA report to Congress stated: "Although Libya is making overtures to the West in an attempt to strengthen relations, Libya`s continuing interest in nuclear weapons and ongoing nuclear infrastructure upgrades raises concerns."

Iran remains a more immediate concern for the United States. Mr Bolton said Tehran appeared to be on course to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them by the end of the decade or even sooner, and he said Washington reserved the right to take military action if Iran continued with its policy.

"It has to be an option," he said. "The President has repeatedly said all options are on the table."

Mr Bolton said the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran was particularly worrying because Tehran remained "the world`s leading supporter of terrorism".
21 June 2003 09:09


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

June 21, 2003

Mein Gott! America is the new Germany
Matthew Parris

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-720253,00.html

Germans are America’s big ethnic secret. No people and no culture has contributed more to what the United States is and is becoming. In the nation’s ethnic tangle, no root runs deeper than German America. As a scattered community only fitfully conscious of its own existence, none has more successfully pursued wealth, power and intellectual influence. And as a philosophical force in US politics — a whole political mindset — none has greater potency. Germany as a European state may have lost her way, the German language may struggle to keep its world grip, but the German spirit is alive and well and living in — and through — America: Bismarck’s last laugh on modern history.
Yet from new Labour to the Tory Right, the British Establishment has fallen in love with the reincarnation of our former European enemy, even as our Europeanism sours. Across much of conservative Britain, an embrace with America is welcomed as a healthy, English-speaking alternative to the sinister advance of the Franco-German axis.

Why? It is understandable that the British do not feel towards America the visceral distrust that continental Europe arouses. Americans speak English. Their invasions have been peaceful. We remember the Mayflower, the Founding Fathers, and the familiar English surnames of almost all the Presidents until Roosevelt. We remember, too, that the United States did (after a slight hiccup) support us against Germany in both world wars, and we take vicarious pride in seeing another great English-speaking country — once ours — stride the globe: imperialism by proxy. We count the Americans as our cousins. These world-beaters are our kith and kin, are they not?

No, they are not. America’s cousins are the Germans. This is true literally — in blood lineage — but also the personalities of the two nations. Modern America has become more Germanic than it is British. The New England aristocracies are pushed aside, Mittelamerika rides high, yet few notice and still fewer discuss the Teutonic phase the country is now entering. A common language — English — overlays deep cracks in the collective American psyche, blurring the outline of a vast community so submerged that its members have all but lost consciousness of what they have in common: an outlook.

Everybody knows about the blacks and the Hispanics (each about 10 per cent of the population in the 1990 US Census). Irish-Americans are slightly less than 16 per cent. Those of broadly English origin are even fewer — some 13 per cent. Italian-Americans are 6 per cent. But nearly a quarter (23.3 per cent) of all Americans are of predominantly German origin. They are easily the biggest single ingredient in the New World melting pot. Financially and politically they are also among the most successful. Were the pie chart to be adjusted according to wealth, the German-American share would grow further. A roll-call of the names of elected congressmen (or the presidents of the great US corporations) sounds like the calling of the register in a Bavarian kindergarten. As for the power of ideas, the US academic and research world is stuffed with German-descended talent.

After the Holocaust, it may be tactless to mention the flowering in the New World of the union between the German and the Jewish traditions, but the fruits have been extraordinary and America has been the beneficiary. The energy and genius of this small community has earned it an influence beyond its numbers. The cultural inheritance of German-Jewish immigrants was a powerful hybrid, and the inheritance is fresh because the wave came late. Names such as Wolfowitz, Perle or Fleischer are only recently famous: but the political and academic contribution is long-standing, and so is the contribution to the national media. The most recent issue of The Economist argues that the philosopher Leo Strauss, who fled the Holocaust for the US, is the leading intellectual influence on the neoconservatives in Washington.

German America hardly amounts these days to a community: it is almost too predominant to know itself. Its ancestors were among the earliest citizens of their emerging New World nation: they came early — before the Revolution and immediately after. They learnt to see themselves as Americans rather than look back. They have had time to assimilate. The days when (for example) the State of Pennsylvania almost made German its official language are gone. In what some might call a thoroughly Teutonic manner, many German-American families wiped their family slates clean of the old language and kinships and invested unstintingly in their new loyalty. Kurt Vonnegut, in his autobiographical Palm Sunday, says: “My parents volunteered to make me ignorant and rootless as proof of their patriotism.”

Indeed, you could argue that one reason German America has been in the driving seat has been that German-Americans have been so ready to forsake a separate identity, assume a new one, and push on. Many even Anglicised their names, further complicating the statistics.

Still, the roll-call of names is impressive, Donald Rumsfeld’s being only a latecomer to the pack. George W. Bush’s partly German ancestry — Amish and Mennonite through the Demuth family, who were 18th-century immigrants from Saxony — is well-known. Surnames (if you seek them) tumble from the books of modern American history — Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kissinger.

But this argument is not about amassing names or imagining conspiracies. Americans’ ancestries are a hotchpotch, and which surname a US citizen ends up with can be haphazard, saying little about his family’s active cultural inheritance. There is no membership and no plot. What there is is a confluence of successful citizens with shared ways of looking at the world, helping to shape a national personality. In a family-centred society, culture, taste and attitude are heritable down the generations long after folk memories of the old country are gone. A German-descended American friend of mine from Pennsylvania said: “I went to Berlin and took a train to Prague. The food was the food I grew up with — meat, sausage, potatoes and cabbage. The houses outside the cities looked American, with unwalled gardens of grass around detached, single family homes. It was spooky."

Spookier for me has been reading the way German statesmen used to talk, and listening to the way Donald Rumsfeld talks now. Italian and Irish America have made their own distinctive mark on political life in the US. It would be surprising if Germanic attitudes were not contributing in different ways.

What are these? In an article in The New Republic two years ago, Peter Beinart suggested the following qualities as typical of the German American in politics: “earnest”, “strait-laced” and “disciplined”. Voters, he adds, “like politicians, are often products of political traditions they do not fully comprehend. And those political traditions often have their origins in an America more ethnically segmented than it is today.”

To Beinart’s list I would add the work ethic and energy — never something that the British Establishment has been sure it wholly admired. In March 1990, Margaret Thatcher summoned to Chequers a team of historians, academics and specialists to advise her on a unified Germany’s long-term intentions and abiding characteristics. A leaked memo quoted: “Angst, aggressiveness, assertiveness, bullying, egotism, inferiority complex, sentimentality and capacity for excess.” I would add these: candour; a yearning for structure and direction; impatience with ambiguity; a weakness for approaching problems in a blindly, sometimes self-defeatingly, methodical way; and overconfidence.

I do not find all these qualities unattractive. I love the sudden directness of Germans; I share their hankering for road maps in life; I admire bullishness; and I think an instinct to impose theory and system on a haphazard world marks a high order of intelligence. Notwithstanding the caveats one must enter about all generalisation, I cite these assessments neither to praise nor condemn, but as contributing to a national personality.

But is it not uncannily like George W. Bush’s America? Is it not as close an approach as we are likely to get to a definition of the neoconservative personality? And has the Tory Right removed continental Germans from the party’s guest list, only to welcome their reincarnation from across the Atlantic?

Out goes Vorwärts! and in comes Yee-ha! Somebody should whisper in Britain’s ear: America is the new Germany.

Join the Debate on this article at [e-mail]

[Joerver]

June 21, 2003
Captured Official Is Said to Tell U.S. Hussein Survived
By DOUGLAS JEHL


WASHINGTON, June 20 — A top lieutenant to Saddam Hussein has told American interrogators that the Iraqi leader and his two sons survived the United States-led war in Iraq and that he himself had fled to Syria with the sons after the conflict, Defense Department officials said today.

The officials said they had not yet assessed the accuracy of the claims by the aide, Abid Hamad Mahmoud al-Tikriti, who was arrested in Iraq earlier this week. But they said that the United States regarded the information as having enormous potential significance, and that it had ignited an intense burst of clandestine American military activity aimed at capturing the sons, Uday and Qusay, and perhaps even Mr. Hussein himself.

A conviction among Mr. Hussein`s loyalists that he is still alive, picked up by American intelligence intercepts, has emerged as a powerful motivating factor in the military resistance to United States forces in Iraq, according to American officials. If the account Mr. Mahmoud has provided to his interrogators is true, it would be the most authoritative confirmation that neither Mr. Hussein nor his sons were killed in American attacks in March and April. American officials would not say whether Mr. Mahmoud had revealed a link between the resistance and Mr. Hussein and his sons.

On the basis of those intercepts and other recently obtained evidence, American intelligence agencies have shifted their view, and now say that Mr. Hussein and at least one of his sons, Qusay, probably are still alive and still in Iraq. But Mr. Mahmoud`s claim that he and the sons had spent time after the war in Syria before being expelled by Syrian authorities adds a new element to that working theory.

A senior Defense Department official declined today to provide any details about the newly energized search for Mr. Hussein and his sons, which others said was being carried out by Task Force 20, a secret military organization that includes Army and Navy counterterrorist personnel, and other special military teams. But the official made clear that the operations had been prompted by information provided by Mr. Mahmoud, who has been questioned over the last four days at an American military installation in Baghdad.

"You follow up every lead that you can get, and when you get a person who`s that high up in the regime, it`s obviously in your benefit to move quickly on anything he tells you," the senior Defense Department official said. "Because when Saddam Hussein learns that his top deputy is in detention, he`s going to try to erase any trail that he`d know of."

While American forces were moving swiftly to check out leads provided by Mr. Mahmoud, the Defense Department official said American authorities were also treating his claims with some skepticism. "This is a person who is very close to Saddam Hussein, who was for many, many years, and who was part of the lies and deception for so long that you have to be very careful about what he tells you."

Mr. Mahmoud, who ranked behind only Mr. Hussein and his sons in importance in the Iraqi government, has told the interrogators that during the weeks after the war with the United States he spent time in hiding with the former Iraqi leader himself. But Mr. Mahmoud told interrogators that the group split up at an unspecified time before he left for Syria with Uday and Qusay, according to the American officials.

Along with the information about Mr. Hussein`s sons, the American officials said, he was providing information about Iraq`s suspected program of weapons of mass destruction, and he had contradicted evasive accounts from other former senior Iraqi officials now in American detention.

The officials said they did not know or would not share the timeline that Mr. Mahmoud had provided for his whereabouts or those of Mr. Hussein and his sons, in the more than two months since the fall of the Iraqi government and the capture of Baghdad. Mr. Mahmoud, 46, who as personal secretary to Mr. Hussein controlled access to the Iraqi leader, was arrested on Monday in the vicinity of Tikrit, Mr. Hussein`s hometown and stronghold.

Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, had said publicly in the weeks after the war that at least a handful of senior Iraqi officials had fled across the border into Syria, and they called on the Syrian government to hand them over. Until now, however, there has never been any credible suggestion that those who fled to Syria might have included Mr. Hussein`s sons.

Syria has vociferously denied any knowledge of senior Iraqi officials taking refuge there. The Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad, assured Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in Damascus last month that his government would not provide refuge to Iraqi fugitives.

The whereabouts of Mr. Hussein and his sons have been a mystery since at least March 20, when the United States initiated the war against Iraq with a strike by cruise missiles and bombs on an installation in Baghdad where the top Iraqi leadership was believed to be hiding.

American officials said afterward that they were uncertain whether Mr. Hussein and his sons had been there. The United States made a second attempt to kill them on April 7, with a bombing attack on a building in the Mansour district of Baghdad, where two intelligence sources said they were meeting.

Together, those strikes prompted some optimism at the White House that Mr. Hussein had been killed. As late as April 4, Iraqi television broadcast two videotapes showing Mr. Hussein, including one in which he made reference to the downing of an American Apache helicopter on March 24, but American officials said it was unclear when the tapes were made.

Within American intelligence agencies, the shift toward a view that Mr. Hussein and his sons are probably alive has been prompted in part by the failure of excavations of the two bombing sites to turn up DNA or other physical evidence of their bodies. It has also been prompted by interrogations of senior Iraqi officials now in American custody who have said Mr. Hussein and his sons were not at the sites of either of the American bombings.

Apart from Mr. Mahmoud`s uncorroborated claims, however, United States government officials have said the most compelling indications that Mr. Hussein is still alive are the intercepted communications among fugitive members of the Saddam Fedayeen, a paramilitary organization, and the Iraqi intelligence service, discussing the importance of protecting the former Iraqi leader`s life.

Today, a senior military officer said American intelligence operatives and military forces in Iraq were using the information to redouble the search for Mr. Hussein and his sons, or to find their remains if they are dead. "There is a level of great intensity to locate those individuals," the officer said. "Whether they are all still living or not, to identify where they are is of great interest."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 21, 2003
Thieves and Saboteurs Disrupt Electrical Services in Iraq
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS


BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — The electricity system of Iraq, already damaged by the war, is now being torn apart by systematic looting and possibly by sabotage.

Not far from the Bayji power plant in northern Iraq, high-tension cables that run to Baghdad now either hang like spaghetti or have disappeared altogether.

Near the southern city of Basra, dozens of the biggest electric towers have been toppled in the past few weeks and now look like giraffes with their necks broken.

In the city of Falluja, about 30 miles west of Baghdad, unidentified attackers fired a rocket-propelled grenade on Thursday night that blew up a transformer serving half the city.

With daytime summer temperatures already climbing past 110 degrees and still rising, the attacks have become a major worry for the American-led occupation authorities.

Daily power cutoffs are getting worse in many areas. Electricity failures have disrupted water supplies and led to huge backups of sewage because neither water nor sewage can be properly pumped.

In some areas on the east side of Baghdad, some streets have been flooded for entire blocks with overflows of sewage.

Outside Bayji, farmers have been unable to irrigate their fields in the past week because the attacks on high-tension cables also damaged a number of local electric lines.

"This is not random, entrepreneurial looting," said Andrew S. Natsios, head of the United States Agency for International Development. "It is organized and systematic."

While looting for profit appears to be the primary motive for the attacks, especially in southern Iraq, officials in Iraq at the United Nations Development Program are increasingly convinced that sabotage is playing at least some role.

The evidence is ambiguous. American and British forces have found at least a dozen clandestine smelters, where organized gangs have stripped the coating off cables and then melted the copper into bars.

More difficult to explain is the increasingly frequent destruction of 100-foot electric towers. Dozens of the towers have been toppled, sometimes four or five in a row.

Though such actions could be a result of thieves pulling down the cables, the extent of the damage to many towers has led many investigators to suspect that it is linked to the erratic but persistent guerrilla attacks on American soldiers in Baghdad and nearby cities like Falluja and Ramadi.

"I think it was a combination of organized resistance and opportunism," said Michael Robinson, the Bechtel Group`s executive in charge of assessing and rebuilding Iraqi electrical systems under a contract with the United States government.

Earlier this week, Army soldiers raided scores of buildings in the Shiite district of Baghdad called Sadr City, formerly Saddam City. At one house, soldiers found several tons of thick cable that had been dug up from underground.

The cable filled up the house`s entire courtyard. After finding it, the soldiers had to crash through the front wall of the courtyard and then haul out the cable with a large front-end loader. Last week, Army soldiers found and seized an 18-wheel truck filled to the brim with cables.

"This is the main form of robbery that we have here," said Capt. Stephen Corn, who has been leading many of the raids.

"We don`t have as many shootings as we did in the first month," he said. "We don`t have personal crime. Right now, most of it is this kind of looting."

The grenade attack on Thursday night at a substation in Falluja, which turned a room-size transformer into pillar of fire, may or may not have been an attempt at sabotage.

The motive for the attack was unclear because as many as 16 American soldiers were at the substation and Army officials initially assumed they had been the target.

But the grenade was the only real salvo in the attack. It immediately knocked out power to half the city, and the loss of the transformer will leave the city`s overall power system under even more strain.

Indeed, residents in Falluja today were already blaming Americans for the destruction of the transformer.

"The presence of the American soldiers provokes a reaction against the occupiers," said Suadad Tariq, the substation`s night supervisor, who was on duty when the attack occurred.

"I do blame the Americans," he said. "This is not a military base. This is a service station."

Mr. Robinson of Bechtel said that Baghdad alone needed about 1,700 megawatts at the moment, but that it was producing only 1,200 or 1,300. The situation is getting worse, as summer heat drives up demand for power even more.

"As the temperature goes up, they expect that each additional degree adds an extra 70 megawatts of additional use," Mr. Robinson said. "When you look at the power system in Iraq, it`s held together by paint."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 21, 2003
Young Iraqis Face a Bewildering World. How They Fare Could Be Vital.
By DAVID ROHDE


BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 20 — If his imam tells him, 26-year-old Akil Dair says he will happily become a suicide bomber and kill American soldiers.

At the same time he also wants a satellite television in his home so he can see American shows for the first time. Mr. Dair, a part-time college student, also says he wants Iraq to be a democracy. And he is more enthralled, impassioned and intrigued by the world around him than he has ever been before.

"You may find me fanatic," he said. "But I love life. I have my own emotions. I write poetry."

Idealistic, in search of community, lost in many ways, he is trying to find himself, as young people always have. The difference is the options presented to him in Iraq, where after a life of isolation and war under Saddam Hussein, young people are being barraged by ideas, ideologies and political concepts they scarcely understand.

He has lived, in essence, on an island where he received bits and pieces of ideas from the outside world but never felt free to explore or discuss them. Now, he struggles to put together a jumble of ideas that often seem contradictory. He reflects the state of flux that exists in Iraqi politics today.

His local imam, or Islamic preacher, is a young, charismatic Shiite fundamentalist who favors the establishment of an Iranian-style Islamic republic. The man who could order him to become a suicide bomber is an elderly Shiite cleric who has said religious Iraqis should stay out of the corrupt world of politics and wait to see if America keeps its promises. And for now, his de facto mayor, governor and policeman are American soldiers.

The role models adopted by Mr. Dair and others like him could be crucial to the success of the American effort to create a democratic, friendly Iraq. Mr. Dair is a member of a demographic bubble, several million twentysomething Iraqis now choking universities and street corners. The children of a generation devastated by war — a million Iraqis are believed to have died in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980`s — they are an integral part of the new Iraq.

Will Mr. Dair and his friends become secular, pro-Western businessmen? Or suicide bombers?

Or will his generation create some new hybrid of Islam and democracy?

At this point, he says, the United States is not faring well. "America is building its own hatred," he said of house-to-house searches and other military tactics by the American occupiers that Iraqis find offensive. "They make the people hate them by their own deeds."

The son of a cigarette factory worker, Mr. Dair was born in Saddam City, now called Sadr City, a rancid slum in the north of Baghdad filled with Shiite Muslims from Iraq`s south. Shiites are roughly 60 percent of Iraq`s population, but Sunni Muslims, who make up 20 percent of the populace, have always ruled the country. He is one of 13 children — 8 girls and 5 boys. "My father very, very love my mother," he joked in broken English.

Wiry and cleanshaven, he dresses in Western trousers and plaid, short-sleeved button-down shirts. A Turkish language major at Baghdad University, he hopes to work in the tourism business if his country ever normalizes.

He attended state schools, as did all Iraqis, and was a good student. Like every other student, he took a class each year in "patriotic education" where they were indoctrinated with the philosophy of Mr. Hussein`s Arab Baath Socialist Party: that only pan-Arab unity and socialism could defeat a capitalist West bent on dominating the Arab world.

He admits that he loved someone once and that he wrote her some poetry. But he quickly cut short his passion. "I didn`t get close to her because she is from a rich family and I am from a poor family," he said.

As he grew up in the 1980`s, relatives told Mr. Dair of another group of heroes — a group in Lebanon called Hezbollah. He secretly read books hidden in a pipe buried in his yard — about fearless Shiite guerrillas. Mr. Hussein, fearing a restive Shiite population, had banned such texts.

Today, Mr. Dair still says good things about Hezbollah, a group the United States has declared a terrorist organization. His handsome face brightens when he talks about how outgunned Hezbollah fighters drove the Israelis from southern Lebanon.

"I like them very much," he said. "Hezbollah has something good."

After Mr. Hussein`s fall, Mr. Dair took advantage of his new freedom by doing something that could have instantly provoked arrest in the past. He placed photos of Shiite clerics on his living room wall, including Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian leader despised by many Americans for the Iranian hostage crisis.

At the same time, he says he is an ardent supporter of democracy. "This is the first time we as Shiites can represent ourselves and talk with a loud voice," he said. "They never let us express our feelings."

When it was pointed out to him that Ayatollah Khomeini ruled Iran as a dictator, he agreed that that was wrong. He went on to say that he would like to see the imposition of Islamic law in Iraq, but only by majority vote.

Asked about the specifics of enforcing strict Islamic law, like the banning of alcohol, he balked again. After suffering as a Shiite under Mr. Hussein, he said all religious groups should be respected. If Iraq`s Christians wanted to sell alcohol, they should, Mr. Dair argued. It should just be regulated and not advertised in public.

Asked about Israel, he came out with another seemingly contradictory answer. The supporter of Hezbollah said there should be a rotating president of Israel — an Israeli for two years, a Palestinian for two years. Two states would also be acceptable, he added, as long as Israel did not get all the best land.

For now, he is attending different sermons at different mosques, both Sunni and Shiite, and searching for a leader he respects. Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi Shiite exile and former banker backed by the Pentagon, barely registers on his radar.

"I heard about him," he said. "I never liked him because we heard he was a thief."

In a recent week, he attended a rally protesting the arrest of a Shiite cleric by American troops and threatened to become a suicide bomber as several thousand young Iraqis chanted "Down, down America!" and "Down, down Israel!" He later attended a political rally by an Iranian-backed Shiite exile group and was unimpressed with the speaker. He and his friends are planning another demonstration — a protest against one of their professors, who they say is a Baathist.

Mr. Dair said he hoped soon to start his own organization that would work with American occupation forces inside Iraq.

"I would like the American administrator to introduce Iraqi students to America and also bring American students to Iraq," he said, outlining his vision of a cross-cultural exchange program. "We would like to bring people together."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Two Years After White House Exit, Clintons Shaping Democratic Party


By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A01


Thirty months after leaving the White House draped in controversy, the Clintons are again dominating Democratic politics in Washington and beyond.

Former president Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) are grabbing headlines almost daily, raising millions of dollars for Democratic campaigns and doling out political advice to all who will listen, which includes most of the leading candidates to challenge President Bush in 2004. The Clintons are easily the hottest draws for political events and fundraising appeals, much more so than the party`s nine presidential candidates and two congressional leaders, according to several party officials.

At the same time, top officials from the Clinton administration are taking, or tightening, control over several of the party`s most influential political groups. Some of the most notable former Clinton aides and advisers -- John D. Podesta, Bruce Reed, Mike Lux, Harold Ickes and others -- are playing prominent roles in key think tanks and new fundraising ventures. They provide the former first family with continued sources of power to tap now and in the future -- perhaps in 2008, when many expect Hillary Clinton to run for president.

Sen. Jon S. Corzine (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the Clintons are creating an "extension" of what they started during "their days in the White House." He should know: Hillary Clinton has emerged as one of the DSCC`s best fundraisers, and the former president told Corzine he`ll pitch in soon. "He will be very helpful," Corzine said .

Hillary Clinton, who has raised as much as $500,000 a pop at fundraisers at the couple`s house in the District, is planning to rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars for fellow Democratic senators during her national book tour.

The Clinton resurgence is getting mixed reviews from the party faithful. Many Democrats who had worried that the Clinton scandals would haunt the party until the first couple vanished from the political scene now openly embrace the two. While Democrats, in general, have failed to capitalize on mounting job losses and other economic problems under Bush, the Clintons are getting renewed credit and respect within the party for the boom years that marked Bill Clinton`s second term. Since he left office, the stock market has dropped while budget deficits and unemployment numbers have soared.

"The farther away we get from the [Clinton] presidency, the more the focus is on the substantive accomplishments," said Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.). "It`s getting far easier to not only associate with, but embrace the former president and the senator."

Washington`s two most Clinton-friendly institutions are the Senate -- where Hillary Clinton has impressed many colleagues with her work ethic and fundraising prowess -- and the Democratic National Committee, where the former president remains a major force.

Still, some Democrats want the Clintons to go away. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee recently did focus groups around the country with Democratic-leaning voters and found widespread resentment of both Clintons, according to a Democratic aide familiar with surveys conducted in several cities.

Many focus group participants called the former president "immoral, smooth, crooked" and dishonest, the aide said, while Hillary Clinton was seen as an "opportunist." "It gives us a brand we just don`t need," the aide said.

"The rehashing of the negatives is something we all wish would go away," said Sen. John Breaux (D-La.). But the Clintons "clearly have the ability to excite people, probably more than anyone else in the party."

Some Republicans seize on the Clintons` unpopularity to raise money for their political efforts. Senate Republicans have a "Stop Hillary Now" link on their Web site.

Other GOP leaders, however, say the Clintons` most negative legacies -- including the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal -- are losing some of their bite. "In time, things fade," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "Senator Clinton has done a very good job of rehabilitating them."

Hillary Clinton -- who is taking her turn as the family`s public face and political force -- is widely expected to play a leading role in next year`s presidential and Senate campaigns. She is promoting her best-selling book "Living History" and hitting up donors with energy and stagecraft reminiscent of a national campaign. The newspaper Roll Call recently reported that the DSCC has arranged for the senator to host at least seven Democratic fundraisers before August, all coordinated with her book tour.

While Hillary Clinton remains one of the most divisive figures in contemporary politics, polls routinely show she could jump into the crowded Democratic presidential field tomorrow as the frontrunner. Many believe she is preparing for a run in 2008, soon enough to satisfy her ambitions, long enough for bad memories of family scandals to fade, at least partially. A family friend said there is little doubt she will run in 2008 if Bush wins reelection. Hillary Clinton might face a challenge from another Clinton White House figure. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the Clinton administration`s energy secretary, was in town this week privately sounding like he would run in `08, according a Democratic official.

Bill Clinton remains deeply involved in party politics, too, although he has told congressional leaders he will spend most of this year raising money for his presidential library, giving paid speeches and finishing his book. He speaks frequently with Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe and advises presidential candidates and congressional leaders on strategy. "They smartly call for advice," said McAuliffe.

A Clinton friend said he thinks the former president and Arkansas governor might run for mayor of New York in 2006.

The DNC recently sent out its first fundraising plea of the year signed by the former president. And DCCC Chairman Robert T. Matsui (Calif.) sent him a list of House seats the Democrats are targeting for 2004, hoping Clinton will help raise money for the effort.

The Clintons will have several new conduits for power soon.

Podesta, the final chief of staff in the Clinton White House, is launching what many Democrats predict will become the most influential think tank on the left -- the American Majority Institute. A top Democratic official said Hillary Clinton has been intimately involved in creating the group, although it is designed to benefit the entire party.

The Clintons already have strong ties to another key party organization, the Democratic Leadership Council. The former president ran as a DLC candidate and remains closely associated with the politically centrist organization. Bruce Reed, director of domestic policy in the Clinton White House, runs the DLC and its Progress and Prosperity Project, which it bills as "developing the next generation of New Democratic ideas."

Harold Ickes, a top political aide in the Clinton White House, is talking to donors about raising tens of millions of dollars for next year`s presidential nominee. "Those of us who know about it just refer to it as the `media fund,` " said Ickes.

Campaign finance laws prohibit Hillary Clinton from helping Ickes, but the former president can help raise money for the group, which many officials expect him to do.

Ickes also works closely with Mike Lux, another former political adviser in the Clinton White House, who is running American Family Voices, a group planning to weigh in on policy fights this summer and fall with television commercials.

"The Clintons are supportive of a lot of these efforts that are being developed, but it`s not centered on them or driven by them," said Lux.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Rumsfeld=Dumbsfeld?

washingtonpost.com
Misdirected Anger


Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A22


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Donald H. Rumsfeld, seeking to play down the extent of crime in postwar Iraq, extrapolated from the District`s homicides last year and concluded that Baghdad`s murder rate is lower than Washington`s. He then committed the error of saying as much in a news conference this week, and local officials, led by Mayor Anthony A. Williams and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, predictably went ballistic.

The lack of security in Iraq is a serious problem, and Mr. Rumsfeld might do better to look for solutions there than to take potshots at the District. But we also wish the indignation instantaneously mustered and directed toward the Pentagon by Ms. Norton, Mr. Williams and company would be aimed where it really counts. Because when it comes to the District these days, there is plenty to get worked up about.

We may have missed it, but where was the delegate`s anger at news that the District ended 2002 with increases in murders, forcible rapes, burglaries, auto thefts and arsons -- or that homicides in the District are up 14.6 percent over this time last year? We don`t know the number of deadly weapons on the streets of Baghdad, but as of June 10, D.C. police had recovered 847 firearms in the city. What does the mayor have to say about that?

Of course it was annoying to have the defense secretary call world attention to the District`s crime situation. Mr. Rumsfeld should have shown "a greater level of sensitivity" (the mayor`s words) to the D.C. police department`s efforts to pacify the city`s battle zones. But local politicians, eager to cry foul when disrespected by national figures, ought to demonstrate a commensurate level of concern for District residents, toward whom the District government can be particularly injurious.

We have in mind:

• Juveniles at the Oak Hill Youth Center, who live under such awful conditions that D.C. Superior Court Judge Herbert B. Dixon Jr. held the D.C. government in contempt on Thursday and imposed fines of up to $8,000 per day for repeated failure to make long-demanded improvements in the juvenile justice system.

• Mentally ill patients under the care of the D.C. Mental Health Department -- a department that has lost track of 20 mentally ill patients who were charged with crimes and committed to St. Elizabeths Hospital and who later were allowed to leave the hospital and didn`t return. A department that received more than 500 reports of serious incidents -- including unexpected or unexplained deaths, allegations of abuse and assault, and suicide attempts -- but that cannot document that any were investigated, as required.

• A highflying, wheeling and dealing city Office of Property Management that dished out millions of scarce D.C. tax dollars in questionable leases even as city leaders scraped to find money to bury the destitute.

But to D.C. politicians, those things aren`t worth getting worked up about. Not when Don Rumsfeld is out there leading with his chin.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Searchin` Every Which A-Way for WMD


By Colbert I. King

Saturday, June 21, 2003; Page A23


As you know, I`m not one to start trouble. Neither do I talk out of school. But something happened this week in the city, and it was all Colin Powell`s fault. If the secretary of state had listened to his security detail, none of this would have occurred and you wouldn`t be reading about it today.

The event, if that`s what you call it, took place on Wednesday afternoon when Powell and his security detail were heading back to the State Department from an event in the Maryland suburbs -- the day before he left for the Middle East. Powell had received a call from his assistant telling him he was urgently needed within the hour at the White House for a National Security Council meeting. A former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff accustomed to looking sharp at all times, Powell glanced in a mirror in the rear compartment of his limousine and decided he could use a trim before assuming his place in the Situation Room. He was miles away from his personal barber and in an unfamiliar part of town. (The secretary was actually in the `hood.) But concluding that need of a haircut trumped caution and spotting a red-and-white barbershop pole on a storefront down the street, the secretary ordered his driver to pull over.

The security detail thought it was a bad idea, not having a clue about the neighborhood. But Powell, raised in the South Bronx, was not to be denied. He leapt from the car, strode across the sidewalk like the senior military official he once was and entered the neighborhood barbershop called Darrell`s.

Midday at midweek tends to be a quiet time at Darrell`s. The owner, Darrell, was there, of course, sitting in his chair and sharpening a pair of scissors, when Powell walked through the door. Bobby T. the barber had a regular customer, Fast Frankie, in his chair. But the other barbers, Boogie and Fatmouth the trainee, had time on their hands. Fatmouth was leafing through the latest edition of Jet magazine, and Boogie was dozing.

Darrell recognized Powell right away. Before the secretary could say anything, Darrell was on his feet and holding a spanking-clean smock to place around Powell`s neck. Powell thanked Darrell, sat down, asked for a light trim and then pulled a sheaf of papers from a briefcase and began reading.

Realizing that the secretary didn`t want to be disturbed, Darrell held his peace and began clipping and snipping away . . . hoping and praying that the fellas wouldn`t get anything started.

Everything seemed to be going just fine. Fatmouth seemed fixated on the Jet "photo of the week." Boogie, while not dozing anymore, was still minding his own business, trimming his mustache with the aid of a hand-held mirror. And Bobby T., to Darrell`s amazement, was engaging Fast Frankie in a whispered conversation about the Washington Wizards and whether Abe Pollin`s new coach, Eddie Jordan, would be any good for the team. In other words, all was going well inside Darrell`s with their distinguished customer.

But then up popped the devil.

Jerome, the trash-talker, was on his way to the corner store to buy a soda when he noticed a long black limousine and a security follow car parked at the curb in front of Darrell`s. It didn`t help matters that a security agent was peering through the barbershop`s window or that three other agents were leaning against the vehicles with their eyes wandering up and down the street, screening windows and everybody and everything that moved. All that was too much for Jerome. He had to see what was up. Which led him inside the barbershop. Which caused Darrell`s eyes to roll heavenward and his heart to sink.

As soon as Jerome saw it was Powell in the chair, a smile came over his face and his mouth started to open. But Darrell threw him a look that said, "Open your mouth, man, and I`ll close it for good!"

So Jerome muttered, "How y`all doin`?" and walked toward the back of the shop. He pulled a paper cup from the dispenser, filled it with water from the cooler, took a deep swallow and then commenced to sing over and over in his deep bass voice: "Gonna find them, boom, boom, dooty, dooty, boom. . . . Gonna find them, boom, boom, dooty, dooty boom."

That did it.

Before you knew it, Bobby T., Fast Frankie, Boogie, Fatmouth -- and Fishbone, who seemed to have appeared from nowhere -- were imitating the Temptations, moving and swaying before imaginary mikes. They began singing in perfect harmony:

"Searchin`, I`m a searchin`, I`m a searchin` every which a-way, yeah, yeah. Oh Lord, I`m searchin` . . . mmm child, I`m searchin` . . . searchin` every whiiiich a-way, ye-ah, yeah. . . . And like the Northwest Mounties" -- pause for a beat -- "you know I`ll find Saddam`s weapons someday."

Jerome: "Boom, boom, dooty, dooty, boom, boom. . . . Gonna find them."

At that point Bobby T. separated from the group, twirled three times, did a split, snapped back to his feet and starting belting out in his smooth baritone voice:

"Well now if I have to swim a river" -- pause -- "you know I will; And if I have to climb a mountain" -- pause -- "you know I will. And if ol` Saddam`s weapons are hiding up on a blueberry hill, I`m gonna find them, child, you knoooooow I will."

Then the chorus broke in: " `Cause we`ve been searchin`, oh ye-ah, searchin`. My goodness, searchin` every whiiiich a-way. Ye-ah, yeah. But we`re like the Northwest Mounties, you know we`ll bring those weapons in someday. . . . Gonna find them."

Secretary Powell fidgeted.

That didn`t stop Fishbone from stepping forward, doing a moonwalk across the floor, coming to an abrupt halt in front of Powell and letting go in his falsetto:

"Well Sherlock Holmes and Sam Spade got nothing, child, on me. . . . Sergeant Joe Friday, Charlie Chan, and Boston Blackie. . . . No matter where those weapons are a hidin`, they`re gonna hear me coming . . . cause I`m gonna walk right down that Iraqi desert like Buuulllldog Drummond."

Which brought on the chorus: "Oh Lord, searchin`, mmm child, searchin`, oh yeah, searchin` every whiiiich a-way, ye-ah, yeah. And like the Northwest Mounties, you know we`ll bring those WMDs in someday."

Thundered Jerome: "Gonna find them, boom, boom, dooty, dooty, boom. Gonna find them."

Powell stood up, thanked and paid an apologetic Darrell, tipping him handsomely, and, just as he arrived, strode purposefully toward his car.

The secretary was still wearing his smock.

•

P.S.: Powell and Darrell are real. This story is not. And thanks to the Coasters for their 1957 hit "Searchin`."

e-mail: [e-mail]



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

The Ministry of Truth
http://www.interventionmag.com/cms/modules.php?op=modload&na…

In George Orwell`s 1984, control the news and revise history was the function of the Ministry of Truth; in George Bush`s Administration, literary history has become political reality.
By Mick Youther

In George Orwell’s futuristic novel, 1984, a single organization, the Ministry of Truth, controlled the dissemination of all news and information. A recent ruling by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has brought the United States one step closer to having a similar system. By a vote of 3-2, the FCC changed its rules, allowing the media giants to control even more of what we see, hear, and read. Almost no one thinks this is a good idea -- except the media giants and a slim majority of FCC commissioners who have been wined and dined to the tune of millions of dollars by the very corporations they are supposed to be regulating.

• “Judging from our record, public opposition is nearly unanimous, from ultra-conservatives to ultra-liberals and virtually everyone in between. We have received about three-quarters of a million comments from the public in opposition to relaxing our ownership rules -- a new record -- and only a handful in support.”
--Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner

• “In the hearing today, there was mention of some 750,000 comments that the commission received on this and Commissioner Copps said that 99.9 percent of those were opposed to it.”
--Terence Smith, media correspondent

• “Seldom have I seen a regulatory agency cave in so completely to the big economic interests. That`s exactly what happened today with the FCC rules.”
--Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D) ND

• “Michael Powell [yes -- Colin Powell’s son], chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is supposed to protect civic discourse. It’s threatened now -- just six companies own most print, radio, Internet and television media outlets…. Mr. Powell thinks that’s too much diversity, and he’s pushing the FCC to adopt rules that will allow further ownership concentration. He thinks Americans can trust a few elite CEOs to tell us what we need to know to govern ourselves.”
--TomPaine.com

• “This path surrenders to a handful of corporations awesome powers over our news, information, and entertainment. On this path, we endanger time-honored safeguards and time-proven values that have strengthened the country, as well as the media.”
--Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth not only controlled the news, it constantly revised history -- just like the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely altered to remove the president`s gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. 11 continue to change, and Bush`s past financial dealings have undergone repeated revisions.

In 1984, whenever a fact from the past became embarrassing to “the party,” it was simply dropped down “the memory hole” and deleted from all records. It was if it never happened. The Bush Administration does exactly the same thing. Whenever the truth proves inconvenient, there is no hesitation to make up new “truths” to take its place. Our government officials are capable of saying whatever is necessary to further their purposes because they come from the same corporate mindset that can say with a straight face that tobacco is not addictive, that DDT is safe, and global warming is a myth.

• "`Who controls the past`, ran the Party slogan, `controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.`"
--George Orwell, 1984

• "The struggle of freedom against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting."
--Milan Kundera, Czech writer

• “Many journalists now are no more than channelers and echoers of what Orwell called the official truth. They simply cipher and transmit lies.”
--John Pilger, journalist and filmmaker

If we had had a truly independent media -- not owned by the same corporations that control our government -- it would have presented President Bush’s push for war in a totally different way. Instead of presenting the conflict with Iraq as an exciting upcoming attraction, it would have reached down “the memory hole” and pulled out the words and pictures from the Reagan/Bush years, when the U.S. government actively supported Saddam and supplied him with materials to build his weapons of mass destruction. It would have exposed how Bush Senior allowed U.S. money destined for agriculture in Iraq to be used to develop chemical and biological weapons. This would have been the lead story on TV and in the newspapers -- topped off with a picture or video of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with his good buddy, Sadaam Hussein.

Right now, the Bush’s Ministry of Truth is working overtime to drop their main excuse for attacking Iraq down “the memory hole. If they are successful, by Election Day no one will remember their lies about weapons of mass destruction, and the war with Iraq will be remembered as “our finest hour”.


Posted Wednesday, June 18, 2003

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 by Inter Press Service
U.S. Military Budget Heading Towards Cold War Levels
by Thalif Deen

STOCKHOLM - The war on terrorism has triggered a dramatic increase in U.S. military spending, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released Tuesday.

Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN under secretary-general for disarmament affairs, says the rising global military expenditure is not just diverting precious financial, material and human resources from productive to non-productive pursuits, but also jeopardizing the environment and the prospects for social and economic development.


The world spent $784 billion on arms last year, a sharp acceleration from $741 billion the previous year, the SIPRI report says. The U.S. accounted for almost three-quarters of that increase.

SIPRI attributes this increase primarily to the U.S. response to the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

But U.S. military spending had been rising earlier too. The figures show that U.S. military spending climbed from about $296 billion in 1997 to $335.7 billion last year.

”Our figures show clearly that the bulk of the rapid increase in spending in 2002 is accounted for by the United States alone,” SIPRI Director Alyson J.K. Bailes told IPS.

The U.S. Department of Defense has estimated U.S. military spending for 2004 at about $390 billion, rising to $400 billion in 2005. The recent war on Iraq is expected to cost the United States more than $150 billion, compared to the 1991 Gulf War, which cost about $61 billion.

Japan, the world`s second largest military spender, is far behind the United States with an annual defence budget of $49 billion, followed by Britain with $36 billion. The top five spenders--the United States, Japan, Britain, France and China--account for about 62 percent of total world military expenditures.

According to the SIPRI Yearbook, the United States now accounts for 43 percent of world military expenditure.

China, Russia and Brazil have all increased defense budgets significantly. The countries with the sharpest reductions in military spending in 2002 were Argentina, Guatemala and Venezuela in Latin America and Belarus and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in Europe.

The European Union shows no sign of following the U.S. in raising defense budgets, Bailes said. And while the Russian budget has risen, its possibilities are limited, she added.

”A review of global expenditure trends shows that the rest of the world is not prepared, or cannot afford, to follow the U.S. example,” SIPRI says in the yearbook. Among the poorer nations the signs are mixed, said Bailes. ”Some nations are able to cut spending voluntarily because of the ending of local conflicts, or they are being forced to do so by economic problems,” she said. ”As the security sector reform becomes a serious focus both of international aid policy and of local security cooperation, we may also see improvements in what could be called the quality (rationality, transparency, and proper targeting) of defense spending, which can often be combined with quantitative cuts.”

Some former defense funds are not being cut so much as diverted to internal and non-traditional security aims, such as counter-terrorism, she added.

But there is pressure also to increase defense budgets because of factors such as keeping up with the latest technological advances, and the interest of developing states in peacekeeping and other interventions, Bailes said. The impact of increased military aid that the United States, in particular, is offering is also a factor, she said. The SIPRI Yearbook notes marked regional disparities in military expenditure. In 2001 the Middle East spent 6.3 percent of GDP on the military compared to a global average of 2.3 percent. Latin America spent only 1.3 percent.

Africa (2.1 percent), Asia (1.6 percent) and Western Europe (1.9 percent) spent less than the world average, while North America with 3.0 percent, and Central and Eastern Europe with 2.7 percent spent somewhat more.

The Middle East is the largest single market for U.S. weapons systems. The 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait prompted sharp increases in arms purchases by the six Gulf nations--Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Asked if arms purchases would decline following the ouster of the Saddam regime by U.S. military forces, Bailes said ”whatever uncertainties may still remain over aspects of Iraq`s future and its future regime, it seems clear that for a long while at least we shall not see another belligerent Iraq with the power and the wish to threaten its neighbors.”

An international stabilizing force on Iraq`s soil for some time could allow other states to reduce their level of military preparedness, Bailes said. But the results could be different if outside powers build new military ”clients” to compete with others, she added.

Jayantha Dhanapala, former UN under secretary-general for disarmament affairs, says the rising global military expenditure is not just diverting precious financial, material and human resources from productive to non-productive pursuits, but also jeopardizing the environment and the prospects for social and economic development.

Sixteen years ago the world community gathered at the United Nations for the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development. Yet today military expenditure is rising, he told IPS.

Copyright 2003 IPS

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0618-01.htm

[Joerver]

JAMES KILPATRICK: FREE SPEECH FOR FANS ONLY

[Wed Jun 18 2003]

President George W. Bush came to Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo on March 22, 2001. Antoine Jennings, a junior student, was on hand to greet him. Thereby hangs this First Amendment tale.

Young Jennings, who has since been graduated, had prepared a small sarcastic sign. It read, in full, "Welcome to Western, Governor Bush."

An hour before the president arrived for his speech in the Student Recreation Center, Jennings and a few other dissidents marched down a sidewalk toward the university. They entered a loosely "secured" area on the opposite side of the street in front of the center.

A university police officer, Wesley Carpenter, ordered them to go to an area behind the center that had been reserved for demonstrators. Jennings claimed a right of free speech. When he persisted, Captain Carpenter arrested him for trespass and disturbing the peace.

A jury acquitted Jennings of disorderly conduct but convicted him of trespass. The trial court fined him $100 and costs. The Circuit Court for Kalamazoo County affirmed, and the state appellate courts denied further appeals. The Jennings case is now resting in the U.S. Supreme Court. In all probability the appeal will die there. As a general rule, the high court takes only cases with a considerable heft, and this one doesn`t weigh enough.

Even so, the case offers a fine opportunity for the high court to reaffirm certain American values, specifically the right to razz an elected official.

Consider the evidence in this case. An hour before the president`s scheduled visit, the so-called "secured area" was filled with students and visitors who were freely crossing the yellow police line. Officer Michael Smith testified that spectators were allowed in a grassy area north and south of Oliver Street.

Q: But the people who had signs were not? A: Correct.

Q: They had to go over here (indicating) behind the student rec center? A: Correct. I don`t know where over there, but somewhere to east of the building, that`s correct.

Q: Would these people be able to be seen or heard by the presidential motorcade from behind that rec center? A: They would not have, no.

Captain Carpenter further explained the rules. Signs fixed to sticks were forbidden along the route of the motorcade, but he agreed that "a sign without a stick is no threat to anyone." He had an "understanding," derived from the Secret Service.

Q: Nobody who was critical of the president could be seen in this area. They had to go behind the building? A: That`s correct.

As the incident evolved, Jennings was briefly detained at the campus police station. His sign was confiscated and the charges against him went to trial. There Judge Ann L. Hannon ruled that the defendant had lost his First Amendment right to protest because his paper sign could have been thrown at the motorcade, thereby "disrupting the flow and potentially endangering the safety of the president."

This was balderdash. Anyone who has covered 14 presidential campaigns, as I have, understands and appreciates the huge responsibility that lies on the shoulders of the Secret Service.

All the same, some of their protective measures go far beyond a sensible level and reach a level of paranoid absurdity. In the case at hand, a small paper sign -- handheld, not attached to a stick -- presented no threat at all to the visiting president.

A videotape of the incident made it clear that Jennings was not disturbing the peace. His crime was to "trespass" on a public street an hour before the program.

Big deal! A large part of my professional life has been spent in covering presidents. I understand the relationship of the press and the Secret Service. We are bonded by mutual loathing, tinged by mutual respect.

In the case at hand, senior agents surely will say that campus police misunderstood their instructions as to unfriendly signs. Sure, but if the student`s sign had read, "Welcome President Bush, We Love You," would he have been hustled away?

Wanna bet?

JAMES J. KILPATRICK writes for Universal Press Syndicate.

http://www.southernillinoisan.com/rednews/2003/06/19/build/o…

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nuke21ju…
THE WORLD

Nuclear Experts Locate Uranium
IAEA team secured tons of the radioactive substance feared looted from a facility outside Baghdad, diplomats say.
From Associated Press

June 21, 2003

VIENNA — Experts from the United Nations atomic agency have accounted for tons of uranium feared looted from Iraq`s largest nuclear research facility, diplomats said Friday.

The natural and low-enriched uranium was secured at the Tuwaitha facility, 15 miles south of Baghdad, the diplomats said on condition of anonymity. Tuwaitha was left unguarded after Iraqi troops fled the area on the eve of the war.

U.S. troops didn`t secure the area until April 7. In the meantime, looters from surrounding villages had stripped it of uranium storage barrels they later used to hold drinking water.

The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to Iraq this month to secure the uranium at the Tuwaitha site.

The U.S.-led interim administration of Iraq did not allow the mission to give medical exams to Iraqis reported to have been sickened by contact with the materials, the diplomats said.

The IAEA team also was unable to determine whether hundreds of radioactive materials used in research and medicine across the country were secure. Officials fear that such material could be used to make crude radioactive bombs.

The experts, who began their work at Tuwaitha on June 7, were not able to determine how much the plant was damaged during the war.

The diplomats, who are familiar with the workings of the IAEA, agreed to discuss the mission on condition of anonymity.

IAEA representatives could not be reached for comment.

Tuwaitha was thought to contain hundreds of tons of natural uranium and nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium, which could be further processed for arms use.

The diplomats did not detail how much uranium had been looted or where it was found, but it appeared that much of it was on or near the site.

U.S. military officials who accompanied the IAEA team said last week that initial assessments indicated that most of the uranium that had been stored at the Tuwaitha nuclear research center was accounted for.

Although at least 20% of the containers that stored the uranium were taken from the site, it appeared that looters had dumped the uranium before taking the barrels.

U.S. military experts involved in the cleanup found piles of uranium in the storerooms and also purchased most of the looted barrels back from the surrounding villages for $3 per barrel.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hallibur…
THE WORLD


Halliburton Contracts in Iraq Exceed $800 Million
Most were awarded under a 2001 pact with a subsidiary of the firm once headed by Cheney.
From Reuters

June 21, 2003

WASHINGTON — A unit of Halliburton Co., the Texas oil giant once led by Vice President Dick Cheney, has received more than $800 million in work orders in Iraq so far, according to military figures obtained Friday.

Most of the orders are under a military contract awarded in December 2001 to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which a Democratic lawmaker labeled "obscure and lucrative."

That contract, called the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, does not have a spending ceiling.

By the end of May, task orders for Iraq accounted for $596.8 million of the $708 million earmarked under that deal.

Under the contract, the Halliburton subsidiary has provided housing, recreation, laundry, power and sanitation for American troops in Iraq, said Dan Carlson, a spokesman for the U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill.

Kellogg Brown & Root has a separate contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to repair and operate Iraq`s oil wells. That contract was awarded in March in a no-competition process.

By June 13, $213 million had been budgeted under this contract to Kellogg. The contract has a ceiling of $7 billion, but that limit was formulated with the worst-case scenario in mind. The Army Corps of Engineers was expected soon to open up the contract to competitive bids.

Several Democratic lawmakers have complained loudly about the amount of work given to Halliburton, suggesting that the company`s close links to the Bush administration brought business to the oil firm, a view the administration strongly rejects.

Lt. Gene Pawlick, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, said a new tender inviting competitive bids to replace Kellogg`s contract in Iraq was likely to be announced soon, possibly early next week. Kellogg can also bid for the new contract.

So far, under the oil well contract, Kellogg has repaired oil facilities and provided training, damage assessment, construction of base camps for workers and distribution of liquid propane to Iraqis, said Pawlick.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

Das sind die berühmten mobilen Laboratorien, die Bush als die Erfüllung seiner Träume sah. In Polen hat er diese als WMD bezeichnet. Die hier dargestellten Erkenntnisse sind nur für die amerikanische Presse neu.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hydrogen…
THE WORLD



2 Suspect Labs Could Have Produced Hydrogen
The U.S. rejects Iraq`s explanation for the seized trailers, even though its own Army has such vehicles for filling weather balloons.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

June 21, 2003

WASHINGTON — In concluding that two trailers seized in northern Iraq were biological weapons labs, the United States rejected Iraqi claims that the vehicles were designed for making hydrogen for weather balloons.

But although some have described the Iraqi explanation as far-fetched, the U.S. Army has its own fleet of vehicles designed for precisely the same purpose.

They are among the Army`s more unusual vehicles: Humvees with a large container and refrigerator-sized generator where a gun or troop transport shell should be.

The AN/TMQ-42 Hydrogen Generator, as it is known, has never been used in combat. With plenty of helium — the preferred gas — to keep the Army`s weather balloons aloft, it`s unlikely that it ever will.

But the truck escapes obscurity in becoming a footnote to the debate over Iraq`s alleged chemical and biological weapons programs.

The CIA and the Pentagon`s Defense Intelligence Agency have described the two seized trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." But some analysts involved in the examination of the vehicles reject that conclusion. And that inspection has failed to find any traces of anthrax, smallpox, tularemia or any other known pathogens.

One veteran intelligence official in Iraq said he is convinced that the seized trailers were indeed designed to produce hydrogen gas to fill weather balloons that were routinely used by Iraqi field artillery batteries.

The intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the trucks did not carry autoclaves or other equipment needed to sterilize laboratory equipment, as would be needed to grow sensitive pathogens used as germ agents.

In addition, he said, the canvas tarps covering the sides of the trucks appeared designed to be pulled away to let excess heat and gas escape during the production of hydrogen. The tarps would allow in far too much road dust and other contamination if the equipment inside were meant to produce biowarfare agents, he said.

"We didn`t find what we expected to find," said the official, who was involved in the investigation. "That`s very troubling."

Weather balloons are used by artillery units to collect atmospheric measurements — including wind speed and relative humidity — that help calculate the trajectory of rockets and cannon fire.

The London Observer recently reported that the British government sold an artillery weather balloon system to Iraq in the late 1980s.

U.S. artillery units generally fill their balloons with helium, a less combustible — and therefore much safer — gas than hydrogen. But experts said Iraq probably wouldn`t have access to helium, a naturally occurring gas that is scarce in most parts of the world. In fact, the vast majority of the world`s supply happens to be in Texas.

Faced with that problem, Iraq wouldn`t be the first country to turn to hydrogen, which can be manufactured from other substances.

In the 1930s, the United States refused to share its helium supply with Germany for fear that Hitler would use it in military airships. So the Germans used hydrogen instead, including in passenger airships.

The risk of doing so was demonstrated in devastating fashion in 1937 when the airship Hindenburg, after a transatlantic journey, erupted in flames over Lakehurst, N.J.

In their publicly released analysis of the two Iraqi trailers, the CIA and DIA acknowledged that the vehicles could be used to produce hydrogen but dismissed that capability as a convenient cover story.

The CIA noted that Iraq never declared the vehicles to United Nations inspectors, something they would have faced no risk in doing if they were truly for hydrogen production. CIA officials also said the design of the trailers was unnecessarily elaborate and cumbersome for hydrogen production.

"If they wanted to produce hydrogen, they could have produced it more efficiently," said one CIA official, who noted that smaller, safer, portable systems are commercially available.

Even so, the agencies` report noted that Iraqi officials at the Al Kindi research facility in Mosul, as well as Iraqis interviewed at a company that manufactured components for the vehicles, all said the trailers were built to make hydrogen.

The two trailers have been under armed guard at Camp Slayer, a former Iraqi government palace and amusement complex near the Baghdad airport now serving as a logistics and operations base for U.S. intelligence and weapons-hunting teams.

The U.S. hydrogen trucks aren`t likely to see action any time soon, either. One is collecting dust at Ft. Sill, Okla., where Army and Marine artillery units are trained. Asked the whereabouts of the other 19 trucks, Army officials could say only that they believe the trucks are mothballed in a depot somewhere.

The Army ordered the trucks thinking they might come in handy if artillery units were deployed somewhere where helium couldn`t be delivered.

Some saw other advantages. Although helium is more stable than hydrogen, it is still risky to transport in canisters when bullets are flying. Unlike helium, hydrogen can be manufactured on the spot, with no need to store it or ship it across dangerous terrain.

The Army hired a Baltimore company called Environmental Technologies Group to build the vehicles, and the first unit was equipped in 1998. Environmental Technologies has since been acquired by U.K.-based Smiths Group.

Rick Thomas, an executive at the company in Maryland, said the system works by combining methanol and water in a generator that yields carbon dioxide and pure hydrogen gas. The system, he said, performed well and was designed to hold up under rugged Army conditions.

But the use of methanol as an ingredient was the system`s undoing, Thomas said. Army safety and environmental experts barred the use of the vehicles because methanol is an environmental contaminant.

Thomas and other executives at the company were quick to say that their truck — unlike Iraq`s version — could only be used to produce hydrogen. They declined to disclose the dollar amount of the contract.

Asked whether company officials were disappointed that the trucks have never been used, he said, "That is an understatement."

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Bob Drogin in Baghdad contributed to this report.



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

Zurück ins alte Ägypten. Mr. Bush kann hierfür zwar nichts, aber ich fand die Meldung so verschroben, dass sie einen Platz im Srd bekommt.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-mummies…
COLUMN ONE


It`s a Wrap for All Eternity
A Utahan says he has convinced 1,400 people to become mummies in the afterlife. But he`s still waiting for one of his customers to die.
By David Kelly
Times Staff Writer

June 21, 2003

SALT LAKE CITY — Corky Ra poured a glass of red wine and cleared his throat. He was about to make a peculiar pitch, selling a death fit for a king.

"The moment between life and death is a pause," he said, sitting inside the 30-foot-high pyramid in his front yard. "It`s the moment of rest before the next life."

Some of the 18 people in the room nodded knowingly, others seemed baffled.

"Tell them what happens when you get buried in a grave," Ra said, looking over at fellow funeral director Ron Temu.

Temu explained the gory business of human decomposition, leaving some wide-eyed and ashen.

The point made, Ra told the audience how to avoid such a fate.

"You can be like a moth that wraps itself in silk," he said. "You can be a chrysalis, and a chrysalis is a mummy."

Ra knows mummies. He doesn`t unearth them from ancient tombs, he makes them at home. And so far, he says, 1,400 people have agreed to sign over life insurance policies worth at least $74,000 each to be mummified by his patented Permanent Body Preservation System — one he says exists nowhere else in the country.

For that kind of money, Summum Mummification offers this kind of guarantee.

"You will stay like this for eternity," Ra promises. "There will be no decomposition."

At a time when people are seeking novel ways to commemorate the deaths of loved ones, when ashes are being blasted into space and urns have taken on the shape of dolphins and sailboats, some are looking back at the funerary practices of one of the world`s oldest civilizations and finding comfort there.

Shunning cremation as barbaric and repulsed by the thought of decomposing underground, they have arranged to be preserved in death like Egyptian pharaohs of antiquity.

"If you are embalmed with formaldehyde, two weeks after you go into the casket, the cells decompose and the body begins to eat itself," Ra said. "So you have a decomposing body in a $15,000 casket, 6 feet underground."

So far, he says, he`s received requests from football players looking to be preserved in athletic poses, military men wanting to be mummified in uniform and a radio talk show host hoping to grasp a microphone for eternity. Some do it for religious reasons, while others think it offers a bit of immortality.

"Mummification seems a more civilized way to go than burning or burying," said Donna Gray, 60, of Salt Lake City.

Gray, like the others who have agreed to the process, signed a contract with Summum. Like them, she will pay for her eventual mummification by making monthly payments on a standard life insurance policy she took out, naming Summum as the beneficiary.

"My kids think I have gone to the devil," she said.

After much experimentation, Ra perfected his mummification formula in 1985. Since then he has promoted the process in lectures, on the radio, in documentaries, on the old Phil Donahue show and on the Internet.

The former Mormon missionary and heavy-equipment salesman even changed his name in 1980 from Corky Nowell to Corky Ra, which he says means "worker on creation" in ancient Egyptian. Later, he founded a church espousing the beliefs of pharaonic Egypt.

Ra said he tested his formula on animals, and after nearly 20 years there has been no cell decomposition. Temu said their colleague, John Chew, former head of mortuary science at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., mummified human cadavers using Ra`s recipe. Chew, who met Ra at a funeral industry convention, has been a collaborator ever since and has been selected by Summum to do its first human mummy.

"It`s not rocket science but [it`s] a very difficult process to know what chemicals preserve the human and animal tissue without destroying the genetics and DNA," Ra said.

Yet his zeal for mummification has one major hitch: None of his customers has died yet.

There have been close calls. One client with cancer recently began deteriorating rapidly. Ra readied the stainless steel vat, the death mask, the rolls of gauze and the patented secret chemicals.

"He was going to be our first, but he seems to have pulled it together," said Ra, 59, looking vaguely dejected. "Many of our clients are young, so they aren`t dying."

While they wait, Ra and Temu have mummified smaller fare — more than 200 dogs, cats, parrots, cockatiels, a pet rat and a finch.

"The finch was the smallest thing we did," Temu said. "I`d love to do one of those big white tigers from the Siegfried and Roy show."

He hasn`t done any white tigers, but he did mummify Sue Menu`s white poodle. The once vibrant pooch and boon companion now stands encased in bronze in her Salt Lake City living room.

"Every once in a while when I dust her off I say, `How`s it going, Mags?` " said the 52-year-old piano teacher, staring into the dog`s metallic eyes. "I felt it was a fitting memorial for Maggie for all her companionship and loyalty to me."

Temu, a bespectacled man with an encyclopedic knowledge of the world`s burial practices, looked proudly at his work.

"It really is an art piece, that`s what makes it so expensive," he said of the $27,000 mummy. "If you take her out now, she will look the way she did the day she died."

Temu explained that taxidermy is cheaper, but it preserves just the skin, not the whole body and internal organs.

For Menu, Maggie is an advance scout in the netherworld.

"When I first heard about this, I felt it was a little far-fetched, but the more I learned, the more it connected with me," she said.

Menu attended a lecture by Ra at the University of Utah, where he once taught philosophy. She has since signed up to become a mummy, paying $100 a month for a life insurance policy.

"I don`t think the traditional burial lets your body go through the transference to the next life," Menu said. "I don`t want to jump into the next life right away, I want to take my time."

Mummification for most clients begins while they are still alive. A plaster death mask is made of their face, providing a perfect likeness that will be affixed to the mummy. When they die, the mummifiers, or thanatogeneticists, travel to the place of death and take the body to a local funeral home.

The blood is drained and organs removed. Everything is submerged in a vat of chemical preservatives for at least 60 days to let the cells absorb the substance. The contracts include agreements with local funeral homes to allow the mummification on their premises.

The organs are sewn back inside the body, which then is wrapped in layers of gauze and coated with lanolin. Finally, a blue polyurethane membrane is painted on, a fiberglass coating is added and the death mask is placed on the face. The body is put in a sarcophagus and laid in a mausoleum. So far, Temu said, about 100 people are trained in mummification.

The technique is quite different from that used by the ancient Egyptians, who cured bodies with salts and resin, said John Pollini, professor of classical art and archeology at USC.

"Cremation was a rite practiced in ancient Greece and Rome, but in Egypt it was mummification," he said. "You would go to the afterlife and try to re-create life on Earth for eternity. For that you needed a body."

The Egyptians removed the internal organs, placing the lungs in canopic urns with lids bearing the likenesses of gods. The body was bathed in a salt solution, coated inside and out with resins and perfumes and left to dry and be prayed over for 70 days, Pollini said.

Ra said his technique and that used by the ancient Egyptians have the same goal but use substantially different methods.

Mark D. Musgrove, president-elect of the National Funeral Directors Assn., said the "death care" industry may be undergoing major changes, but mummification remains very much on the fringe.

"What we are seeing is an increase in cremation," Musgrove said. "More and more baby boomers are designing their own funerals, but I wouldn`t say mummification is catching on."

Some question the price and uniqueness of the process.

"This is an expensive vanity, but it doesn`t mean there is anything wrong with it," said Joshua Slocum, interim executive director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance, a Vermont-based group that monitors cost and fraud in the funeral industry. "I have no problem with Summum; they have been around for about 18 years and we have never had any complaints. They may have a preservation process that lasts a long time, but it`s not new, it`s been done."

He cited Vladimir Lenin and Eva Peron as examples. The leader of the Communist revolution in Russia died in 1924 and his body was preserved using still-secret chemicals. Peron died in 1952 and was also preserved in a lifelike state.

"My guess is that you can pickle anybody," said Lisa Carlson, a consumer advocate who has written books on funeral law and the funeral industry. "If people want to make a museum piece out of themselves, so be it. There is a certain segment of the population that likes to spend money wildly."

For Ra, the issue has always been about spirituality, not vanity.

He grew up in Utah, where he was an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and ran missionary programs in the Midwest. He later worked for a welding company, a gun manufacturer and as a salesman before finding his calling preaching the gospel of eternal preservation.

"I was 27, selling heavy equipment and had 200 employees working for me," said Ra, who sports a long, gray ponytail. "I would come home from work and sit in my den and just think."

During one of these meditations, Ra had what he called a "personal awakening." He said he met spiritual beings who taught him the mysteries of creation. These beings, he said, told him the world was governed by proportions and mathematical equations.

His beliefs eventually led to excommunication from the Mormon Church. Undaunted, he founded a group called Summum, meaning the sum total of all things. He became increasingly interested in mummification as a way to safely house the soul after death and to preserve DNA should human cloning become feasible.

Visions invaded his head.

"In my mind I saw this pyramid, so I built one here," he said. "I like the space inside a pyramid."

His copper-plated pyramid stands beside his home near a warehouse in Salt Lake City, not far from the headquarters of the Mormon Church. Inside, the walls are illustrated with scenes from ancient Egypt.

There is an altar with peacock feathers, incense and Egyptian statuary. A huge painting of suns, moons and galaxies graces the ceiling. Also in the pyramid is Ra`s Doberman, Butch, mummified along with his cats, Vincent and Oscar.

A smaller, wooden pyramid outside has a less cosmic function, housing rakes and a lawn mower.

Aside from making mummies, Ra earns money selling books on philosophy, giving lectures and making Summum Nectar Wines.

An Internet radio station — KPHI — operates from a small building on the property. It`s run by Bernie Beichart, who has also signed on to become a mummy.

Beichart, 44, a Webmaster for a loan company, attended a lecture given by Ra and was intrigued. Raised Catholic, he was dissatisfied with church teachings on creation and the afterlife.

"All religions talk about a transition at death and all religions have certain rites," he said, sitting in the radio studio. "The common theme is the life source or spirit carries on. I see mummification as a guided destination, not being at the mercy of events."

As Beichart spoke, people began arriving at the pyramid for Ra`s regular Saturday lecture. The talks are shown live on the Internet and involve Ra dispensing wisdom on creation, death and, as always, mummification.

The guests sat on couches drinking Summum wine. Ra talked for an hour about his beliefs before saying goodnight. He had to leave early the next morning for California to sign up some new mummy candidates.

Al Martin, 55, walked out of the pyramid not entirely convinced.

"I have thought about mummification for a long time, but it`s so remote from real life," he said. "I have to take it in stages."

Ra knows he`s bucking a trend, that most people today are reducing themselves to ashes at death, not preserving themselves for eternity.

But he`s so confident in his product that he plans to build a small mausoleum beside his pyramid, housing the mummies of his friends. The blueprints will be ready in two weeks.

"Everything changes and evolves," Ra said.

He sees a market for mummies, one that is small but growing, "like the market for the Bentley motor car."

First, someone needs to die.

"We`re sort of paralyzed until then," Temu said. "You know what it`s like when you wait for water to boil, it never happens."


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com The rebuilding of Iraq under continual attack
Looting, vandalism could add millions to Bechtel`s contract
David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, June 21, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/06/…


The Iraqi power plants and waterworks that Bechtel Corp. is trying to fix are under attack.

Sometimes they`re hit by looters, who strip the stations of copper wire and other valuables after Bechtel departs. Sometimes they fall prey to saboteurs, trying to break whatever the American engineers fix.

Attackers even fired a rocket-propelled grenade into an electrical transformer in Fallujah Friday, setting the machine ablaze. Although that particular facility was not under Bechtel`s care, the incident marks an escalation in the attacks on Iraqi infrastructure.

Outbreaks of violence and vandalism could complicate the San Francisco construction giant`s effort to rebuild Iraq, and add to the cost. So far, none of the company`s engineers has come under fire. But the power stations and transmission lines they patch back together have. That requires another round of repairs.

"It certainly makes a very tough job tougher," said Bechtel spokesman Michael Kidder.

Fallujah`s broken transformer notwithstanding, the worst anti-allied violence in Iraq has focused on the military, not reconstruction engineers. One U.S. soldier died Thursday in an attack on a military ambulance. Another was killed Wednesday by a sniper.

Although their own people have not yet become targets, Bechtel and the other companies at work in Iraq take few chances. Soon after winning the reconstruction contract, Bechtel hired a private security firm to supplement the company`s own guards.

Halliburton, whose Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary is repairing Iraqi oil facilities, also hired extra protection.


`BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL`
If Bechtel considers an area too dangerous, Kidder said, it won`t send its people there. Even in Baghdad, where Bechtel workers have set up camp at Odai Hussein`s palace, they don`t leave the compound without security.

"You`ve got to be very, very careful," Kidder said.

Bechtel also stays in constant contact with U.S.-led forces. So far, the military has not closed any towns or regions to reconstruction workers, said U.S. Army Capt. Jeff Fitzgibbons in Baghdad. If commanders sense a heightened threat near a reconstruction project, they station more soldiers there, he said.

"At this point," Fitzgibbons said, "there are no areas that are off-limits."

Guarding a spread-out water or power system, however, is another matter. Vandals have repeatedly plundered those utilities for anything that could be sold for hard currency. In several cases, Iraqis have drained the lubricating oil out of electrical generators, rubbed the oil on the insulation that shields the wiring, set fire to the insulation and then removed the copper cable, Kidder said.

"When equipment or supplies are vandalized or damaged or stolen, it just slows down the pace of reconstruction," he said.

$680 MILLION CAP ON CONTRACT

That could add to the project`s considerable cost. Bechtel`s reconstruction contract is capped at $680 million, and much of that money has already been targeted for specific repairs.

The construction trade journal Engineering News-Record recently quoted Bechtel Senior Vice President Craig Weaver saying that the company had committed $300 million to reopening the seaport at Umm Qasr and $100 million for electrical equipment.

Weaver could not be reached for comment Friday, and Kidder could not immediately verify those numbers. He said all the work the company currently planned to do in Iraq fit within the $680 million limit from the U.S. Agency for International Development. But he left open the possibility that security problems could push those costs higher.

"It`s conceivable that continuing problems with theft and violence could affect the end result, but it`s too early to tell," he said.


SPENDING COULD GO HIGHER
The federal agency that hired Bechtel won`t rule out spending more, if needed. But USAID is in no rush to expand Bechtel`s contract, vandalism problems or no.

"It`s definitely a concern, but we`re not talking about more money yet," said agency spokesman Luke Zahner.

So far, USAID has spent about $148 million on the contract, Zahner said. The agency does not anticipate raising the $680 million limit but will consider it if the need arises.

"We`re going to do what we need to do to make sure the people of Iraq have the resources they need," Zahner said.

E-mail David R. Baker at [e-mail].

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Don`t draw that map yet of the new American Empire
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/172/oped/Don_t_draw_that_m…

By Georgie Anne Geyer, 6/21/2003

WASHINGTON


DO YOU SUDDENLY feel part of an ``empire``? Are you moved to march on Mexico and build aqueducts in Honduras? In the dark of night, when the town is still, do you sometimes slip away into the basement and surreptitiously try on the uniforms of Caesar and Hannibal and Napoleon?

If your answer as a citizen is yes to these questions, then maybe the fervent empire-builders in this Bush administration are right - the New American Empire has taken form right before our eyes!

Me? I`m a skeptic, if not a cynic. And I`ve noticed a distinct change in tone recently of the talk about America ruling the world, forcing Bush`s form of ``democracy`` down everybody`s throats, and marching American Special Forces into every village from sea to shining sea.

In the last few weeks, as Afghanistan dissolves before Washington`s oddly unseeing eyes and Iraq stubbornly refuses to behave as it never has in its entire bloody history, the questioners are coming out of the woodwork all over Washington - and it`s about time.

``We`re an empire when the Belgians challenge us on their `universal justice` and Donald Rumsfeld says, `We`ll spend less on NATO`?`` James Woolsey, the former CIA chief, sardonically told an audience brought together here this week by Atlantic Monthly magazine.

``We`re an empire when the Saudis say, `Leave,` and we leave? The Roman emperor Trajan would have said, `Hey, wrong way! If you`re an empire, why are you leaving?` If you were Nebuchadnezzar, or the kaiser, or Napoleon or Trajan, looking down from on high, you`d be saying, `You call this guy an emperor?` I would suggest this cliche of calling the United States an empire really has to stop.``

Another doubter is Niall Ferguson, professor of economics at New York University and author of the recent fashionable book, ``Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power.``

At the Council on Foreign Relations here recently, he reminded the audience that 5 to 6 percent of America`s GDP is dependent upon foreign investment and 40 percent of its foreign debt is held by foreigners - and all this talk about American imperialism could make Europeans hesitate to continue to fund America at present levels.

Then Ferguson pointed out that he was ``generally doubtful`` about the whole idea of American Empire because Americans don`t really like pouring out into the world to live, and that America faces, as well as a classic military ``imperial overreach,`` an ``internal overstretch`` made deadly serious by not enough investment in its ``appallingly lacking system of welfare and health.``

Summing up, he said: ``We must guard against hubris - and there`s a lot of that in this town today. An empire that doesn`t recognize its own mortality is likely to be a very temporary one.``

Critics from the military itself are raising the important question of military capacity.

Retired General Barry McCaffrey, speaking at this week`s meeting, pointed out that ``Of 10 US Army divisions, eight are deployed around the world and only two are standing by - we have the smallest army since 1939.

I must confess that I am uncomfortable with this idea of an American Empire. We have already seen that our ability to change the economics and culture of other countries is very limited.``

If we consider empires we have known across history - from the Ottoman to the Austro-Hungarian to the communist - all had some great cultural idea behind them that they wanted to spread to others. We do not.

Oh, the Paul Wolfowitzes and the Bill Kristols say it`s democracy - but democracy is a vehicle for resolving disputes. It is not an ideology like communism or Islamic fundamentalism, and therefore will not likely take their place easily.

Even militarily, we are barely acting like an empire. Look at Afghanistan. We seem to think that they should spontaneously become a working democracy. One of the leading Pentagon civilian aides told me irately last week, ``Now the Afghanistan government wants us to act as their enforcers in the countryside.``

Well, hey, isn`t that what real empires do when they set up satrapies and pro-consuls to do their will? Or did these guys miss out on some important historical steps?

All this empire stuff on the part of the illuminati of this administration is serious in getting people killed, but barely serious in any planning for the long run. It is heedless, random expansionism without any base.

Is this what Americans really want?

Georgie Anne Geyer is a syndicated columnist.

[Joerver]

A BOSTON GLOBE EDITORIAL

Emissions omissions
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/172/editorials/Emissions_o…

6/21/2003

O THE BUSH administration, global warming is like the federal budget deficit - a problem for some future generation to deal with. The difference is that while the administration cannot stop federal officials from measuring the size of the deficit, it is doing its best to keep the Environmental Protection Agency from even acknowledging the threat that climate change poses to the world.


The latest exercise in denial is the heavy-handed editing by the White House of the global warming section of a comprehensive EPA report on the state of the environment expected to be released Monday. The White House rejected a draft of the report reflecting the scientific consensus that smokestack and tailpipe emissions are adding to global warming by creating a greenhouse effect.

The EPA`s wording was replaced by a few paragraphs that come to no conclusions about global warming, leaning heavily on a report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, who is leaving the agency next week, decided it would be better to have no climate change section at all than the one proposed by the White House, which she characterized in an interview with the Los Angeles Times as ``pablum.`` An internal EPA memorandum that was leaked to The New York Times said the White House version ``no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.``

A milestone in the forming of that consensus was a 2001 report by the National Research Council commissioned by President Bush himself that referred to the probable contribution society is making to global warming. The White House dropped mention of that report from the EPA document as well as reference to a 1999 study showing a record rise in global temperatures in that decade.

As a candidate in 2000, Bush pledged to regulate the carbon dioxide emissions that are the principal greenhouse gas, but in office he has backed only voluntary measures that his supporters in the coal, petroleum, utility, and auto industries can laugh off. He has also rejected the international Kyoto Protocol to limit global warming. After his State Department last year submitted to the United Nations an EPA report that mentioned the seriousness of global warming, Bush dismissed it as a ``report put out by the bureaucracy.`` Last September an annual assessment by the EPA that for six years had included a section on global warming was published without one.

This is one of the sentences in this spring`s EPA draft report that the administration decided the US public should not hear: ``Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.`` An administration that cannot deal with the simple truth of those words is not living up to its most basic responsibilities.

This story ran on page A14 of the Boston Globe on 6/21/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Broad Opposition to Genetically Modified Foods
Modest Transatlantic Gap
http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=6…
Released: June 20, 2003

Rising tensions between the Bush administration and governments of Western Europe over U.S. exports of genetically modified foods highlight the differences in attitudes toward these foods on both sides of the Atlantic. A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted in 2002 and released earlier this month, shows that Western Europeans and Japanese are overwhelmingly opposed to scientifically altered fruits and vegetables because of health and environmental concerns. Although opposition in the U.S. is less widespread, 55% of Americans also believe genetically modified foods are a bad thing.

Nearly nine-in-ten in France (89%) say it is bad to scientifically alter fruits and vegetables "because it could hurt human health and the environment." Just 10% think genetically modified foods are good because they increase crop yields and help the environment. More than seven-in-ten in Germany (81%), Japan (76%) and Italy (74%) also take a negative view of scientifically altered produce.

In the U.S., where such foods are widely available and the Bush administration has aggressively promoted the export of genetic foods against staunch European opposition, people are more divided over the issue. Nearly four-in-ten Americans (37%) say it is good to scientifically alter some fruits and vegetables because "it increases crop yields to feed more people and is good for the environment," the highest percentage among the seven nations in which this question was asked.

Despite their opposition to genetic foods, solid majorities in Western Europe, Canada and Japan generally have a highly favorable view of U.S. technology. Moreover, despite their skepticism of genetic foods, most people in the surveyed nations, including the U.S., endorse globalization and expanding international trade.

Generally, women are far less positive than men about scientifically altered fruits and vegetables. The gender gap is largest in Canada, where 73% of women and 52% of men oppose genetically modified produce.

The United States is the only surveyed nation in which men are divided over this issue; 47% of men say scientifically altered fruits and vegetables are bad, 46% view them favorably. Women in the U.S. oppose genetically modified foods, but by a smaller margin than women in other surveyed nations (62% bad, 28% good). There also is a modest partisan gap over genetically modified foods, but majorities of Democrats and Republicans have a negative view of scientifically altered produce (58% of Democrats, 51% of Republicans).


About this Survey

Results described here are drawn from surveys conducted for the 44-nation Pew Global Attitudes Project in 2002. The project’s latest report, "Views of a Changing World," was released June 3, 2003.

Interviews in the seven nations were conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates among nationwide, representative samples in each country. The fieldwork companies, mode of interview, interview dates, sample sizes, and error margins are as follows:



In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

The question on scientifically altered foods was worded as follows:

"Some people say that it is good to scientifically alter some fruits and vegetables because it increases crop yields to feed more people and is good for the environment. Others say it is bad to scientifically alter some fruits and vegetables because it could hurt human health and the environment. Which comes closer to your view?"

[Joerver]

Rich Procter: `Seven true things you can`t say on television (or anywhere else)`
Contributed by drprocter on Saturday, June 21 @ 09:27:24 EDT
-----------------------------------------------------------http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11923&mode=nest…---------------------
By Rich Procter

Republicans love to portray themselves as enemies of "political correctness." In their own (deluded) minds, they`re Barbarians of Integrity, sole Keepers of the Truth and Guardians of All That Is Right and Virtuous. How is it then that, with a Republican President, House, Senate, Supreme Court and Corporate Media, the truth CAN`T be spoken on the "public" airwaves? Yes, I`m saying it`s absolutely FORBIDDEN to point out the two-ton elephant on the White House lawn called "truth."

Here are the seven true things you can`t say on television (or anywhere else)

1) ROVE, BUSH, WOLFIE, RUMMY AND CHENEY CONJURED THE IRAQ WAR OUT OF THIN AIR TO SAVE THEIR POLITICAL SKINS - You can always tell when a Republican is caught in a Big Lie - the passive tense becomes very, very popular. Remember Reagan on Iran-Contra? "Mistakes were made." Now we`re hearing a lot of blather like, "Accurate intelligence may not have made it up the chain of command," and "The President may have been misinformed." What a joke!



As the Bushies love to say, let`s "connect the dots." Fall, 2002 - newspapers are full of Enron, an economy in the toilet, and `Where`s Osama`? Suddenly in September, Bush introduces what Andrew Card called "The New Product." Suddenly, it`s "All Saddam, All the Time!" No time for UN inspections! Not time for an international coalition! Saddam`s got weapons of mass destruction! Chemical weapons! Biological weapons! NUCLEAR WEAPONS! By God, if we don`t get in there right this very second and stop this madman, this Hitler, America will be a smoldering hole in the ground! Anyone who opposes us is a traitor! WE`VE GOT TO MAKE PRE-EMPTIVE, UNILATERAL WAR NOW NOW NOW, FOR GOD`S SAKE!

Only there aren`t any weapons. There wasn`t any threat. And now we`re committed to a war that might last ten years, kill thousands of American soldiers (and tens of thousands of Iraqis) and cost 350,000,000,000 of your taxpayer dollars.

Paul Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair magazine that the whole "WMD" scenario was just a generally agreed-upon p.r. scam to "cover" the invasion. The man who championed, planned and demanded the invasion has admitted they made up the reason for war out of nothing. But try saying that on television! No, "the President was misled by confusing and contradictory intelligence reports." Tell that to the guys on the ground in Iraq taking rocket grenades in the chest.

2) THE BUSH-ROVE-NORQUIST RADICAL REPUBLICANS ARE INTENTIONALLY, SYSTEMATICALLY BANKRUPTING THE GOVERNMENT TO DESTROY OUR HARD-WON SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND PUBLIC BENEFIT PROGRAMS - Grover Norquist, Bush economic guru, has famously said that he wants to get government small enough so he can "drag it into the bathroom and drown it." He has publicly labeled bipartisan politics "date rape" (nice!) and has stated that there isn`t enough chaos in local government - he`s hoping more governments go bankrupt, so more social services get slashed. This is the man who tells Republicans what to do about economic policy.

But you can`t say they`re destroying our government on purpose, at least not on television. And except for Paul Krugman, God bless him, you can`t say it in print. No, the official party line is that Bush`s efforts to de-fund government and destroy every progressive social program introduced since the McKinley era is just a perfectly reasonable program of "economic incentives" designed to help "small businesses" that will soon produce "two million jobs."

The Bushies are throwin` a big ol` party for America. They`re gonna spend America right into the ground so that, after eight years, the country will be so far in the hole, politicians will have no other choice but to vaporize our hard-won safety net. And when that happens, Dubya will be happily retired, playing golf with his millionaire corporate buddies, laughing his head off as he tells `em how he fleeced the rubes in broad daylight.

3) THE BUSHIES ARE DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES TO COVER UP THEIR COMPLICITY IN THE 9-11 TRAGEDY - The Democrats know it. The families of the 9-11 victims know it. Hell, even the Republicans know it, and the Bushies MUST know it, because they`re doing it right under our noses. I mean, c`mon, 70 plus million to investigate Clinton`s dick, and a measly FOUR million to investigate the most heinous act of terrorism in American history? The Bushies classify every relevant document, and censor every report, and stymie every lead.

But you can`t say that on television. On television, what gets said and repeated is, "The Bush Administration is pressing for a thorough investigation that doesn`t compromise national security." They`re not pissing on your head. No, that warm yellow stuff is rain. Really.

4) THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS MAKING US MORE, NOT LESS VULNERABLE TO ATTACK FROM TERRORISTS - The Bush Administration certainly has its priorities in order. Two million dollars for a Super Bowl ad telling pot smokers they`re aiding terrorists? Yeah, that`s a great use of tax dollars. Funding "first responders" and making sure they have the communications gear to handle a terror emergency? Naaaaaah, cut that line item. Spend two billion to secure our ports so terrorists can`t smuggle in a suitcase nuke? Slash that bit of pork barrel nonsense. Provide funding for airlines for equipment to detect and divert a shoulder-fired infrared-homing missile, of the type favored by terrorists? What a waste of money! ("CONDI - Gin up a memo saying, `We had no idea that could possibly happen` in case it happens. That`ll cover us good. Dubya. P.s. destroy this memo")

Of course, you can`t say this on television. What you can say, "The Bush Administration is taking all sensible, reasonable precautions against future terror attacks." Fox News - We Deceive, You Believe.

5) THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IS A POLITICAL WING OF THE `RE-ELECT BUSH IN `04` CAMPAIGN - So if the Bushiest aren`t actually doing what needs to be done to protect America from the next terror attack, what ARE they doing? That`s easy enough - they`re planning a fear-filled spring, summer and fall of "Color-Coded" Terror Alerts specifically timed to spin the news cycle away from breaking news by their political opposition. Ever hear THIS news item on television? NOT ONE SINGLE TERROR EVENT has occurred after Terror Czar Tom Ridge has raised the alert level. NOT ONE! Then why does he keep raising it? To divert attention from news the Bushies don`t like? Whoops! Can`t say that - at least not on television.

Oh, the Department of Homeland Security does have one other function - private goon squad for Tom Delay when he wants to track down errant Democrats who aren`t showing adequate fealty in the Texas State Legislature.

6) THE REPUBLICANS HAVE AN IRON-CLAD, UNBREACHABLE LITMUS TEST FOR ALL HIGH COURT NOMINEES - If there`s one thing the `Publicans love, it`s to hammer the Democrats for having a `litmus test` for all their Judge nominees. Ever see anyone on television (or anywhere else) pointing out that the radical wing nuts running the Republican Party have their own litmus test? Has Bush ever nominated a Judge who was anything less than a glassy-eyed zealot in the battle to overturn Roe V. Wade?

7) THE REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING THE MOST CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION SINCE THE WARREN HARDING "OHIO GANG." I don`t mean "breaking the law" corrupt (although there seems to be a fair amount of that.) I mean corrupt, as in "business interests paying off public servants with trash bags full of cash, the politicos doing their bidding even though it violates the public interest." Sorry, not enough space in column to list every example, but let`s start right at the top -- Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney becomes Vice President, and ends up seeing that Halliburton gets a multi-billion dollar, no-bid, no penalty for cost overruns, open-ended license-to-steal sweetheart contract to re-build Iraq. Want more? Billy "House for Sale!" Tauzin and the generous Telecom boys. Tom "Bribe Me!" DeLay and Westar. "Dollar Bill" Frist and Eli Lilly. George "The Dubya`s a Dollar Sign" Bush and Enron. And on. And on. And on. And on. And on.

But you can`t say that on television. What you can say is, "The Republicans are running a robust fund-raising operation." Right. In the say way that Al Capone ran a "robust" beverage distribution system in Chicago in the 20`s

[Joerver]

Mike Shannon: `Shame on you, Mr. Secretary`
Posted on Saturday, June 21 @ 09:23:53 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mike Shannon

Even for a man to whom the words glib, self absorbed, arrogant and duplicitous appear to be perceived as complimentary; Friday, June 20`s performance at a nationally broadcast Pentagon news conference marked a new low for Donald Rumsfeld. By comparing the deaths of American service personnel with the murder rate of Washington, D.C. the Secretary has shown himself to have a degree of callousness that defies description. The point of his moronic contention was that if the population of the city of Washington was equal to that of Baghdad that simple mathematical extrapolation would show the casualty rate among the Americans soldiers is not so bad. This rhetorical exercise goes far beyond bad taste. Following the chain of command in the American Armed Forces, these are his men he is discussing in so cold-hearted a manner. How dare he discuss the deaths of these brave young men and women with so cavalier an attitude?

It should be noted that these comments are in keeping with the Secretary`s public record of exhibiting disdainful disregard for the welfare of the men and women he purports to hold in such high regard. He is, after all, the same man who dismissed the service of Vietnam era draftees as "not adding value" to the American Armed Forces even though over a quarter of all combat deaths in Vietnam came from their ranks.



Mr Rumsfeld`s latest shameful Freudian slip was intended to offset the mounting political damage the casualty rate in Iraq is having on the Bush Administration. With each new report of dead and wounded American soldiers reaching the eyes and ears of America, the validity of the President`s declaration of "Mission Accomplished" rings more and more hollow. However, all Rumsfeld accomplished was to showcase, in startling relief, a cognitive disconnect between the lives of these soldiers and his all encompassing need to achieve the objective that would make Prince Machiavelli and Doctor Strangelove blush with feelings of gross inadequacy.

Not only it is disgraceful from a humanistic perspective, the comparison is ludicrous on any number of levels. First, its statistical validity is highly questionable. By neglecting to mention, even in passing, the murders that are inevitably taking place among the residents of Baghdad by its fellow inhabitants, he completely skews the numbers in his favor. Secondly, to use the capital of the United States as an example to the world of how dangerous and poorly policed some cities in America are, is an affront to every resident of Washington, as well as the country at large. That Mr Rumsfeld is a high ranking member of the administration which is charged with maintaining the "general tranquility" of the United States, he should be embarrassed to highlight woefully ineffective their efforts are.

Most telling is his neglect to point out that the American army may have invited itself into the city of Baghdad, but now that they are there, there is no denying they represent the rule of law. The only accurate comparison that could plausibly be made is to compare the deaths of the American soldiers on station in Baghdad with the murder of Washington police officers. A comparison that would have exposed his logic to be as preposterous as it truly is.

It was just a few short weeks ago that each American casualty was treated as a newsworthy event. CNN was just one of many media sources where the names, pictures, brief biography and the how and where of each soldier killed thousands of miles from home and hearth was prominently featured. Now with Mr Rumsfeld`s disgraceful comments the deaths of young Americans in the service of their country have been reduced to statistical abstractions.

He should be ashamed of himself for doing so.

Contact Mike at [e-mail]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=11922&mode=nest…

[Joerver]

"Konfrontation ist eben mein Job"
Interview BERND PICKERT
und PATRIK SCHWARZ
taz: Mr Perle, Sie gelten als härtester aller Hardliner, seit Sie 1981 unter Präsident Reagan Ihren ersten Job im Pentagon antraten. Nur eines am "Prinz der Finsternis" scheint soft, fast engelsgleich: die sanfte Welle Ihres Haars. Warum tragen Sie keinen Offiziersschnitt?

Richard Perle: Weil dann völlig offensichtlich wäre, wie kahl mein Kopf ist. Aber im Ernst, ich weiß, dass ich als Hardliner gesehen werde, nur bin ich mir nie ganz sicher, was damit gemeint ist. Ich denke von mir, ich bin einfach realistisch und praktisch im Umgang mit der Welt.

Sie haben alles daran gesetzt, die Sowjetunion zu Fall zu bringen, Sie waren ein Verfechter des Wettrüstens, Sie wollten seit Jahren Saddam Hussein beseitigen: Was immer das Problem war, Richard Perle sah die Lösung stets in Konfrontation.

Das ist so, als sage man, dass ein Schuster immer einen Hammer in der Hand hält. Das ist nun mal, was ich mache: Ich arbeite auf dem Gebiet von internationaler Politik und Verteidigungs- und Sicherheitsfragen.

Muss es immer Gewalt sein?

Es gab auch Fälle, wo ich nicht für den Einsatz von Gewalt eintrat.

Zum Beispiel?

Ich habe nicht für Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion plädiert. Ich habe dafür plädiert, die Sowjetunion nicht als dauerhaft zu akzeptieren und ihre Macht einzugrenzen. Das Ergebnis war, dass der Kalte Krieg ohne Gewalt endete. War das falsch? Ich muss mich nicht entschuldigen für unseren harten Kurs während des Kalten Kriegs.

Aber von Reagans "Reich des Bösen" bis zu Bushs "Achse des Bösen" haben Sie die Gefahr übertrieben: die Sowjetunion kollabierte, die iranische Bedrohung in den 80ern war geringer als behauptet, und Irak …

Halt, halt! Die Sowjetunion ist nicht von selbst zusammengebrochen. Und unsere Beschreibung des militärischen Potenzials der Sowjets war ziemlich akkurat, wir zählten die Raketen, wir zählten die Panzer, wir zählten die Flugzeuge, und wir wussten einiges über ihre Kriegspläne.

Aber Sie haben die Stärke heillos überschätzt. Genau wie im Irak, wo die US-Regierung mit ihrer Einschätzung des Gefahrenpotenzials offenbar danebenlag.

Im Fall des Irak habe ich von Anfang an gesagt, es würde ein schneller Krieg werden. Insofern habe ich geglaubt, dass die Gefahr überzogen dargestellt wurde. Aber die Überschätzung kam von der Friedensbewegung, die ein Stalingrad am Euphrat prophezeite! Ich war sogar hier in Berlin in einer Talkshow, "Sabine Christiansen", mit dieser sehr netten Frau von den Grünen, Claudia, Claudia …

Roth?

Claudia Roth! Nice person. Sie sprach von massiven Bombardements mit hunderttausenden von Toten. Vor dem Hintergrund der deutschen Erfahrung ist das verständlich, aber wir wussten: das wird nicht Dresden.

Trotzdem, die öffentliche Begründung für den Krieg lautete, dass der Irak eine unmittelbare Bedrohung für die USA und die Welt darstelle.

Es gab viele Gründe dafür, Saddam Hussein zu entfernen. Einer davon war die Bedrohung durch Massenvernichtungswaffen. Die Beweise, die die Unscom-Waffeninspektoren (im Jahr 1998) lieferten, waren überwältigend. Jeder akzeptierte das, jeder! Sogar Präsident Chirac!

Paul Wolfowitz, der Stellvertreter von Verteidigungsminister Rumsfeld, hat in seinem berühmten Interview mit "Vanity Fair" zugegeben, dass die US-Regierung sich auf die Massenvernichtungswaffen konzentrierte, um der Öffentlichkeit den Krieg zu verkaufen.

Das ist nicht, was er gesagt sagt!

Okay, das ist eine Interpretation. Aber …

… Sie können nicht sagen, jemand sagt was, was er nicht gesagt hat, und es dann eine Interpretation nennen!

Sie haben eben selbst gesagt, es gab verschiedene Gründe für den Krieg - und die Massenvernichtungswaffen waren nur einer.

Absolut richtig.

Trotzdem hat Ihre Regierung im UN-Sicherheitsrat nur mit einem einzigen Argument operiert: Es gebe eine unmittelbare Bedrohung durch irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen. Jetzt wissen wir: Davon konnte offensichtlich keine Rede sein.

Ich weiß nicht, wie Sie "unmittelbar" definieren. Wenn Sie mit "unmittelbar" meinen, wir standen davor, übermorgen oder nächste Woche oder nächsten Monat angegriffen zu werden, dann sage ich: Ich habe das nicht geglaubt, und ich kenne niemanden sonst, der das glaubte. Was ist "unmittelbar"? Ich weiß nicht, was Sie mit "unmittelbar" meinen. Oder wollen Sie uns sagen, wir müssen bis zur letzten Minute warten, ehe wir irgendetwas unternehmen dürfen?

Nicht wir reden von einer unmittelbaren Bedrohung - die britische Regierung behauptete in ihrem amtlichen Bericht, Saddam Hussein könne Massenvernichtungswaffen innerhalb von 45 Minuten einsetzen.

Nein, das ist nicht, was der Bericht sagt. Der Bericht konstatiert, dass die Systeme innerhalb von 45 Minuten abgefeuert werden könnten, nachdem ein entsprechender Befehl dazu erteilt wurde. Mir hat bisher niemand gezeigt, dass diese Aussage falsch war.

Aber wenn Saddam so schlimm war, wie Sie vor dem Krieg sagten, hätte er die Waffen doch eingesetzt?

Sie hätten innerhalb von 45 Minuten nach einem Befehl abgefeuert werden können. Und ich glaube, dieser Befehl wurde nie gegeben. Ich bin überzeugt, die Waffen waren versteckt, und angesichts des Kriegsverlaufs waren Saddams Möglichkeiten eher begrenzt, die Waffen hervorzuholen.

Wenn er die Waffen noch hatte, warum tauchen sie jetzt nicht auf?

Weil gerade erst die Art von Kontrolle eingerichtet wird, die es braucht, um Dinge zu finden, die gut versteckt sind.

Das heißt, Sie stimmen zu: Ob der Krieg gerechtfertigt war, hängt davon ab, ob Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden werden?

Nein. Ich glaube, der Krieg war als Befreiungskrieg gerechtfertigt. Das ist meine persönliche Ansicht. Es war nicht die Ansicht der Regierung. Die US-Regierung sah das nicht als hinreichend an, sie wollte andere Ziele erreichen, inklusive der Beseitigung von Massenvernichtungswaffen.

So wie der Krieg mit dem Versprechen begonnen wurde, eine Gefahr abzuwenden, wurde der Frieden mit dem Versprechen begonnen, Irak werde ein Schaufenster der Demokratie in Nahost werden. Warum ist davon so wenig zu sehen?

Geben Sie uns ein bisschen Zeit. In den ersten dreißig Tagen nach der Befreiung Frankreichs wurden 35.000 Franzosen von anderen Franzosen getötet, viele unter dem Vorwurf, Kollaborateure gewesen zu sein. Seit dem Ende des Irakkriegs sind zwei Monate vergangen. Ich kann nur davor warnen, voreilig zu urteilen.

Wie lange sollten die USA im Irak bleiben?

Bis wir einen anständigen Ort hinterlassen, wie lange auch immer das braucht.

Was sind die Standards dieser Regierung für Anstand? In den 80er-Jahren waren sie bekanntlich nicht sehr hoch: da zählte sogar Saddam Hussein zu den Freunden der USA.

Er war nie ein guter Freund der USA, da sollten wir nicht übertreiben! Er erschien als das geringere Übel.

Im Konflikt mit Iran war er ein Verbündeter.

Er war kein Verbündeter, das wäre zu viel gesagt. Wir haben ihm auch nie Waffen geliefert. Nie.

Wirklich?

Nein. Nie. Er bekam Waffen von Frankreich und Russland. Wir haben allerdings zugelassen, dass Dinge in den Irak gingen, die dort nicht hätten hingelangen sollen, aber das waren keine Waffen.

Anthrax, zum Beispiel.

Ich bin mir nicht sicher, was die Anthrax-Geschichte betrifft. Jedenfalls haben wir mit Sicherheit kein Anthrax hingeschickt, damit es als biologischer Kampfstoff eingesetzt wird. Das ist absurd. Es gab Anthrax, das in Labor-Situationen benutzt wurde. Richtig ist sicherlich, dass wir im Krieg zwischen Iran und Irak nicht wollten, dass Iran gewinnt. Und dafür zahlten wir einen hohen moralischen Preis.

Jetzt haben Sie die irakische Regierung gestürzt - was ist Ihr Ziel im Iran?

Regime change. Mit friedlichen Mitteln.

Warum diesmal friedlich?

Weil das immer besser ist. Das ist ein Regime, in dem eine Hand voll religiöser Fanatiker jeden Aspekt des öffentlichen Lebens diktiert, das Leben von Millionen von Iranern. Die mögen das nicht, das ist klar. Die Studenten protestieren. Ich dachte, Deutschland wäre immer auf der Seite der Studenten - wo seid Ihr denn heute? Nicht mehr auf Seiten der Studentenbewegung?

Sie gehören in Washington seit zwanzig Jahren zu den Hintermännern der Politik, die Sie einmal beschrieben als "Stadtguerilla in dunklen Anzügen, die nicht mit AK-47-Gewehren kämpft, sondern mit Aktennotizen und Positionspapieren". Hat Ihre Truppe jetzt endgültig die Regierung übernommen?

Nein, nein, nein. Das Zitat stammt aus einem Roman, den ich mal schrieb. Aber es ist ein großer Fehler, vor allem der Europäer, zu denken, dass die Politik dieser Administration das Ergebnis einer kleinen Zahl von Leuten ist, die entweder den Präsidenten manipulieren oder sonstwie Druck ausüben. Unsere Argumente sind alle offen zugänglich, das ist keine Verschwörung.

Aber hatten Sie jemals mehr Einfluss als heute?

Ja, als ich ein junger Assistent im Stab eines Senators war. Das war vor 25 Jahren - und da musste ich nur einen Mann überzeugen. Verstehen Sie, es ist nicht so einfach, die Politik eines Landes zu ändern.

Es heißt, die Neokonservativen sind zahlreich in Washington.

Sie unterschätzen diesen Präsidenten. Er ist sehr intelligent. Und er ist sehr unabhängig. Und er sieht jeden Tag Berichte, die er nicht ignorieren kann: Wenn Terroristen eine Nuklearwaffe in die Hände bekommen, werden sie sie nutzen, um eine sehr große Zahl von Menschen zu töten. Wenn Sie dauernd diese Berichte bekommen, werden Sie wahrscheinlich ziemlich genau das tun, was dieser Präsident tut.

Michael Moore schreibt dazu in seinem Buch "Stupid White Men", die Regierung Bush fache die Furcht ihrer Bürger vorsätzlich an.

Ich weiß, dass Michael Moore in Deutschland sehr beliebt ist. Aber wenn Moore Ihre beste Grundlage für ein Urteil über Weltpolitik ist - viel Glück!

taz Nr. 7083 vom 20.6.2003, Seite 3, 287 Zeilen (Interview), BERND PICKERT / PATRIK SCHWARZ

[Joerver]

Where Are WMDs? Where`s Congress?
WASHINGTON, June 20, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/opinion/meyer/main…

Is Congress going to have the guts to do a proper autopsy on the Iraqi WMD controversy? In his latest Against the Grain commentary, CBSNews.com`s Dick Meyer hopes for the best and predicts the worst, given that the lawmakers have chosen closed hearings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WMD-Gate Inquisition has begun not with a bang but a whisper.

There will not be a credible, serious investigation of the spies, the Bush Hawks, the WMDs and the war without some big bangs.

Will that happen? Will Congress cop out? I can’t say it’s looking good.

The congressional committees tasked with finding the secrets of the secret agents have opened hearings on the intelligence secrets used to justify the war with Iraq -- in secret. In both the House and the Senate, the intelligence committees are meeting behind closed doors.

Closed hearings have their virtues, the noblest being that they preclude most pandering to the cameras. Having covered many spectacle hearings -- the Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and John Tower confirmations, Iran-Contra, the Clinton impeachment -- I am no fan.

But closed hearings held by committees with narrow jurisdictions cannot and will not provide the oversight needed in the post 9/11, post-Iraq War world.

This is not, as Republicans would have you believe, just a matter of settling a now academic argument about whether Saddam had an arsenal of unconventional weapons and plans to build more.

Yes, the backwards-looking questions are big: Did the intelligence agencies give the policymakers the straight and full scoop? Did the Bush Hawks let them? Did the administration’s War Council -- the customers as they are called -- use the intelligence they were given honestly to make the case for war. Was the public duped about why American soldiers were sent off to get killed in Iraq?

But the forward-looking questions are even more important and that’s a point Republicans and the Bush administration is trying to spin away.

If Iraq had WMDs, could other scary countries and terrorist have them now? Does the CIA have the capacity to answer that?

Since the Bush administration has declared a policy of pre-emptive warfare that says America reserves the right to wage war upon countries or terrorists that pose a threat,who tells us where the threats are? The spies will. And their credibility, and the credibility of the customers needs to be well examined before the next call to arms. It would be nice to know what the deal is with Iraq’s WMDs before we take on Iran, Syria or North Korea.

Enter politics -- here defined as the desire of elected officials to get reelected.

Republicans members of Congress think an Inquisition will hurt their reelection prospects. The White House agrees.

And many Democrats also think an Inquisition -- and I use that phrase in the noblest and nicest sense -- hurts them politically. Their reading of the polls suggests Americans approve of the outcome of the war no matter what its ostensible justification was. Carping now about dead horses like WMDs could make the Dems look like unpatriotic partisan hacks.

The Democratic and Republican low roads lead to the same place.

So it’s not a shock that the partisan jousting in the House has been mild. Republicans and Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agreed on a process and substantive hearings commenced this week. The may be in private but they aren’t phony.

But here’s a problem. The Republican chairman of committee, Rep. Porter Goss, a former CIA agent, said, “I’m not going into what the customer did with the intelligence.”

In other words, his committee will investigate whether the CIA slanted intelligence in order to please their customers. It will look to see if the spooks did a lousy of finding out was going on in Iraq in the first place.

But the committee will not conduct a post-mortem on the actual policies and decision of the Bush White House. The committee will stay in its jurisdiction. That may be proper, but it’s not good enough. It’s only looking at part of the picture.

Initially, Senate Republicans recognized that a wider and deeper inquest was necessary. The Senate Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, it was announced, would hold joint hearings to examine the intelligence and the policy, the war and the prewar. But they weaseled out of it.

So Senate Intel began its closed hearings with a partisan squabble, undecided on how to proceed, Republicans reluctant to dig deep.
The ranking Democrat on the committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said, "What they appear to be doing is entirely inadequate and slow-paced and potentially kind of sleep-walking through history."

Somnambulation is an equal opportunity affliction; it can affect Democrats, too. And right now, it’s going to take a big bang to wake Congress up.

And once more, for the record: Where’s Osama? Where’s bin Laden?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dick Meyer, the Editorial Director of CBSNews.com, is based in Washington. For many years, he was a political and investigative producer for The CBS News Evening

[Joerver]

Keine Satire. Der Film ist gedreht worde. Keine Satire

washingtonpost.com
`D.C. 9/11` Spins Tale of President on Tragic Day
Showtime Docudrama Depicts a Defiant, Decisive Bush

By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 19, 2003; Page C01


LOS ANGELES, June 18 -- In the hours after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, a bold, forceful President Bush orders Air Force One to return to Washington over the objections of his Secret Service detail, telling them: "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I`ll be at home, waiting for the bastard!"

Well, the president didn`t actually speak those words. But it`s close enough for the Hollywood version of events. In a forthcoming docudrama for the Showtime cable network, an actor playing the president spits out those lines to his fretful underlings in a key scene.

The made-for-TV film, "D.C. 9/11," is the first to attempt to re-create the events that swirled around the White House in the hours and days immediately after the strikes on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

The quintessentially American story was shot primarily in Toronto, where drafts of the movie`s dialogue were leaked to the Globe and Mail newspaper.

Sources here confirmed the generally heroic portrayal of the president and his aides, including the dramatic scene in which Bush is hopscotching the country in Air Force One as a security precaution. When a Secret Service agent questions the order to fly back to Washington by saying, "But Mr. President -- , " Bush replies firmly, "Try `Commander in Chief.` Whose present command is: Take the president home!"

The two-hour film, to air around the second anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, stars Timothy Bottoms as Bush, reprising a role Bottoms played for laughs on the short-lived Comedy Central series "That`s My Bush!," which went off the air a week before the Sept. 11 attacks. Many of the movie`s secondary roles, such as Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell, are played by obscure New York and Canadian actors. Among the familiar faces in the cast are Penny Johnson Jerald (she plays the president`s ex-wife on the Fox series "24"), who appears as national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and George Takei (Sulu on the original "Star Trek" series), who plays Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. The movie`s veteran director, Daniel Petrie, made such films as "Eleanor and Franklin," "Sybil" and "A Raisin in the Sun."

The writer-producer of "D.C. 9/11," Lionel Chetwynd, declined to discuss specific scenes or dialogue in the film. But he defended its general accuracy, saying: "Everything in the movie is [based on] two or three sources. I`m not reinventing the wheel here. . . . I don`t think it`s possible to do a revision of this particular bit of history. Every scholar who has looked at this has come to the same place that this film does. There`s nothing here that Bob Woodward would disagree with." Woodward, a Washington Post assistant managing editor, is the author of "Bush at War," a best-selling account of the aftermath of Sept. 11.

Chetwynd said his approach to the post-Sept. 11 story was similar to that of a 1974 TV movie, "The Missiles of October," a dramatization of the showdown between President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev over Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba in 1962. "This is about how George Bush and his team came to terms with the reality around them and led the country in a new direction," he said.

He noted that the take-me-home scene is based on actual events. "Did [the president] assert his right to go home? Did the president decide to overrule the Secret Service? Yes, he did."

But the movie, which includes some documentary news footage, has already drawn scattered criticism. Writing in the Toronto Sun, columnist Linda McQuaig compared it to Hollywood`s mythologizing of figures like Wyatt Earp and added that it "is sure to help the White House further its two-pronged reelection strategy: Keep Americans terrified of terrorism and make Bush look like the guy best able to defend them." And Texas radio commentator and self-styled populist Jim Hightower has derided "D.C. 9/11." On his syndicated radio program this week, Hightower said the movie will present Bush as "a combination of Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger. . . . Instead of the doe-eyed, uncertain, worried figure that he was that day, Bush-on-film is transformed into an infallible, John Wayne-ish, Patton-type leader, barking orders to the Secret Service and demanding that the pilots return him immediately to the White House."

Neither McQuaig nor Hightower has actually seen "D.C. 9/11," notes Chetwynd, a Canadian emigrant whose earlier films ("Hanoi Hilton," "The Siege at Ruby Ridge," "Kissinger and Nixon") have often touched on national politics and policy.

However, Chetwynd acknowledges that he began the project as a "great admirer" of the president. Chetwynd is among the few outspokenly conservative producers in Hollywood, and one of the few with close ties to the White House. His 2000 Showtime film "Varian`s War" (about an American who rescued French Jews from the Nazis) was screened at the executive mansion for the president and Mrs. Bush. In late 2001, President Bush appointed him to the President`s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.

In researching "D.C. 9/11," Chetwynd had access to top White House officials, including Bush. What`s more, Chetwynd ran the script past a group of conservative Washington pundits, including Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer and Morton Kondracke.

But he insists that only he and Showtime had control over the film`s content and tone. "This isn`t propaganda," he says. "It`s a straightforward docudrama. I would hope what`s presented is a fully colored and nuanced picture of a human being in a difficult situation."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Was braut sich da mal wieder gegen Deutschland zusammen.
Einmal der Beweis, dass Bush ein Clon (nicht Clown) ist und dann noch die geheimnisvolle Ankündigung der London Times, dass Bush deutsche Vorfahren hat. Dazu auch noch der Beweis, dass fast alle Neocons deutscher Abstammung sind. Was will uns die Murdock Times damit sagen, dass alles Schlechte aus Deutschland kommt oder werden da nur wieder einige Sun-Schlagzeilen vorbereitet. Oder sollte, wenn die Weltherrschaftspläne mit Murdock als Propaganderminister (Achtung: Murdock ist gebürtiger Australier) nicht klappen, schon einmal die Schuldfrage geklärt sein. Bei Murdock weiss man nie. Weiss jemand, wo Murdocks Vorfahren herkommen?



June 21, 2003

Mein Gott! America is the new Germany
Matthew Parris

Germans are America’s big ethnic secret. No people and no culture has contributed more to what the United States is and is becoming. In the nation’s ethnic tangle, no root runs deeper than German America. As a scattered community only fitfully conscious of its own existence, none has more successfully pursued wealth, power and intellectual influence. And as a philosophical force in US politics — a whole political mindset — none has greater potency. Germany as a European state may have lost her way, the German language may struggle to keep its world grip, but the German spirit is alive and well and living in — and through — America: Bismarck’s last laugh on modern history
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,482-720253,00.html

[Joerver]

White House money machine may spawn gremlins
By Walter Shapiro


It was Jesse Unruh, the California Democratic leader during the 1960s, who coined the famous line: ``Money is the mother`s milk of politics.`` By that standard, George W. Bush`s re-election campaign is a veritable dairy. The president corralled $3.5 million at a single Washington dinner Tuesday night -- and the menu was nachos and hot dogs. When the campaign`s lowball estimate of how much it can collect for a primary race without opposition is $170 million, you`re looking at the greatest political fundraising machine since Louis XIV dined alone.

Is there anything ethically wrong with an incumbent president gracing a series of record-breaking fundraising dinners at which the maximum legally permissible contribution is $2,000?

Veteran campaign reformer Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, issued a tartly worded press release declaring, ``President Bush`s drive to raise as much as $200 million in campaign contributions for his uncontested presidential primary race is unwarranted, unnecessary and demeaning to his office. The president is pursuing a path of pure excess in his quest for political money, just as his predecessor President Bill Clinton did.``

Really? The biggest danger when an incumbent president hits the money trail is that his quest for campaign swag will put him in close proximity with donors who want special favors from the government. That is what happened during the Clinton fundraising scandals of 1995-96, when the president regularly met in small, intimate groups with big-ticket contributors who would then write five- and six-digit checks to the Democratic Party. These unregulated donations, known as ``soft money,`` have been banned by campaign-reform legislation from 2002. The law is awaiting Supreme Court review.

Now for the Hype & Glory rule of political fundraising: Nothing unethical ever occurs in a hotel ballroom. The Washington Hilton may have been filled with Republican lobbyists animated by self-serving causes, but it is impossible to buy inappropriate access when all you do is listen to the president give a speech. Bush did meet for a 45-minute photo session with the 160 dinner co-chairs, who had each raised at least $20,000. But when each co-chair gets an average of 17 seconds with Bush, this isn`t the setting to whisper, ``Mr. President, I have this small problem with the IRS.``

In an interview, Wertheimer stressed that he was worried that the Bush fundraising captains would win undue influence with the administration. ``I think raising $100,000 gives you clout under any system,`` he said. Wertheimer also expressed concern that the Democratic presidential contenders, panicked over the president`s fundraising prowess, would decide to reject partial public financing for their primary campaigns, as Bush has done. Under the law, the government will match individual contributions up to $250 if a candidate abides by a series of limits, most notably an overall spending cap for the primaries of around $44 million.

But Wertheimer didn`t raise what may be a more realistic fear: the tactics that are possible when a campaign is awash in more money than it needs to win. As Republican consultant Rich Galen puts it, ``I don`t see how they can spend $200 million. About the only way to do it is to make a major motion picture.`` Galen theorizes that the Bush-Cheney campaign will end up legally transferring about half its swag to the Republican Party and the GOP House and Senate campaign committees.

In early 2002, California Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, also boasting a bursting campaign treasury, approved a cynical but devilishly clever campaign strategy. Instead of patiently waiting for the outcome of the Republican gubernatorial primary, Davis launched a devastating, $9 million ad blitz attacking the man he believed to be his strongest challenger, moderate former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan. The result of this unprecedented meddling in the opposition party`s primary: Riordan lost to conservative Bill Simon, who was then trounced by Davis in last November`s election.

What makes this Davis gambit relevant is that a Republican-leaning political group, Americans for Job Security, is now employing a low-budget version of the same technique in the Democratic presidential primaries. The group`s target is North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, a former trial lawyer who has received many campaign contributions from fellow attorneys. Starting Friday, passengers arriving at the Manchester, N.H., airport, the jumping off point for reporters covering the nation`s opening-gun primary, will see billboards with legends like this: ``Next time you see him, tell John Edwards it`s time for lawsuit reform.``

Mike Dubke, the group`s president, admits to a grudging admiration for Davis` hardball tactics: ``Just looking at it from a political point of view, that was a brilliant strategy.`` On the campaign trail in New Hampshire, Edwards has frequently pointed to these attack ads, which were announced last month, as potent evidence that the Republicans fear him as the most electable Democratic contender. Asked about a potential boomerang effect, Dubke says, ``I don`t feel like we`re inadvertently helping Edwards. I think he is using us to scratch and crawl his way to name recognition. If he wants to wear this as a badge of honor in his primary, so be it.``

Americans for Job Security, which advertised heavily in the 1992 congressional campaigns in support of free-market economic nostrums, is only spending about $10,000 on these airport ads in Manchester and, eventually, Des Moines, Iowa.

But what about the Bush-Cheney campaign and its $170 million? There is no evidence that the president`s team is planning anything mischievous in the Democratic primaries. But it will be hard to resist temptation when you are blessed with the biggest bankroll in political history.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20030620/5261862s.htm

[rv_2011]

#3387

Woher Murdochs Vorfahren kommen, weiß ich auch nicht; sein Vater war schon Zeitungsverleger. Deutsch hört sich der Name nicht an. Aber bestand die weiße Urbevölkerung Australiens nicht aus Sträflingen?

Diese Times-Geschichte ist seltsam.
Mir fallen zwei gegensätzliche Interpretationen ein:
- Man will den Deutschen Brei ums Maul schmieren, damit sie wieder zu ihrer Vasallenpflicht zurückkehren
- Murdoch fängt an, sich von der Bush-Klicke abzusetzen. In GB geht das am einfachsten, indem die Amis in den Ruch des Germanentums bringt.

Gruß, rv

[Joerver]

Rv
#3387 war nicht so ernst gemeint. Ich halte den Artikel eher für einen Zufall. Vielleicht lässt da irgendjemand einen Versuchsballon los und hofft, dass sich daraus etwas entwickelt. Aber aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach , ist das morgen schon vergessen. Es langt höchstens für eine Art einer Satire, wie ich es versucht habe. Also nimm es nicht so ernst, und wenn was draus werden sollten, waren wir zu erst dran.

[Joerver]

Augenblicklich hält sich Bush`s Rating auf ~60%. Die Abweichung liegt bei +/-3%, wegen der geringen Anzahl der Befragten 1065 Personen.

POLL ANALYSES
June 20, 2003


Bush Approval Rating Stabilizes at 63%
Ratings of Bush on issues show postwar decline


by Jeffrey M. Jones
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The most recent Gallup Poll shows that George W. Bush`s job approval rating has stabilized in the low 60s after declining from its wartime levels. The public continues to give Bush positive marks for his handling of foreign affairs, but his ratings in this regard have dropped considerably from shortly after the Iraq war. The public is currently evenly divided in its evaluation of how Bush is handling the economy.

The poll, conducted June 12-15, finds George W. Bush`s latest job approval rating at 63%. Bush`s rating has held steady in June (with readings of 64% in a May 30-June 1 poll and 62% in a June 9-10 poll) after falling from wartime levels of about 70%, and remains slightly higher than Bush`s last prewar rating of 58%.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030620.asp

[Joerver]

Published on Saturday, June 21, 2003 by Reuters
Now Bush Says Iraqi Weapons Sites Were Looted
by Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON - President Bush, trying again to explain the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, said on Saturday that suspected arms sites had been looted in the waning days of Saddam Hussein`s rule.

"For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world. And in the regime`s final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

It is believed to be the first time Bush has cited looting to explain the inability of U.S. forces to uncover chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, a U.S. official said.

Bush had previously said weapons may have been destroyed before the war. The U.S. military has been criticized for failing to prevent looting at an Iraqi nuclear facility.

Bush has been widely criticized for misleading the public by asserting that Saddam had stockpiles of unconventional weapons that menaced the world. The allegations were Bush`s main justification for bypassing the United Nations and ordering the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"The intelligence services of many nations concluded that he had illegal weapons and the regime refused to provide evidence they had been destroyed," Bush said. "We are determined to discover the true extent of Saddam Hussein`s weapons programs, no matter how long it takes."

This week, Bush dismissed questions over his reasons for going to war as the work of "historical revisionists."

In his radio speech, he sought to address problems in post-war Iraq, including attacks on U.S. troops and the slow pace of reconstruction.

"American service members continue to risk their lives to ensure the liberation of Iraq," he said, blaming "dangerous pockets of the old regime" and their "terrorist allies" for the attacks. The U.S. military was combating the threats by hunting down Saddam loyalists and "terrorist organizations."

The United States has provided more than $700 million in humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Iraq, Bush said.

With its allies, it was fixing water treatment plants, boosting electricity supplies and vaccinating children. A $100 million U.S. fund, billions of dollars in recovered Iraqi funds and revenues from oil sales will help pay for reconstruction.

Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd
http://commondreams.org/headlines03/0621-01.htm

[Joerver]

DNA tests after missiles strike `Saddam convoy`
Human remains removed after US Hellfire missiles target source of dictator`s satellite phone call

Jason Burke in Baghdad
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

American specialists were carrying out DNA tests last night on human remains believed by US military sources to be those of Saddam Hussein and one of his sons, The Observer can reveal.

The remains were retrieved from a convoy of vehicles struck last week by US forces following `firm` information that the former Iraqi leader and members of his family were travelling in the Western Desert near Syria.

Military sources told The Observer that the strikes, involving an undisclosed number of Hellfire missiles, were launched against the convoy last Wednesday after the interception of a satellite telephone conversation involving either Saddam or his sons.

The operation, which has not yet been disclosed by the Pentagon, involved the United States air force and ground troops of the Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment based around Ramadi, a major town 70 miles west of Baghdad.

Despite previously unfounded US claims that Saddam had been killed during the bombing of Baghdad before the invasion by America and Britain, the sources indicated that they were cautiously optimistic that they had finally killed the target they described as `the top man`.

Asked about rumours circulating in senior military circles about the incident, one US officer with knowledge of the raid on the convoy said: `That is unreleasable information. The Pentagon has to release that information.`

The Pentagon last night refused to comment on what it called `operational matters`. However, other military sources indicated they were optimistic the tests would show that Saddam and at least one of his two sons, Uday and Qusay, were among the dead, although they stressed that a conclusive identification of the men killed in the attack had not yet been made.

The convoy, composed of several four-wheel-drive luxury vehicles, was attacked after the telephone call was intercepted. An air strike was then organised.

The sources confirmed that Uday Hussein, the deposed dictator`s eldest son, was thought to have been travelling with his father in the convoy. The convoy is believed to have been heading for the Syrian border and was intercepted near the frontier town of Qaim. Several such convoys heading for the border were destroyed during the conflict in March and April.

Another US military source confirmed that there was `an incident in the Western Desert` and said that information about it was `unreleasable pending verification`. Other sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed that they were awaiting confirmation that the remains were those of Saddam and Uday following full DNA tests. It was not known when the tests would be completed, but the sources indicated it was `imminent`.

The attack on the convoy came two days after US authorities captured Abid Hamad Mahmud, one of Saddam`s top aides. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Mahmud, who was seized by American Special Forces near Saddam`s home town of Tikrit, had provided information about Saddam`s whereabouts.

The paper reported that Mahmud had told US authorities that the deposed Iraqi leader and his two sons survived the war and that the sons, along with the aide, escaped to Syria, only to be forced to return to Iraq.

The officials said the aide had described a plan by Hussein and his sons to split up to increase their chances of survival as US forces closed in on Baghdad in April. Mahmud was captured last Monday in a raid near the Iraqi city of Tikrit that also netted a number of other, less senior Saddam Hussein loyalists, officials said. But neither the deposed Iraqi President nor his sons were with Mahmud.

`We`re not yet sure he`s telling the truth,` one senior defence official said of Mahmud`s information. `He could simply be reciting a set of talking points.`

However, the report, from the most significant member of Saddam`s government caught so far, contributed to an increasing sense among US authorities last week that the net was closing on the ex-Iraqi leader, who was believed to be hiding somewhere north of Baghdad.

Accounts differed yesterday over the extent to which Mahmud had helped pinpoint the locations of Saddam and his sons. NBC News, which first reported that Mahmud was talking, said some of his information has included places where Saddam or the sons may be found.

A Special Operations group known as Task Force 20, made up of army and navy counter-terrorist teams, had been spearheading the long hunt for Saddam and family members.

US officials last night confirmed reports that Mahmud had told his interrogators that he, Saddam and the sons at one point fled to Syria and then re-entered Iraq. Syria has angrily denied US charges it harboured Saddam or members of his family or that it had any knowledge that top former Iraqi leaders might have taken refuge across its border during or since the US-led invasion that toppled Saddam.

Officials told Reuters that the `information, or perhaps disinformation,` from Mahmud had intensified the hunt for Saddam Hussein and the sons by US Special Operations troops and paramilitary intelligence agents in Iraq.

White House officials said on Friday it was unclear if the former Iraqi leader was alive or dead. `We know that this guy (Mahmud) was his (Saddam`s) shadow at one time. But who knows what`s true and what`s not here,` one US official said last night.

Mahmud was regarded by Washington as the most wanted Iraqi figure after Saddam and his sons.

The presidential secretary was the ace of diamonds in the US `deck of cards` of 55 most-wanted Iraqis and the highest-placed of them caught so far.

US forces have now captured at least 32 of the 55 on the list.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

`Grey Fox` closes in on prize scalp: Saddam
Peter Beaumont examines the new role of a secret unit that worked in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Colombia

Peter Beaumont
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

The most secretive military unit in the US armed forces is code-named Grey Fox. Over the past two months its role has been boiled down to a single mission: the hunt for Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay.

And if Saddam is now dead, killed last week, it is certain Grey Fox was involved: Saddam would be its biggest catch since the downfall of Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar.

Officially members of a unit named `Intelligence Support Activity`, Grey Fox was established by the Pentagon in 1981 to work as manhunters, assassins and deep penetration agents.

Since then, the unit that has been criticised by senior US officials for its `lawlessness` and `lack of control` has hunted Serbian war criminals in the Balkans, fought in Somalia, and in counter-terror operations across the globe: it is a key part of what the Pentagon calls its `black world` of undercover operations.

But it was in the war in Afghanistan that the unit was expanded and given its free hand, part of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld`s efforts to build a massively expanded covert military capability for the US war on terrorism.

Now the soldier-spies of Grey Fox, part of Task Force 20, who come under the political control of the Pentagon`s new Under Secretary of State for Intelligence, Stephen Cambone, have one mission: to kill or capture Saddam.

It is Grey Fox`s unmarked signal interception aircraft that have been flying in low passes over areas of Iraq such as the `Sunni Triangle`, north of Baghdad, monitoring sat phone and radio communications by Baathist holdouts.

And it is Grey Fox`s men on the ground, along with CIA, SAS and MI6 teams, that have been hunting for the most senior members of the regime, in the hope that this will lead them closer to Saddam and his family or produce definitive knowledge of their fate.

A hunt on a massive scale has used spy satellites, photo-reconnaissance aircraft, and unmanned drones, which have been searching the area between Baghdad and Tikrit, the dictator`s home town and the place where, most US intelligence officialsguess, Saddam has been hiding.

Grey Fox`s intercept operators have also been scanning the airwaves of encrypted communications equipment used by his lieutenants to communicate with other members of the Baath party leadership.

Grey Fox`s mission in Iraq has become more urgent as the security situation has declined and as the parallel hunt for Saddam`s alleged weapons of mass destruction has come close to farce.

And so Saddam - dead or alive - has become the obsession of post-Baathist Iraq, a panacea that senior US officials, both civilian and military, have convinced themselves will instantly end the escalating lethal attacks on the US forces of occupation.

This logic has been best described by Paul Bremer, Iraq`s US civilian administrator. `I think it does make a difference because [as long as Saddam`s whereabouts remain a mystery] it allows the Baathists to go around in the bazaars and in the villages, which they are doing, saying, "Saddam is alive, and he`s going to come back". We must obviously continue to leave no stone unturned in the search for Saddam.`

And so the trawl has gone on, a search that to the outside world seems at best chaotic and rumour-filled, despite the occupying forces` success in capturing other high-profile members of the regime.

In the weeks since Baghdad`s fall, US forces have stormed homes and offices and mosques following tip-offs that Saddam or members of his regime had taken refuge there.

US troops also searched a Baghdad bomb site for DNA evidence as to whether Saddam Hussein was killed in an April air strike, after US intelligence sources said they believed he was inside a house levelled by US bombs on 7 April.

The present theory is that Saddam was in the house in the upmarket Mansour district but survived the bombing and left shortly after. According to neighbours quoted in the US media his entourage spent much of the war hiding in a home a block away from the bombed house.

Now US officials believe there was a prearranged signal for senior Iraqis to flee as the regime collapsed, citing evidence they have uncovered such as the distribution of fake identification documents to top officials.

Although none reported seeing Saddam, residents said they believe he fled only after the bunker-busters hit nearby. They said Saddam`s top bodyguard, Ali Nassir, and a cousin, Gen Ali Suleyman Abdullah al-Majid, were among those who guarded the house until hours after the bombing.

But for all its impression of chaos, Grey Fox`s hunt has quietly been tightening the noose on a man many officials, both British and US - including Britain`s Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon - have believed to be alive and at large in Iraq.

Day by day and week by week the most senior officials in Saddam`s regime have been scooped up, surrendering or arrested by US officials.

Those captives include some of the highest ranking figures, 31 now of the `pack of cards` of Iraq`s 55 most wanted, including Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, Zuhayr Talib abd al-Sattar al-Naqib, director of military intelligence, Amir Hamudi Hasan al-Sadi, a presidential adviser on scientific and technical affairs, and Rihab Taha, also known as Dr Germ.

Last Monday saw the most significant capture of all, with the arrest of Saddam`s personal secretary and No 4 on the Americans` most-wanted list from the former regime, Abed Hamid Mahmoud.

Third in power only to Saddam and his younger son, Qusay, it was Mahmoud who controlled access to Saddam, who was his companion when Saddam made his pilgrimmage to Mecca, and is said to be one of the few people he trusted completely.

Until last week. Perhaps.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Bravo Company snatches its prey in the heat of day
Jason Burke joins a squad of US reservists as they hunt for an Iraqi guerrilla leader in the dusty streets of Ramadi

Jason Burke
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

The word is passed down the line of men crouching against the wall. They whisper, fearful of waking those in the house that looms above them. `Fire in the hole,` they mutter one after another. `Fire in the hole.`

There is a pause. It is 6am and Ramadi, a dirty, dusty town 70 miles west of Baghdad, is very quiet. The morning is still relatively cool, though the fierce heat that will scorch the streets within hours can already be felt.

Sweat drips from the helmet chinstraps of the engineers who have fitted the demolition charges to the house`s steel doors.

Then comes the blast. Glass shatters and the metal gate, twisted beyond recognition, is thrown against the now shrapnel-pocked wall of the house.

The US soldiers, Bravo Company from the 1st Battal ion, 124th Infantry Regiment, attached to the Third Armoured Cavalry Regiment, pour in through the smoke.

In a back room, sleeping on thin mattresses on the floor, is Mustafa Abdul Latif, his wife, her sister, and his young daughter. Within seconds Latif, a thin, muscular man in his mid-thirties, is in plastic cuffs, his arms behind his back. The women are standing in the kitchen, hands clasped in the classic pose of supplication. The air is full of cordite, sweat and American expletives.

Latif, according to Captain Joe Lyon, who commands Bravo Company, is a ringleader of the Fedayeen, an informal militia formed of Baath Party loyalists who have been responsible for daily attacks on American troops in Ramadi.

Early last week an American patrol was ambushed in a street only 100 metres away by dozens of fighters with Kalashnikovs, hand grenades and light anti-tank weapons. Several men were injured in a 45-minute firefight. According to Lyon, US intelligence has ascertained that Latif was behind the attack.

As one group of soldiers searches the house, hauling the contents of cupboards on to the floor, rifling mattresses, others move on to other objectives. Two platoons in the unit, which is largely composed of National Guard reservists mobilised for the war in Iraq, are from Puerto Rico. As the men stream into the next house their sergeant calls out their names: Garcia, Lopez, Juarez, Mejia. Commands are shouted in Spanish.

The unit has been in Ramadi for nearly two months. It is based in one of Saddam`s palaces, where the marble floors are strewn with fatigues, weapons, muscle magazines, toiletries sent from home and battered desert boots.

Mosquito nets hang between the colonnades. A makeshift sign - `Mortars. High Angle Hell. Demons of Destruction` - leans against a carved pillar. Every afternoon the soldiers swim and fish in the Euphrates. Noon temperatures run into the high forties Celsius.

Ar Ramadi, one officer explains, is the `shittiest bit of the shittiest bit` of Iraq. In recent weeks, serious resistance to the American occupation of the country has been concentrated in the so-called Sunni triangle, a rough zone of land to the west and north-west of Baghdad that includes Saddam`s home town of Tikrit.

This was the part of Iraq that benefited most from Saddam`s regime and many of the local tribes were fiercely loyal to the dictator. They provided the core of his Mukhabarat intelligence service and the army. Now this is the region where the Fedayeen are causing most problems.

`These are the diehards,` said Lyon. `It`s been pretty busy here. We`ve been taking fire day and night.`

About 40 American soldiers have now been killed and hundreds more injured since President George Bush declared the war in Iraq officially over on 1 May.

Many analysts fear that the US could be drawn into a long and costly guerrilla war. Even routine operations are now targets. The Observer joined a squad on a vehicle checkpoint. Within an hour the radio crackled with the news that `according to a previously reliable intelligence source` we were about to be targeted with mortars.

`They`ll drive up, hip-shoot a few rounds off the back of a pick-up, and be gone before we have located them,` said one sergeant.

`We took fire the other day,` said Private Kanai Thiin, a 24-year-old from Hawaii, `and we never saw who it was from. That`s pretty usual.`

The Fedayeen can melt away so effectively because they have many supporters among the general population.

It is difficult to tell exactly what grievances lie behind the resentment of the Americans. In Ramadi this weekend, though many local residents complained bitterly about the American presence, most appeared more worried by the failure to restore power, water supplies and sanitation to much of the city rather than by the continuing occupation of their country.

`Saddam was a bad man, but when he was there we could live, we could work. But in the past two months [the Americans] have destroyed us,` said Mohammed Ahmed, 40, who is unemployed. There is also a profound sense of wounded pride. `The generals were traitors and sold our country to the Americans for money. Otherwise we would have won,` said one former Iraqi soldier. He admitted, however, that he had thrown away his weapon and deserted when he heard that Baghdad had fallen.

The Americans are trying to maintain a fine balance, attempting to win over truculent local people while maintaining maximum security. The two objectives are often in conflict.

Heavy-handed searches, of the type witnessed by The Observer, involve large numbers of troops, armoured vehicles and attack helicopters. Such operations provoke profound anger.

Yet the Americans insist that the people will be happier when there is law and order and that the searches are necessary to counter the Fedayeen.

One accusation that surfaces regularly is that the Americans are stealing money during the searches, which occur almost daily in the city. In fact, what happens is that all large sums of cash that are found are seized for fear they will be used to buy guns.

The money may sometimes be for buying guns, but in most cases there is a more innocent reason for the stashes. With no banking system to speak of, most Iraqis have nowhere to put their money. Most withdrew their savings before the war and hid them in mattresses.

Lyon and his company detained eight men, including Latif. Other elements in the unit took another 15 and drove them, blindfolded and handcuffed, to a former army base for questioning.

All the damage done during the raid was photographed. This is so that, provided there is no evidence of criminal activity in the house, the soldiers can arrange for its repair, courtesy of the US taxpayer.

Surveying the detainees, Lyon admitted that the searches did not help relations with local people. `Every time we do this we make a bunch of enemies,` he said. `But we`ve got to get the bad guys too. It`s a hard one.` Yesterday morning there seemed little doubt in the mind of Lieutenant-Colonel Hector Mirabile, the officer running the search mission, that he was doing the right thing.

Chomping on an unlit cigar and wearing wrap-around shades, he strode through the narrow alleys and congratulated his troops. `Outstanding,` he said. `We got Mustafa. We got the son of a bitch.`


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US general condemns Iraq failures
Ed Vulliamy in New York
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of `failing to prepare for the consequences of victory` in Iraq.

At the end of a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General William Nash told The Observer that the US had `lost its window of opportunity` after felling Saddam Hussein`s regime and was embarking on a long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned.

`It is an endeavour which was not understood by the administration to begin with,` he said.

Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo.

He is currently a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, specialising in conflict prevention.

In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said the US had `failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country`.

`It is much greater and deeper than just the consequences of war,` he added. `It comes from 12 years of sanctions, Israel and Palestinians, and a host of issues.`

As a result, he says, `we are now seeing the re-emergence of a reasonably organised military opposition - small scale, but it could escalate.`

It was insufficient for the US to presume that the forces now harassing and killing American troops were necessarily confined to what he called a residue of the Saddam regime. `What we are facing today is a confluence of various forces which channel the disgruntlement of the people,` said Nash.

`You can`t tell who is behind the latest rocket propelled grenade. It could be a father whose daughter has been killed; it could be a political leader trying to gain a following, or it could be rump Saddam. Either way, they are starting to converge.`

He said: `the window of opportunity which occurred with the fall of Saddam was not seized in terms of establishing stability`.

`In the entire region - and Iraq is typical - there is a sense that America can do whatever it wants. So that if America decides to protect the oilfields and oil ministry, it can.

`And if America doesn`t provide electricity and water or fails to protect medical supplies, it is because they don`t want to or they don`t care.`

Nash is reluctant to make comparisons with Vietnam: `There are far more things that were different about Vietnam than there are similarities. Except perhaps the word "quagmire". Maybe that is the only thing that is the same.`


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Dangerous liasons
The gunner apologised and told us that he had been about to kill us. He said he had his finger on the trigger. A second later, it would have been too late.

Peter Beaumont
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

There was a picture last week in London`s Evening Standard newspaper of a group of young American soldiers. It brought me up short. I had turned inside from the front page story about a group of American soldiers who had admitted that they were so indiscriminate with their fire that they had killed civilians, perhaps a lot of them, in the battle for Baghdad. The young men looked like any other of the US troops I had met in Iraq. And then a face jumped out. One of the group seemed somehow familiar. Scouring the text I realised that I had met men from this unit as I drove into Baghdad. And how, by their own account, they had almost killed me.

It had been a strangely chaotic day when I ran into the men of 3/15th batallion of the 3rd Infantry Division, a support unit, that had followed the first tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles into Baghdad`s outskirts with petrol tankers, food and ammunition. We had driven up from the southern port city of Umm Qasr close to the Kuwaiti border, where we had been camping outside the port while we covered the fall of Basra. But as the news from Baghdad became more urgent we decided to head north and try to reach Baghdad on the same day. Four car-loads of us set out - the majority Americans - following the 3rd Infantry Division`s main supply route until we emerged on a deserted motorway not far from Baghdad`s airport.

The first intimation of trouble came a little later as we tried to pass a burned out Iraqi tank blocking the north bound carriageway. Passing the tank a group of Americans nearby fired a `warning shot` that passed close to the lead car, so close in fact that a furious row emerged between the American driver and the gunner and commander of the Bradley, who simply laughed it off.

They let us pass and we continued into Baghdad`s suburbs past a scene of utter devastation - burning buildings, burning US military vehicles and bodies by the road - spead out between three motorway intersections.

It was late in the day and the fierce fires and smoke in the twilight gave the scene a hellish glow. But for all that the American tank crews we passed, most of them mobbed by curious Iraqi civilians, waved at us cheerfully enough and so we carried on hoping to reach the hotels of Baghdad city centre where we hoped to spend the night.

Aware that we were approaching through a fighting army`s rear we took it very slowly the flashers on our cars turned on, with white flags and in cars marked with taped on orange panels and taped on cehvrons to signify that we were friendly.

We crossed a bridge and that is when things suddenly turned nasty. Heading down the bridge towards a luxurious area of palaces we didn`t see the wire perimeter across the road ahead or the Bradley in the dusk. We heard the warning shot and stopped the vehicles dead. But something was wrong about the soldiers ahead. We could see them deploying and bringing weapons to bear on our vehicles. And suddenly we very afraid.

Sometimes you make decisions on the hop. Several of us jumped out of our vehicles and strated screaming `Media!` `American journalists!` including a tall, blond US woman reporter. So tall and blond - I am convinced - that she could not be mistaken for anything else. As they ran towards us and searched us and our vehicles I recognised something - that these men were both very scared and very angry, the worst kind of soldiers to encounter.

They led us to their headquarters where they fed us and let us sleep. They seemed nice boys. But something the gunner on the Bradley said, scared me. He apologised and told us that he had been about to kill us. He said he had his finger on the trigger. A second later, it would have been too late for an apology.

Later when I went back to visit them they told their stories. Of a terrifying battle with Arab volunteers. Of vehicles destroyed on both sides. They said they had been driven at by suicide cars. What they did not say was what they later told the Evening Standard: that among the hundreds that they had killed in their 8 hour battle on that motorway and in the days that followed, many were certainly unarmed civilians killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I should have guessed. Among those who I interviewed in Baghdad`s hospitals over those few days were occupants of cars - many of them children - whose vehicles had been destroyed. Gun camera footage broadcast round the world showed tanks and Bradleys engaging any car they came across as they drove into Baghdad. At Nasiriyah too American troops had admitted the same thing. Faced with the Saddam Fedayeen, in their civilian clothes, anyone was assumed to be an enemy and killed.

A young Marine admitted it to me himself outside the main complex of Baghdad`s hospitals: how his unit had shot up a car approaching a checkpoint too fast. The only survivor was a boy with his face cut in half.

So what happened then in the advance into Baghdad - and what is happening still as American soldiers fire on crowds of demonstrators? The answer struck me recently. The world`s biggest and most formidible army - the most technologically advanced - lacks discipline regarding its own rules of engagement and an ability - the critical ability - to properly identify targets before engagement.

This is not a new problem. It is behind the too frequent incidences of US friendly fire on its allies; behind the arrogance with which US forces treated many Iraqis.

But the result is a recklessness and a lack of care for civilian casualties that borders on the criminal.

When I look at that picture of those young men from the 3/15th, when I remember their terrible baptism by fire in the battle on that motorway, I would like to feel more sympathy for them than I do. They are good men most of them, but they have put on the green suit and taken up the gun. And they have failed in the terrible responsibilty that this confers upon them.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Observer Worldview Extra
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq`s summer war
Faltering attempts to meet basic Iraqi needs could turn simmering discontent into widespread and active opposition

Katy Cronin and Joost Hilterman
Sunday June 22, 2003
The Observer

The U.S. rulers of Baghdad are still banking on military muscle rather than on administrative talent or political persuasion in Iraq. On those terms, they run a higher risk of losing the most important battle.

Over the past week thousands of U.S. troops have swept through towns and villages north and west of Baghdad, arresting suspected Baathists. Hundreds were detained on suspicion of being involved in armed resistance, including one top aide to Saddam Hussein. In the end most were released, but at least 11 Iraqis were killed. Two more were shot dead by U.S. troops during a demonstration by former Iraqi solders on Wednesday.

This is a dangerous time. The United States and Britain will have to work much more quickly - and with more than sheer force of arms - if they are to keep the Iraqis on their side. The coalition has barely begun to address the Iraqis` most basic needs - personal safety, steady electricity, clean water, health care, a modicum of job security and the prompt payment of salaries. As the blistering summer heat sets in, there is a real risk of widespread and serious trouble.

The collapse of the hated regime of Saddam Hussein has of course brought positive changes and new freedoms to Iraq - including the right to object and protest, and the rudimentary beginnings of an electoral process. But there is a grave risk that US military actions and the relative invisibility of reconstruction efforts by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) are pushing Iraqis to extremes that will make the task all the more difficult.

The coalition`s failure even to try to stop the robberies, rapes and murders following the collapse of the regime on 9 April quickly began the erosion of support for the U.S. military action to oust Saddam. Almost three months on, electricity, clean water, cooking gas, and fuel for cars and machinery are still in terribly short supply. Security remains precarious at best. Because of this, many Iraqis are coming to the conclusion that their liberators are not interested in helping them - beyond the removal of the regime.

The Authority has done little to correct this perception. Ensconced in one of Saddam Hussein`s vast palaces in Baghdad, Authority officials are not allowed to leave the palace grounds without military escort. They venture out infrequently and know little of Iraq and Iraqis. In turn, Iraqis have no venue, such as walk-in centres, where they can go to air problems, register complaints or hear first-hand from Authority officials. Internal and external phone links are poor or non-existent.

Communication problems have been compounded by delays in restoring broadcasting facilities. Instead, the Authority`s summary edicts are communicated through the profusion of new newspapers and via radio (which is unreliable because of the electricity problem). These orders are often embellished and distorted as they spread mostly through word of mouth, and have been received with a mixture of outrage, resignation, puzzlement and a profound sense of disempowerment.

The first such edict, delivered on 16 May, proclaimed the `disestablishment` of the Baath Party - the political organ of the Saddam regime. While this was applauded in some circles, it was much more widely criticised as being too sweeping and disregarded due process.

There are three distinct kinds of Baathists - those who were loyal to Saddam, those who joined the party out of expediency, and those who joined early out of ideological conviction. Among the second two categories are the vast majority of civil servants, police, judges, engineers and others who were happy to see the back of the regime and have the skills to make the country run again.

By banning all of them without distinction, the Authority has ostracised a vital group - and may even end up uniting opposition to the occupation rather than alienating the Saddam loyalists. The Authority should seriously reconsider this order and return qualified senior managers to their positions if they do not have a proven record of corruption or abuse. A vetting mechanism should also be introduced to methodically screen the upper echelons of ministries and national institutions.

A more recent order disbanding the military and other security forces has been received with even greater anger. This edict has put hundreds of thousands of young men on the streets without serious prospects of work or compensation. It is feared that many will join the gangs of thieves who roam the streets, or form the core of future armed resistance to the occupation. Some of these men were on the streets last week - demonstrating against the US and demanding a fairer deal. Shooting at them - as the US forces did - is not the answer to these mens` problems.

There is also growing resentment among Iraqis who aspire to political power. Even those who came from overseas feel that they are being offered far less than the Iraqi-run interim government that they thought the United States had agreed to before the war. The closest they are likely to get in the short to medium term is an interim council of 25 to 30 appointed by L. Paul Bremer, the chief US administrator in Iraq, without serious decision-making powers.

Low-level elections have taken place in some professional associations and municipal authorities, but nation-wide elections are not expected to begin for a year - a long time for people who are already questioning the legitimacy of their current rulers.

Washington and London are now scrambling to bring tangible improvements in the situation. They could do worse than enable the UN to play a more meaningful role. The UN`s exclusion from anything but a humanitarian and advisory role has set the Iraq crisis apart from virtually all previous internationally managed transitions, including the Balkans, Afghanistan, East Timor and Central Africa.

Prior to the war the U.N. had a full-scale presence in Iraq - not only sanctions monitors and weapons inspectors but also its various humanitarian agencies, including UNICEF, UNDP and WHO. These bodies have expertise that is desperately needed now. Neither the U.S. nor the Iraqis are likely to accept a UN-led interim administration. But the UN does have regional political credibility and experience and can play a helpful part in accelerating the process that will turn power over to the Iraqi people.

What is puzzling is that so little advance preparation appears to have been made for dealing with the problems that have arisen in Baghdad. Many if not most of them should have been anticipated based on years of experience with post-conflict transitions elsewhere.

The Iraqis` faith in their new rulers is being undermined by ad hoc decision making, lack of cultural sensitivity and apparent neglect of the problems that rile them most. Urgent and focused action is needed if this discontent is not to be transformed into widespread and active opposition in the coming months.

· Joost Hiltermann is Middle East Project Director of the International Crisis Group. Katy Cronin is ICG`s Director of Media and Information. ICG`s latest Iraq report, Baghdad: A Race Against the Clock, is available at www.crisisweb.org

You can write to the authors of this piece at [e-mail].

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Powerless Iraqis rail against ignorant, air-conditioned US occupation force
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
22 June 2003


As temperatures reached a scorching 45C (113F) in Baghdad last week people in al-Thawra, a sprawling working-class slum, unearthed hidden rifles and threatened to kill the manager of the local electrical sub-station if he did not resume power supplies.

"Some had guns and others threw stones at us, but I told them this was just a sub- station and we aren`t receiving any electricity," said Bassim Arman, the harassed-looking manager. "Now I have to close down anyway, because employees are too frightened to come to work."

Electricity is vital to life in the Iraqi capital where the temperature can soar as high as 60C (140F) at the height of summer. Without it there is no air-conditioning, no refrigerators to prevent food rotting and no light in a city terrified by looters. The failure to get the electrical system working has become a symbol for Iraqis in the capital of the general failure of the American occupation to provide living conditions even at the miserable level they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.

Asked about Baghdad`s lack of electricity at an air-conditioned press conference, Paul Bremer, the American head of the occupation authority, looking cool in a dark suit and quiet purple tie, simply asserted that, with a few exceptions, Baghdad was now receiving 20 hours of electricity a day. "It simply isn`t true," said one Iraqi, shaking his head in disbelief after listening to Mr Bremer. "Everybody in Baghdad knows it."

Few Iraqis mourn the fall of Saddam but there is a growing, at times almost visceral, hatred of the occupation. "They can take our oil, but at least they should let us have electricity and water," said Tha`ar Abdul Qader, a worker at the Central Teaching Hospital for Children, the main door of which can only be entered by walking through a fast-flowing stream of raw sewage.

Attacks on American troops are still sporadic and not organised centrally, but when one American soldier was shot dead and another wounded by gunmen in a passing car near al-Doura power station, passers-by unanimously said they approved of the attack.

Even the few Iraqis who have joined the Coalition Provisional Authority under Mr Bremer - which operates out of Saddam Hussein`s heavily fortified Republican Palace in the centre of the capital - describe the American officials administering Iraq as "living in an air-conditioned fantasy world".

At a meeting on Thursday between Mr Bremer and some 60 Iraqi political leaders, formerly the opposition to Saddam, Mahmoud Othman, a highly respected veteran Kurdish politician, bluntly suggested that the American army pull out of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities to camps in the countryside.

"I told Bremer that Baghdad was a paralysed city," said Mr Othman. "He and his staff don`t really know what it is like, because if they go out at all, it is in air-conditioned cars. But I`ve walked the streets, and I know what it is like. They are ill-informed and ill-advised."

Only 15 minutes` walk from Mr Bremer`s office Shamsedin Mansour, a poor shopkeeper in an alleyway off al-Rashid street, gave a bleak picture of how he and his neighbours live. "We have had no electricity for six days," he said. "Many of our people are suffering from heart problems because of the heat. We live with as many as 42 people in a house and do not have the money to buy even a small generator. Without light at night it is easy for gangs of thieves with guns to take over the streets, and the shooting keeps us awake. If we try to protect ourselves with arms, the Americans arrest us."

The problem for the US administration is that it largely operates without any help from Iraqis, because it allowed the Iraqi state to dissolve after the war. American soldiers man checkpoints, their heavy armoured vehicles blocking the road, and search for arms. But Iraqis simply drive around them through the side streets. Even if the soldiers checked identity cards or passports this would not be very useful, since a fully stamped Iraqi passport can be bought illegally for $50. Many blank passports were stolen by looters at the end of the war, together with the requisite stamps.

The obvious solution for the US is to set up an Iraqi provisional administration, operating under ultimate American control. But attractive though this might be, it would also mean ceding some power to Iraqis, something Mr Bremer is loath to do. Hoshyar Zebari, a leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, says that ultimately the US will be forced to allow an Iraqi provisional government of real authority, "because their present course - occupation by America alone - won`t be successful".

The main reason why Washington does not want to give up any power is the fear that this would ultimately open the way for a takeover by Iraq`s Shia Muslims, who account for at least 55 per cent of the population and would probably win any free elections. Just outside the Mansour Melia hotel on the Tigris in Baghdad yesterday, a Shia religious leader in turban and dark clerical clothes called Sheikh Ahmad al-Zirzawi al-Baghdadi was leading several hundred demonstrators to Mr Bremer`s headquarters. "We are not asking for American troops to withdraw, just free elections and the release of our leaders whom they have arrested," he said.

But for President George Bush it would be deeply damaging if, in an election year, the successors to Saddam Hussein in Iraq turned out to be Islamic religious parties with possible links to Iran.
22 June 2003 09:28


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

Afghanistan regains its title as world`s biggest heroin dealer
By Andy McSmith Political Editor and Phil Reeves Asia Correspondent
22 June 2003


Afghanistan is still the source of almost all of the heroin sold in London, even though Britain has poured millions into trying to stamp out the war-wrecked country`s resurgent drugs production business.

Opium poppies are springing up from the plains to the mountains of Afghanistan in far higher quantities than in the final year of the Taliban, which the US and Britain overthrew, while vowing to end the region`s narcotics trade. Opium - from which heroin is extracted - is produced on farms only a few dozen miles from the capital city of Kabul, headquarters to the international effort to end the heroin trade and rebuild the country.

Local Afghans say that bags of heroin are used in lieu of currency in some parts of the lawless countryside where - more than two years after the Taliban was toppled - the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai has failed to establish control.

After the war, Britain assumed responsibility for co-ordinating the international effort to crush Afghanistan`s opium trade. It is spending £70m over three years on a project to eradicate poppy production by providing Afghan farmers with another livelihood and by training the fledgling and badly under-manned police force. But this bleak picture suggests that its efforts have so far failed to turn the tide.

HM Customs and Excise, which is running a programme in Kabul, has admitted that 95 per cent of the heroin sold on London`s streets is still of Afghan origin. This has prompted George Osborne, a Tory MP who sits on the Public Accounts Committee, to call for an investigation into what has been happening to the money.

Mr Osborne, who fears that much of it may have been pocketed by regional warlords, wants an investigation by the National Audit Office, which supervises public spending.

Figures released by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime show Afghanistan now grows more than nine times as many opium poppies as during the final year of the Taliban. The roaring opium trade runs counter to one of the main aims declared by Britain for joining the US in the war on Afghanistan.

In October 2001, a few days before the start of the Afghanistan war, Tony Blair told the Labour Party conference that "the biggest drugs hoard in the world is in Afghanistan, controlled by the Taliban". He said then that 90 per cent of the heroin on London streets was from Afghanistan: "The arms the Taliban are buying today are paid for with the lives of young British people, buying their drugs on British streets." The Prime Minister repeated this claim a week later in the Commons, when he announced that the military campaign had begun, telling MPs that the Taliban "is largely funded by the drugs trade".

The cultivation of opium reached its peak in 1999, when 225,000 acres - 350 square miles - of poppies were sown, with the complicity or encouragement of the Taliban, who were accused of using part of the proceeds to buy arms. The following year, the Taliban responded to international pressure to start reducing the opium harvest. It banned poppy cultivation, declaring it to be "un-Islamic" - a move which cut production by 94 per cent, although it continued to allow trading. By 2001 only 30 square miles of land were in use for growing opium poppies.

A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government of Hamid Karzai, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles, with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world`s largest opium producer once more.

One of the reasons that aid workers have been unable to persuade Afghan farmers to switch to growing crops appears to be the continuing security problem in the country, deepened by the slow rate of recruitment to the national army and police. The Karzai administration has tried offering cash to farmers as compensation for not growing opium, but the money - £1,850 per acre - proved far less than the profits available from staying in the poppy business.

There are few signs that the security situation is improving. US bases and Afghan government forces come under almost daily attack. There have been attacks on international aid workers - a fortnight ago four German peacekeepers in Kabulwere killed by a suicide bomber.

Mike O`Brien, a Foreign Office minister, admitted that "security in Afghanistan remains a serious concern". A Foreign Office spokeswoman said there was no "quick fix" to the drugs production problem in Afghanistan. But Britain was involved in a "very ambitious" anti-narcotics programme, she said, "especially when you think of the lack of government infrastructure in large parts of the country outside Kabul".
22 June 2003 09:30
contributions | Other Digital sites

© 2003 Independent Digital

[Joerver]

Now Bush blames failure to find WMD on looters
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
22 June 2003


It has taken more than two months. But belatedly, from his Democratic challengers for the White House and in committee rooms on Capitol Hill, President George W Bush is starting to feel the heat of the controversy over Iraq`s missing weapons stockpiles.

In his weekly radio address yesterday, Mr Bush was forced to produce a new explanation of why the US has not found Iraq`s alleged chemical and biological weapons. He told listeners that suspect sites had been looted in the closing days of Saddam Hussein`s regime.

But this rationale is no more likely to still the gathering debate than the President`s dismissal last week of the "revisionist historians" who doubt the administration`s pre-war claims that Iraq not only possessed a huge chemical and biological weapons arsenal and an active nuclear weapons programme, but had close links with the al-Qa`ida terrorist organisation.

Mr Bush hitherto has faced nothing like the pressure on his ally Tony Blair in Britain - partly because the war always enjoyed greater public support here, making his Democratic opponents wary of challenging a popular president on national security.

More fundamentally, most Americans still do not accept the critics` premise. One recent poll found that a third of the population actually believes that weapons have been discovered, even though the best investigators have come up with are a couple of vehicles some experts say might have been mobile bio-weapons laboratories. According to a Gallup survey last week, 83 per cent of Americans believe Saddam was developing nuclear arms, despite no serious evidence to support that view.

The tide, however, may at last be starting to turn. On Capitol Hill, powerful committees are cranking up for hearings into the performance of the intelligence agencies before the war, and whether their findings were exaggerated by the administration.

On the campaign trail too, Democratic candidates are finding a voice. Bob Graham of Florida, former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has declared that Mr Bush "politicised and manipulated" the evidence. Even more telling could be the broadside delivered by Senator John Kerry of Massachu-setts, an early front-runner for the presidential nomination.

Mr Kerry, a Vietnam war veteran and an expert on national security, had previously been circumspect on the issue - not least because of his support last autumn for the Congressional resolution giving Mr Bush virtual carte blanche to use force against Saddam. But in fiery remarks in New Hampshire, where the critical primary takes place in January, he accused Mr Bush of lying. "He misled every one of us," he declared, vowing that Congress would get to the bottom of the matter.

But it is anything but certain he can deliver on that. Republican control of both chambers means Mr Bush`s party has the majority on the committees gearing up to investigate. In any public hearings, for which Democrats are pressing, key administration witnesses may avoid questioning by citing national security concerns.

The Democrats themselves are also divided. The former House minority leader Richard Gephardt and Senator Joe Lieberman, Al Gore`s running mate in 2000, remain among the strongest supporters of the war.

All these factors explain why Mr Bush has enjoyed what an envious Mr Blair must consider a free ride so far. That state of affairs is only likely to change if the security situation inside Iraq deteriorates to a level where resistance can no longer be attributed to "dangerous pockets of the old regime" and their "terrorist allies". At that point public opinion will start to ask in earnest why the war was launched in the first place.
22 June 2003 09:31

© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
Foreign Fighters Add to Resistance in Iraq, U.S. Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON with DOUGLAS JEHL


CAMP DOHA, Kuwait, June 21 — United States military commanders say foreign fighters are being actively recruited by loyalists to Saddam Hussein to join the resistance against American forces in Iraq, posing a new challenge to efforts to stabilize the country.

Military officials say that American troops in Iraq have had to contend with Syrians, Saudis, Yemenis, Algerians, Lebanese and even Chechens.

Many of these fighters took up arms against the United States during the American thrust to Baghdad. A significant number remain, and a new effort is under way to lure more to Iraq to join the fight against the Americans, officials say.

"You have got Baath Party and regime loyalists west and northeast of the city who are calling buddies in foreign countries and getting fighters to come across the border," Maj. Gen. William Webster, deputy commander of the allied land command, said in an interview. "They are also rounding up those who are already here and issuing them weapons."

New evidence about the role of foreign fighters, including passports and other documents, was gathered after the American air and ground attack last week on a militant camp at Rawa, about 150 miles northwest of Baghdad. According to American military commanders, two wounded foreigners were also captured — a Saudi and a Syrian.

American officials said the two captives had told them that they were offered money to come to Iraq and kill American soldiers.

Foreign fighters played an important role during the war. Busloads of fighters drove in from Syria and fought soldiers from the Army`s Third Infantry Division who pushed into the center of Baghdad. American soldiers confirmed their nationality by retrieving passports from bodies of dead fighters.

What is significant now, American military officials say, is that foreign fighters continue to play an active role in Iraq and continue to be recruited for pay or to join in a new struggle against the Americans. The effort indicates a considerable degree of organization behind the resistance against the American presence, though officials say it does not appear to be under the central control of a single leader or group.

It also points to an emerging threat to American forces. Militants who want to strike against American targets no longer need to travel to Persian Gulf states. They can accomplish that in Iraq, where there are 145,000 American troops and a growing core of civilian administrators and experts.

The American military has been been trying to track the fighters and has been attacking them when they find them. The goals are to demonstrate that the fighters have no hope of evicting American forces from Iraq and to prevent Iraq from becoming a magnet for Islamic militants. The goals of the foreign fighters seem to be to raise the American casualty toll and to create pressure on the Americans to withdraw.

"Their goal is to break our will and persuade us to prepare an exit strategy," a Washington-based official said.

The strike on the Rawa camp is a recent case in which the Americans clashed with foreign militants. The camp appears to have been a site where foreign and Iraqi fighters trained for attacks on Americans.

American officials estimated that there were almost 70 fighters at the camp before the attack. Some foreigners were trying to get there from Syria when the raid occurred, an official said. The exact number of fighters killed in the attack and how many of them were foreign is difficult to say. The camp was pummeled by satellite-guided bombs and attacked by an AC-130 gunship.

Most of the fighters were literally ripped apart by the blasts, American military officials say, making it difficult to determine how many were there in the first place. An Army Ranger was wounded in the attack, the only American casualty in the raid. An American Apache helicopter was also shot down, an indication of the ferocity of the resistance.

American officials assume the fighters are militants whose presence in Iraq is not state-sponsored.

There appear to be several reasons why foreign fighters have managed to maintain a foothold in Iraq. One is the nature of the American campaign itself. The United States soldiers and marines who converged on Baghdad moved north toward their goal from Kuwait. The areas west of the capital and the stretch north between Baghdad and Tikrit were not in the invasion path. For two months after the fall of Baghdad, the American military presence in those regions was relatively limited. One result is that Hussein loyalists and other fighters used those areas to hide and regroup.

"So there were too few of the Baathists and the Saddam Hussein enforcers that were captured or killed in that area," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a recent news conference. "And that means that that portion of the conflict continues."

The failure to find Mr. Hussein is also a factor. Whether he is alive is uncertain, but the inability of the allies to find him has enabled Iraqi insurgents to continue invoking his name as a rallying cry.

Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of the Fourth Infantry Division, which is deployed north of Baghdad, said that his soldiers had been successful in reducing infiltration across the Iran-Iraq border and that he thought progress had been made in controlling Iraq`s border with Syria. But the western part of Iraq is still a dangerous region.

A Defense Department official said there had been 131 incidents of conflict involving American forces in Iraq during the past two weeks, only about 40 percent of which had been initiated by American forces. Most were in the regions that United States forces have identified as the Falluja, Balad and Baquba corridors, which include areas that abut Syria and were among the last occupied by American troops.

Of the 131 incidents, 41 were attacks on American compounds, 26 were attacks on observation or guard posts, and 26 involved American convoys. Most took place at night, with small arms or rocket-propelled grenades.

American officials say that they do not know where Mr. Hussein is and that they have no reason to think that he is orchestrating the attacks.

"There are clearly more foreign fighters in the country than we ever knew, and they`re popping up all over," a senior Defense Department official said.

Mr. Rumsfeld also underscored the problem this week.

"We know that there were busloads coming in with money and recruiting posters during the conflict, and we stopped the buses to the extent we found them," he said. "The people that are getting scooped up now, there`s some Syrians in the latest net that was cast. And I`m sure there are people — either they were in there or they`re still coming in from neighboring countries. And it is something that`s obviously unhelpful."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
Bush Says Hussein Loyalists Cause Soldier Deaths
By THOM SHANKER and DAVID E. SANGER


ASHINGTON, June 21 — President Bush, speaking at length for the first time about the continuing casualties among American troops in Iraq, said today that remnants of the ousted government were trying to "kill and intimidate" American soldiers there.

"The men and women of our military face a continuing risk of danger and sacrifice in Iraq," Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address. But, he added, "our military is acting decisively against these threats."

Mr. Bush raised the topic 10 weeks after Baghdad fell and 7 weeks after he declared on May 1, aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, that the active phase of the fighting was largely over. After coming under sporadic attacks since then, the military has mounted significant operations to round up suspected resisters. More than 28,000 troops are in Baghdad enforcing the law, he said.

He avoided the lingering question of whether Saddam Hussein was alive or in any way coordinating the attacks, saying only that "dangerous pockets of the old regime remain loyal to it, and they, along with their terrorist allies, are behind deadly attacks designed to kill and intimidate coalition forces and innocent Iraqis."

He also said the occupying forces would keep looking for chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, and defended the intelligence assessments before the war, saying that the intelligence services of "many nations" had similarly concluded that Mr. Hussein had illegal weapons.

White House officials said that amid continuing questions about the casualties and about Mr. Bush`s remarks before the war on weapons of mass destruction, he felt he had to address what one official called "the growing questions about why we went in, and what we are doing there."

Mr. Bush vowed to pursue evidence of those weapons, which has been scant, "no matter how long it takes."

The nearly daily reports of attacks on American forces in Iraq have prompted questions on Capitol Hill and debate among political strategists about the public`s patience for the military occupation of Iraq.

Pentagon officials said on Friday that 55 Americans had died in Iraq since President Bush declared the end of major combat operations on May 1. Most died in accidents, and 18 in hostile fire.

On Thursday, Paul T. Nakamura, a 21-year-old Army specialist, died when the vehicle he was traveling in was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.

A total of 138 Americans died in the offensive to capture Baghdad and topple Mr. Hussein, according to military officials. That puts the total American dead at 193.

During the main military operations, the American military presence in Iraq reached a peak of 151,000; today that number is about 146,000.

Mr. Bush briefly touched on the situation in Iraq in three appearances in the last week, telling cheering crowds that Mr. Hussein was no longer a threat to the United States. But he had not so specifically discussed the risk to American troops until today, and the radio address, officials say, is regarded inside the White House as the way for Mr. Bush to deliver the message with just the emphasis he seeks.

He spent much of the brief address detailing $700 million in relief and reconstruction aid that the United States has spent, and said that "after years of neglect, Iraq`s 4.2 million children under the age of 5 are receiving vaccinations against diseases such as polio, measles and tuberculosis."

Mr. Bush did not detail the casualties that the United States has suffered as it deals with attacks by snipers, guerrillas and others hostile to the occupation. But while military commanders mourn the loss of each soldier, they also say that the attacks have been insignificant militarily and are having no effect on day-to-day operations of the American combat forces in Iraq.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expressed confidence this week in the public`s patience, saying that the American people "have a very good center of gravity."

The drumbeat of reports that American troops have come under attack in Iraq raises the possibility that, in an election year, a prolonged and painful occupation could hurt Mr. Bush. He is seen as having gained political support for his handling of the invasion of Iraq but is also being criticized for how things have gone since the main combat operations ended.

But even a leading Democratic pollster said there was little indication of slipping public support.

"If peace does not turn out as well as the war turned out, it could undermine how people evaluate this president`s foreign policy skills and how they evaluate the war," said the pollster, Mark S. Mellman.

"A long occupation that is difficult, daily headlines of American casualties, an unwelcome atmosphere for American troops or even a continued large American presence — eventually those kinds of things have the potential to undermine support for the policy and support for the president," he added.

But he also said that "the tide has not turned in the public`s mind — it`s a question of time and events — and that tide may never turn."

While several commentators have said the public will take notice if the number of Americans killed in Iraq during the postwar period surpasses the wartime deaths, senior military officers say that sets a false comparison, because the allied force raced to Baghdad while suffering low casualties.

Other issues that may affect public support for the reconstruction of Iraq are the debate over the administration`s statements about chemical and biological weapons and how long a sizable American ground force will be needed to stabilize Iraq. Military officers acknowledge concerns over a single attack that kills or injures a large number of American forces, like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said Democratic candidates who might be planning to criticize the Iraq mission from the campaign trail risked alienating voters. "Our men and women are under fire and dying to protect freedom," he said. "It demonstrates the huge disconnect between the liberals who control the Democratic Party and the rest of America."

Unlike the war in Vietnam, in which public support for the conflict dwindled as combat deaths grew, the American people still view the Iraq offensive "as a just cause," Mr. Bond said.

Mr. Rumsfeld likewise rejected predictions of slipping public support, and said at a Pentagon news conference this week: "I think the American people have a very good center of gravity. And I wouldn`t sell them short, if I were you."

The American people, Mr. Rumsfeld added, "recognize the difficulty of the task."

On Capitol Hill, the Senate Armed Services Committee met in a closed-door session on Friday to review the security situation in Iraq. Afterward, Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who serves as chairman, said, "We`re very concerned in our committee, as I find colleagues throughout the Senate are, as well."

He also expressed "full confidence" in Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the wartime commander, and his forces "to bring about a greater degree of order in that nation," and he added: "This is not a risk-free operation. And we regrettably have to bear those risks to fulfill this mission."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
TV Stations Based in U.S. Rally Protesters in Iran
By NAZILA FATHI


TEHRAN, June 21 — Jilla, a prosperous homemaker, has been trying to outwit the Iranian government`s campaign to jam Persian-language satellite television stations based in Los Angeles.

First she adjusted her satellite dish. Then she attached an empty can. She even tied a pot lid to a mop, and stood the lid upright facing the dish. No luck.

"I have become restless; I have no idea what`s going on with the protests," she said, staring helplessly at a European music channel.

Jilla, 46, said her family and friends were taking part in the protests against the government, which spread to other cities in Iran.

The protests sprang up on June 11 and were made to order for the stations, which oppose the government and are eager to add to the pressure.

President Bush has also seized on the issue, insisting that the government take heed of the protesters.

Channel One, which has been broadcasting live 24 hours a day during the protests, has become extremely popular. Shahram Homayoon, an Iranian journalist based in Los Angeles, has been the station`s on-air host for up to 21 hours a day, and he said in a telephone interview that he was determined to continue, "until people reach freedom."

The programming includes a summary of the news in Iran and patriotic music. But for most of the day, Mr. Homayoon fields phone calls from Iranians — broadcasting the experiences and emotions of the demonstrators back to their own country.

A weeping mother called to say that her son had been arrested and that she feared she would never see him again. If the authorities harm him, she said, she will become a suicide bomber against the government.

Another woman called to say that she was badly beaten after being arrested and held for three days.

One man called to suggest that depositors withdraw money from Iranian banks because the government was using the money "to buy batons and weapons against people."

In Iran many of those who came to the demonstrations said they did so after listening to the foreign broadcasts. "I thought I should come if everyone else is coming," said Ahmad, a 34-year-old civil servant, who attended a rally with his wife and 3-year-old daughter.

The protests began as a reaction by a few hundred students at Tehran University against plans to privatize Iran`s universities. The same day, four satellite broadcasters in Los Angeles — National Iranian TV (better known as NITV), Azadei, PARS TV and Channel One, which are all opposed to the government here — began calling on viewers to join the students.

That night, thousands of protesters drove to the dormitory area of the university after midnight, snarling traffic and honking their horns.

A week ago at Friday Prayers, the former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, warned Iranians not to pay attention to the foreign broadcasts. "Be careful not to be trapped by the evil television networks that Americans have established," he said.

The minister of information, Ali Yunessi, said America was waging a psychological war against Iran.

This is not the first time these stations, which are illegal here but are popular among people of all classes, have mobilized Iranians. The stations called people to candlelight vigils in support of the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States. A few weeks later, they helped create an antigovernment demonstration after the national soccer team won a World Cup match.

Political analysts in Tehran believe that the success of the stations is partly a result of the crackdown by hard-liners against the free press in recent years. Nearly 100 pro-reform journals and newspapers have been closed since 1997, and circulation has dropped to just over one million, from more than three million, since 1997, according to the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.

In addition, the state-run television monopoly is widely seen as little more than a propaganda arm of the government.

It referred to those arrested as "antirevolutionary hooligans and thugs," largely ignoring the violent attacks last week on the demonstrators by vigilante groups believed to be controlled by the country`s supreme clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"People have lost their confidence in the domestic media," said Mashalah Shamsolvaezin, a journalist and political scientist living in Iran. "In the absence of active national media, foreign-based media have become powerful," he said. "But because they do not have reporters on the ground, they are incapable of understanding the real situation in the country and so their major role becomes stirring noise and spreading rumors."

The foreign stations are also viewed with suspicion because of their support for Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah of Iran.

Still, people have "taken refuge in watching these TV stations because they talk about their daily concerns," said Jilla, the homemaker.

"When they harass women for their Islamic dress or they bust young people," she said, "the stations report them. I feel the world has become a small place and the opposition`s TV and radio stations can bring change."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
Iran and Nuclear Weapons

One of the central challenges of the coming decade is to stop nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of dictators and terrorists. Iran has just shown us the nature of the problem. Under the noses of international atomic inspectors, the Iranians have overcome the single biggest hurdle to building a nuclear weapon: they have developed the capacity to produce their own nuclear bomb fuel. They did so while appearing to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The flaws of that treaty, and how to fix them, are now evident.

The first step is to get Iran and other potential trouble spots to accept new, more intrusive inspection arrangements of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The tighter rules, drawn up in the 1990`s after the discovery of Iraq`s covert nuclear program, allow the I.A.E.A. to visit all suspected nuclear sites, not just those that are officially reported. More than 65 countries have agreed to these procedures, but not Iran.

With Tehran`s secret bomb fuel activities now exposed, America and the European Union are increasing their pressure on Iran to agree as well. Russia has begun to add its voice to this effort, and this is crucial. Moscow, which is helping Iran build a civilian power reactor, must make clear that it will end all nuclear cooperation until Iran allows expanded inspections.

To thwart the 33-year-old nonproliferation treaty, Iran cleverly exploited the implicit bargain at the treaty`s heart. As an incentive for not acquiring nuclear weapons, countries were promised easy access to civilian nuclear power. That led to some surprising provisions. Nonnuclear countries are free to import uranium and plutonium and even to build plants that can readily turn these ingredients into nuclear bomb fuel. All they have to do is inform the International Atomic Energy Agency of these activities and allow regular inspections of their nuclear plants. Paying lip service to those rules, Iran gamed the system.

It secretly imported 1.8 tons of uranium in 1991, never reporting this as required by the treaty. More recently, the I.A.E.A. discovered that Iran had secretly built a uranium enrichment plant that can produce bomb fuel. Tehran was also found to be constructing a plant for making heavy water, which is used as a buffer in reactors that produce plutonium, another bomb ingredient. Iran was not required to report the construction of these plants, only their loading with nuclear ingredients.

The loophole Iran exploited can be closed by negotiating a ban on building plants that can easily be made to produce bomb fuel. The spirit of the original bargain can be kept by guaranteeing countries that comply access to imported reactor fuel. Nuclear suppliers like the United States, the European Union, Russia and China can also agree among themselves to cut off reactor fuel exports to any country that tries to build its own uranium enrichment, heavy water or plutonium separation plant. The two steps should be pursued simultaneously, so that the nuclear suppliers are pressuring their customers to comply voluntarily during the lengthy period required for negotiating and ratifying a new ban.

It will take enormous will and focused diplomacy to make these fixes. But there are few more urgent tasks.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
Buy One, Get One Free
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


Students in Iran are rebelling against the Ayatollahs. Is there anything we can do to help? The truth is we have very few tools to influence events in Iran, and even if we had more it`s not clear we`d know how to use them. But there is one huge tool we do control that will certainly have an impact on Iran: It`s called Iraq.

Iraq, like Iran, is a majority Shiite country, with myriad religious links with Iran. If the Bush team could make a psychological and political breakthrough with Iraqi Shiites, and be seen as helping them build a progressive, pluralistic state in Iraq, it would have a big impact on Iran — much bigger than anything America alone could say or do.

No one should have any illusions that Iran`s Islamic theocracy is about to fold tomorrow. Iran`s clerical rulers are tough and ruthless and have a monopoly of power. But many of their people detest them. And while Iran will play out by its own logic, there is no question that if the other big, predominantly Shiite state in the region, the one right next door, the one called Iraq, were to become a reasonably decent, democratizing polity of the sort Iranians are demanding for themselves, it would pressure Iran`s clerics to open up.

A friend in Tehran sent me an e-mail message Thursday, saying, "The Iranian state-run TV is just reporting how Americans have failed in Iraq. [But] average people, like my grocer, actually think Iraq and Afghanistan have become heaven. It seems that they come up with the opposite version of what the government is trying to tell them. My grocer keeps on saying, `When are the Americans coming here? They fixed Afghanistan and Iraq and we are still miserable. . . .` "

We do not want the story in Iran to be America versus the Ayatollahs. We want the story to be the Iranian people versus the Ayatollahs, and the best way to foster that is by showing Iranians that there is another way and it`s happening right next door. In short, America`s intervention in Iraq is a two-for-one sale: improve Iraq, improve Iran. Buy one, get one free. Mess up one, mess up the other.

So then, how do we forge a breakthrough with the Shiites of Iraq, who make up 60 percent of that country? Let`s start with some good news. While the U.S. forces in Iraq are meeting mounting resistance from the remnants of Saddam`s regime, these are primarily Iraqi Sunni Muslims who sense that their long hold on power in Iraq is over.

"The fact is, the Iraqi Shiites have clearly decided to give the Americans a grace period to see how they intend to rebuild Iraq," says Yitzhak Nakash, the Brandeis University professor whose book, "The Shi`is of Iraq," is one of the most important works on this subject. "Iraqi Shiite religious leaders have thus far not issued any fatwas against the U.S. troops. They have adopted a wait-and-see approach."

Just last week Abdelaziz al-Hakim, a key Iraqi Shiite leader, gave an interview to the newspaper Al Hayat in which he stressed that Iraqi Shiites were not under the control of Iran and had no intention for now of engaging in violent resistance to the U.S. forces in Iraq.

This grace period from Iraqi Shiites is the most important thing happening in Iraq, and the U.S. needs to take advantage of it. The U.S. could start, suggested Mr. Nakash, with President Bush apologizing for the fact that the U.S., in 1991, encouraged Iraqi Shiites to rise up against Saddam, and then abandoned them, leading to the slaughter of thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq. Visible gestures from the world`s only superpower — affirming the dignity of the Iraqi Shiites and their right to a share of power in proportion to their numbers — could help lock in this grace period and foster a mass base for moderate Shiite politics.

What the U.S. also needs to do, argued Mr. Nakash, is "create conditions for the Shiites of Iraq to experiment with defining relations between religion and politics. Their challenge will be to find a compromise allowing clerics in the seminaries of Najaf to focus on matters relating to religious worship and learning — and have their impact on society felt that way — while leaving politics to the politicians in Baghdad."

Bottom line: We need to get Iraq right before we raise expectations about Iran, and getting Iraq right will be hard. But the key to getting Iraq right is getting the Shiites on our side — if not openly, at least tacitly — while helping them nurture a progressive political system. Do that, and it will encourage Iranians to do the same. Fail to do that, and we will lose in both Iraq and Iran.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 22, 2003
Desert Double Feature
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON

Looking back, you have to wonder if Rummy and Saddam were in two completely different movies, Rummy starring in a heroic war adventure like "Sands of Iwo Jima" while Saddam was scheming in a slick heist caper like "Ocean`s 11." (With a soundtrack by Frank Sinatra using the Iraqi dictator`s favorite song, "Strangers in the Night.")

Could we have been at war with someone who wasn`t fighting back?

In Iraq, Rummy wanted to prove that the sleek, high-tech American military could be used to fight in unconventional ways. But maybe Saddam, who gives creepy new meaning to the phrase ultimate survivor, was playing an even more unconventional game.

What if he never meant to mount a last stand in Baghdad but merely spread word that there was a dread "red line" of chemical and germ warheads ringing the capital to give himself time to melt away into subterranean safety?

Two nights before the war began, Qusay or his minions were busy plundering a billion dollars from Iraq`s central bank.

As U.S. tanks sped through Iraq, meeting surprisingly little opposition except for fedayeen harassment, Saddam may have been burning records of his weaponizing and terrorizing. He had probably already hidden or destroyed any bad stuff during the year the Bushies spent trash-talking about whupping him.

Maybe he decided that rather than hit America with biological warfare, he would use psychological warfare, discrediting the U.S. with allies by stripping the anthrax cupboards.

Was the tyrant sending out doubles in public while he plotted his getaway? Or making loyalists pretend to be double agents, dishing fake tips to the C.I.A. about where the Ace of Spades was dining so the U.S. would bomb the wrong places?

Saddam knew how hard it would be for America to rely on trust and understanding in a part of the world that we don`t understand and where no one trusts us.

He had 12 years between wars and Bushes, after all, to plot ruses.

His captured top lieutenant has told American interrogators that he fled to Syria with Saddam`s sons after the war (until Syria expelled them) and that Saddam was hiding in Iraq.

Maybe Saddam has been chortling from the sidelines as his guerrillas and Islamic militants kill enough U.S. soldiers to make Americans queasy. Maybe he could inflame an Iraqi rebellion over chaotic conditions, to expel the occupiers who came with no occupation plan.

Or, if Saddam brought a plastic surgeon underground with him, perhaps he could resurface as a fresh face, a populist candidate in Viceroy Bremer`s first democratic elections.

After all, Baath, the name of his party, translates as Resurrection.

It`s funny that the Bushies didn`t recognize a heist when they saw one, given that they pulled off such a clever heist of their own: They cracked the safe of American foreign policy and made off with generations of resistance to pre-emptive and unilateral attacks.

On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.

Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They`re scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it.

George Tenet might have buttered up his bosses by not objecting loud enough when the Bushies latched onto bogus or exaggerated claims, but if obsequiousness is a subject of Congressional investigation, we`re in for a busy summer.

The hawks started with Saddam`s demise and worked backwards.

As the latest New Republic reports in its "Deception and Democracy" cover article: "In the summer of 2002, Vice President Cheney made several visits to the C.I.A.`s Langley headquarters, which were understood within the agency as an attempt to pressure the low-level specialists interpreting the raw intelligence. `That would freak people out,` said one former C.I.A. official. `It is supposed to be an ivory tower. And that kind of pressure would be enormous on these young guys.` "

It`s scary, all right. Dick Cheney`s hot breath on your raw files.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Attacks In Iraq Traced to Network
Resistance to U.S. Is Loosely Organized

By Daniel Williams
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01


FALLUJAH, Iraq, June 21 -- Groups of armed fighters from the Baath Party and security agencies of ousted president Saddam Hussein have organized a loose network called the Return with the aim of driving U.S. forces out of the country, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials. The officials said the group is partially responsible for the string of fatal attacks on American soldiers in recent weeks.

The intensified resistance has been reinforced by the participation of foreign fighters coming into Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, the civilian administrator of Iraq, told reporters at a conference in Jordan today. "We do see signs of outside involvement in a number of ways," he said. Bremer said that "we so far don`t see signs of command and control in these attacks," adding that it appears largely to be small groups of five to 10 people.

According to the officials, the Return, or Awdah in Arabic, has been assembled by Iraqis who possessed funds, weapons, transportation, listening devices and informants at the end of the war. The Iraqis retained the equipment provided to them by Hussein`s government. Although the hierarchical structure of Hussein`s security and political agencies has been broken, the relationships among secret police, intelligence officials and Baathists endure, the Iraqi and U.S. officials said.

The mounting U.S. casualty toll and the sophistication of recent ambushes have deepened fears among U.S. officials that the military is facing a guerrilla war. The center of the resistance is a crescent of central Iraq dominated by Sunni Muslims, a minority who were the key base of support for Hussein`s government and his repressive security apparatus.

In this Sunni town, a caldron of anti-American hostility, Awdah members are under the surveillance of U.S. forces and Iraqi informers, officials here said. Intermediaries from Awdah and pro-Hussein families in the area have succeeded in making contact with other anti-American forces in the region, they added.

"The Return is one of the facets of resistance. It is mainly former security forces. They come in and shoot an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade] and race out of town before we can get a shot off," said Capt. John Ives, from the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. "It`s harder for us to identify them. People in Fallujah don`t know who they are."

"The Return is operating here," said Taha Bedaiwi Alwani, the U.S.-supported mayor of Fallujah. "They are people who had power under the old regime. They have the weapons to cause trouble. They dream of coming back."

Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of 4th Infantry Division, recently identified the Return as one of the groups organizing attacks against U.S. troops. The others were the Snake Party and the New Return. But he called the assaults on U.S. troops "militarily insignificant."

Although the name Return implies the restoration of Hussein`s rule, some Iraqis and U.S. officials speculate that organizers of the group are interested in bringing back the autocratic system without the former leader. Some of the group`s funding comes from wealthy families in the Sunni belt. One former Iraqi general, who asked that his name not be used, said that sponsors were paying the equivalent of $1,000 for new recruits and $3,000 to members who bring in other candidates. "They only want trained people," the former general said. "They don`t love Saddam. The idea is to kick out the Americans and get back in charge."

"We detect a trend in trying to make less attacks but do them more effectively to make a bigger impact," said a U.S. military intelligence specialist. "It`s very secretive. They move from town to town. Still, their skill is not so great. But they try hard."

As an example, the soldier pointed to an attack Thursday night on U.S. soldiers guarding a pair of electrical transformers in Fallujah. The rocket-propelled grenade missed the Bradley Fighting Vehicle out front but destroyed one of the transformers.

Routing "Baathist remnants," the name U.S. officials generically apply to the armed opposition, is a key goal of the ongoing Operation Desert Scorpion. For a week, thousands of troops have raided Baghdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, Ramadi, Baqubah, Thuluya and other towns in central Iraq on the hunt for arms, intelligence and money. Today, troops from the 1st Armored Division raided a community center in Baghdad and found documents labeled "top secret" and "personal." The Associated Press reported that the soldiers found documents related to Iraq`s nuclear program. An officer on the scene was quoted as saying the find was "potentially significant."

U.S. troops also raided the Baghdad offices of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution and hauled away three Iraqis, documents and computers. The council is an Iran-based Shiite Muslim group that was part of a sextet of opposition organizations that had been endorsed by the Bush administration. But U.S. officials and the group have fallen out over its persistent criticism of the U.S. occupation.

Bremer has also warned Iran against fomenting "paramilitary" activities in the Shiite Muslim south.

The raid preceded a small Shiite demonstration in Baghdad in which a few hundred protesters chanted, "We want to form a national government."

U.S. officers and Iraqi officials say that Muslim organizations, arms smugglers and other common criminals, and Iraqis seeking revenge for the deaths of kin at the hands of Americans are also involved in attacks against U.S. forces.

In Fallujah, Iraqi officials say that Wahhabbis, members of the same sect that produced Osama bin Laden, have been trying to organize operations against the U.S. forces. Members of the underground Muslim Brotherhood, possibly backed by Islamic radicals in Jordan, have also appeared in Fallujah.

U.S. officials pinpointed one mosque in Fallujah as a source of anti-American rhetoric and gunfire. The Muadithi Mosque was the scene of a shootout in which U.S. soldiers said they were fired on, killing a bystander on the street who was fixing his car nearby. Hamed Faleh Khalaf, an assistant to the mosque`s imam, denied today that anyone had fired from the premises. He did, however, unload invective on the Americans. "The U.S. Army did not come to free Iraq, but to invade Iraq and take oil and everything valuable," he said.

Staff reporter Glenn Kessler in Jordan contributed to this report.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Blix Downgrades Prewar Assessment of Iraqi Weapons


By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A20


UNITED NATIONS -- As he nears the end of his three-year hunt for Iraq`s biological and chemical weapons, Hans Blix, the United Nations` chief weapons inspector, says he suspects that Baghdad possessed little more than "debris" from a former, secret weapons program when the United States invaded the country in March.

The Swedish disarmament expert, who has served since March 1, 2000, as executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, said the failure to turn up evidence of weapons of mass destruction more than two months after the fall of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has led him to downgrade his assessment of the threat Hussein`s government posed.

Blix, 75, who will step down June 30, said there is too much uncertainty associated with Iraqi weapons programs to conclude there are no hidden arsenals in Iraq. He also said he remains deeply puzzled by the former Iraqi government`s efforts to deceive and mislead U.N. inspectors for 12 years after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

"Why did they conduct themselves as they did throughout the `90s?" Blix said in an interview last week. "Why deny access if you are not hiding something? What I am groping at now is whether pride was at the root of it."

U.S. officials and some former U.N. inspectors said it is naive to believe the former Iraqi government abandoned its quest for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. President Bush and other senior U.S. officials maintain they are confident that proscribed weapons will be found.

But Blix said assertions by Iraqi officials and defectors that they had destroyed the bulk of their weapons programs might turn out to be true. The claims were long dismissed by U.S. intelligence officials and U.N. weapons experts. Blix added that Iraq`s failure to account for arsenals that existed before the 1991 war "does not mean they exist."

Blix said a series of suspicious discoveries during his inspections of Iraq -- including those of a crude, remotely piloted aircraft; documents on a banned nuclear program in a scientist`s home; and 12 chemical warheads at a weapons depot -- were likely remnants of a destroyed stockpile. "They could have been the tip of an iceberg, but they could also have been debris," Blix said. "Now as we look back on it and they don`t find anything, well, maybe more likely debris."

Under the cease-fire agreement ending the 1991 war, Iraq was obliged to provide a full account of its banned weapons to U.N. inspectors. It later admitted that it had declared only a portion of the weapons in its arsenal, saving the rest in case they were needed to defend the country against a new attack by U.S. forces, according to Ewen Buchanan, a spokesman for the U.N. weapons agency.

Iraqi officials said that as U.N. inspectors closed in on their hidden caches, uncovering dozens of calutrons, a key component of a uranium enrichment program, they decided to destroy the rest of the secret arsenal. The Iraqis would later claim they had destroyed virtually all of their deadly agents, including VX nerve agent and anthrax, and banned weapons at several sites around the country without U.N. knowledge or supervision.

Iraq`s assertions were generally dismissed by U.N. inspectors, who could never confirm the exact amount of weaponry destroyed and continued to uncover new evidence of secret programs that Iraq had never declared.

Blix said he is now lending greater credence to assertions by senior Iraqi officials and a prominent defector, Gen. Hussein Kamel, that Iraq had destroyed its weapons -- and the bulk agents from which to manufacture them -- in the early 1990s but had preserved the program, hoping to restart production once sanctions were lifted and inspectors left the country.

"The destruction of weapons was largely finished in 1994," Blix said. "Thereafter, [U.N. inspectors] destroyed a number of facilities and installations because they had concluded that these had been active in the production of weapons . . . but weapons, no."

Kamel, the former head of Iraq`s weapons program who defected in 1994, told U.N. inspectors and U.S. intelligence officials in Amman, Jordan, in August 1995 that he had ordered the destruction of all Iraq`s biological and chemical weapons and components of its nuclear weapons program in the early 1990s. But Kamel, a brother-in-law of Hussein who was assassinated when he returned from exile to Iraq in 1996, said Baghdad sought to conceal documents, computer disks, equipment and blueprints that could be used to restart a weapons program.

U.S. military and intelligence officials at the time credited Kamel with providing invaluable insight into Iraq`s programs. But neither U.S. nor U.N. officials put much stock in his claims that the weapons had been destroyed.

Blix said it would not be "prudent" to reach a judgment on the basis of one defector`s account. But he added that Kamel`s claims have been echoed by several Iraqi scientists -- including Hussein`s former science adviser, Amir Saadi -- who have surrendered to U.S. authorities and, Blix said, have no reason to lie.

"Kamel`s statement, I think, was discounted for years," Blix said. "The suspicions were that he had not told the truth."

But, Blix said, "The more time that passes without any finds," the more it is "reasonable to begin to ask oneself if there were or not any weapons."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Oil Pipeline Explodes West of Baghdad



The Associated Press
Sunday, June 22, 2003; 4:00 AM


BAGHDAD, Iraq - An oil pipeline exploded and caught fire west of Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military said, and flames were seen reaching high into the sky.

The cause of the explosion near the town of Hit, about 95 miles west of Baghdad, was being investigated, U.S. Military spokeswoman 1st Lt. Mary Pervez said. There were no U.S. casualties, she said.

No other details were immediately available.

The explosion occurred on the same day Iraq was set to restart its first postwar oil exports.

Tankers in recent days have been loading crude for export at storage facilities in the Turkish oil terminal Ceyhan.

Iraq`s oil pipeline from the northern fields of Kirkuk to Turkey`s Ceyhan are expected to start pumping Sunday once the tankers start taking on crude, Mohammed Al-Jibouri, the head of Iraq`s State Oil Marketing Organization, or SOMO, told Dow Jones Newswires.

The pipeline stopped pumping during the U.S.-led war on Iraq, when shipping was stopped and the Ceyhan storage tanks filled to their capacity of 8 million barrels.

"Hopefully on Sunday when exports begin we will start pumping oil again," al-Jibouri said in an interview last week.

Full restart of Iraq`s oil exports, around 2 million barrels a day before the war, have been delayed due to damage caused by saboteurs.


© 2003 The Associated Press

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
The $2,000 Hot Dog

Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B06


PRESIDENT BUSH says that "the political season will come in its own time," but the fundraising season is already in full swing. Mr. Bush collected an astonishing $3.5 million at a reception here the other night; $2,000 got you the chance to eat hot dogs and nachos standing up in a hotel ballroom. That take, while probably a record, is apt to be eclipsed at a New York event this week. Overall, the president`s team expects to vacuum up $20 million in the space of just a few weeks. To put that amount in perspective, consider that the president`s nine Democratic rivals combined raised $25 million during the first three months of the year. Just a few years ago, $20 million was considered a daunting amount, and it was a test of a candidate`s viability to try to collect that sum by Jan. 1 of the election year. For the 2004 campaign, Mr. Bush, taking advantage of a doubling of the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000, expects to raise at least $170 million -- overtaking his record $100 million haul in 2000. And remember, that`s for a primary "campaign" in which Mr. Bush is unopposed. His Democratic rivals, who don`t have anything like the Bush fundraising machine and therefore can`t afford to give up federal matching funds, will be limited to raising about $46 million -- and they`ll be lucky to get that much.

All this is a symptom of a presidential campaign financing system that is dangerously out of whack. The system gives candidates the opportunity to collect matching funds (up to $250 for every contribution they raise) in return for abiding by spending limits in the primaries. Then, in the general election, each major-party candidate receives full public funding. But an increasingly front-loaded primary system and the rapidly rising costs of campaigns have made the primary spending limit unrealistically low. Meanwhile, although Congress increased the donation limit to $2,000, it kept the amount of each donation that can be matched at $250, limiting the value of matching funds. That gives candidates such as Mr. Bush an incentive to opt out of the system and places their rivals at an extreme disadvantage.

Two members of the Federal Election Commission, one Democrat and one Republican, have proposed changes that would help considerably. They would raise the primary spending limit to $75 million, double the amount that can be matched to $500 and raise the total public money primary candidates can get to about $37.5 million. "If major legislative changes are not made, I think the presidential funding program runs a serious risk of becoming irrelevant," said commissioner Michael E. Toner, who was the Bush campaign`s lawyer in 2000. It`s too late for the 2004 campaign, but Congress ought to turn its attention to this matter in time for 2008.

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign`s first event doesn`t bode well for its record on disclosure. Despite the fact that the event was held in a huge hotel ballroom, the campaign limited access to a small pool of White House reporters. Of even more concern, it refused to reveal the names of the nearly 200 co-chairs of the event, each of whom pledged to raise at least $20,000; it was similarly unforthcoming at a $2.2 million event in Georgia on Friday. This is the kind of list that shouldn`t be treated as a state secret -- either by Mr. Bush or his Democratic rivals -- but that offers a meaningful window into a campaign`s true financiers. For a president who argues that disclosure is the best campaign finance reform, releasing this information ought to be a given.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
The Bush Doctrine At Risk


By George F. Will

Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B07



An antidote for grand imperial ambitions is a taste of imperial success. Swift victory in Iraq may have whetted the appetite of some Americans for further military exercises in regime change, but more than seven weeks after the president said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," combat operations, minor but lethal, continue.

And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president`s foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.

To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But preemption presupposes the ability to know things -- to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war.

Some say the war was justified even if WMD are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is "better off" without Saddam Hussein. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny -- on to Burma? -- it is unacceptable to argue that Hussein`s mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for preemptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure -- so far -- to validate the war`s premise about the threat posed by Hussein`s WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president`s policy and rhetoric.

Hussein, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological weapons. President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies, and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper the Guardian, "We know for sure that they did exist") have expressed certainty about Iraq`s having WMD at some point.

A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMD as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMD. What is plausible? James Woolsey, Clinton`s first CIA director, suggests the following:

As war approached, Hussein, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.

Based on his experience in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Hussein assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties -- perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals -- to inflame world opinion and could count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMD on the eve of war.

Or shortly after the war began. Hussein, suggests Woolsey, was stunned when Gen. Tommy Franks began the air and ground offenses simultaneously and then "pulled a Patton," saying, in effect, never mind my flanks, I`ll move so fast they can`t find my flanks. Hussein, Woolsey suggests, may have moved fast to destroy the material that was the justification for a war he intended to survive, and may have survived.

Such destruction need not have been a huge task.

In Britain, where political discourse is far fiercer than in America, Prime Minister Tony Blair is being roasted about the missing WMD by, among many others, Robin Cook, formerly his foreign secretary. Cook says: "Such weapons require substantial industrial plant and a large workforce. It is inconceivable that both could have been kept concealed for the two months we have been in occupation of Iraq."

Rubbish, says Woolsey: Chemical or biological weapons could have been manufactured with minor modifications of a fertilizer plant, or in a plant as small as a microbrewery attached to a restaurant. The 8,500 liters of anthrax that Hussein once admitted to having would weigh about 8.5 tons and would fill about half of a tractor-trailer truck. The 25,000 liters that Colin Powell cited in his U.N. speech could be concealed in two trucks -- or in much less space if the anthrax were powdered.

For the president, the missing weapons are not a political problem. Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, says Americans are happily focused on Iraqis liberated rather than WMD not found, so we "feel good about ourselves."

But unless America`s foreign policy is New Age therapy to make the public feel mellow, feeling good about the consequences of an action does not obviate the need to assess the original rationale for the action.

Until WMD are found, or their absence accounted for, there is urgent explaining to be done.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Waking Up to Europe`s Uncertain Future


By Jim Hoagland

Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B07


PARIS -- A combination of jet lag, a comfortable padded leather armchair in the Victor Hugo room of the French National Assembly`s annex and the droning of one more seminar on Europe`s role in the world beckons me toward an oasis of snooze. But the jarring and unexpected sound of unpleasant reality being spoken in French halts my eyelids at mid-droop.

If present demographic trends and tight barriers against immigration remain in place, the proposed mighty new 25-nation European Union will record a net decline in population of 50 million people by 2050, parliamentarian Elisabeth Guigou is saying. The new Old Continent`s workforce will be literally decimated, and its economy will probably stultify.

But no gasps of horror, no sharp intakes of breath pierce my drowsiness. The discussion quickly bypasses such unpleasant facts of life to revert to abstract debate on the powers of the European Parliament vs. those of national governments.

While Americans sponsor radical change in the Middle East and fight a war against global terrorism, Europeans move deeper into a challenging but essentially inward-looking exercise of continental redefinition. Like the Sicilian aristocrats in Lampedusa`s "The Leopard," they pursue change close to home so things will remain the same. Or so they think.

These clashing angles of ambition have carved a big ditch of discord in U.S.-European relations. While the bitter disputes over going to war in Iraq have subsided, a fundamental transatlantic argument about the nature, division and use of power in the post-9/11 world will ebb and flow for years.

Western Europe desperately seeks to preserve and expand eastward the spectacular prosperity and social progress of the past half-century. France, Germany and other states have become status quo powers in world affairs in large part because they have much that is both worth preserving and yet exorbitantly expensive for their taxpayers.

The current 15-member European Union needs calm on its periphery as it launches a colossal job of social and economic reengineering. That need is at odds with President Bush`s outward focus, and particularly with his determination to bolster U.S. security through preventive military action abroad.

This is a good if misleading moment for Eurocrats. Pride is manifest in the euro, which rides high against the dollar in its 18th month of existence. The draft European Constitution shepherded into semifinal form last week by Valery Giscard d`Estaing, the astute former president of France, is also cited as evidence of new identity-shaping and political integration.

Even the bruising campaigns by France and Germany to keep Britain and the United States from going to war in Iraq are hailed as proof that Europe will not be pushed around by a rogue Yankee hyperpower.

But over the horizon these developments create their own problems. The euro`s rise against the dollar cuts deeply into Europe`s competitiveness in world markets. Giscard`s draft constitution leaves for further debate key questions, including how a common foreign policy can be established.

The Iraq disputes have made consensus on defense and foreign policy even more difficult to achieve. To their consternation, French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder find they exist in a multipolar Europe in which official support for U.S. positions is strong.

"Against the Anglo-Spanish Atlantic axis," writes Jacques Julliard, a columnist for Le Nouvel Observateur, France and Germany must now adopt "an organic fusion of their diplomatic and military establishments. There is no other way to save the idea of Europe, which is threatened by America`s neoimperialism."

The Bush administration should do nothing to give such overheated rhetoric credibility. Prolonging petty retaliatory steps against France and Germany does just that. It is not up to America to divide Europe. Europe can do that on its own.

As Guigou pointed out at last week`s seminar, there are heavy costs in maintaining the status quo and disturbing long-term trends for those who would construct Europe as a global rival and counterweight to the United States.

One is negative population growth: Birthrates in major Western European countries have fallen to 1.5 children or fewer per woman. Legal immigration is severely restricted, largely to avoid exacerbating social tensions focused on Arab and African immigrant ghettos. Meanwhile, with higher birthrates and a flow of a million new immigrants a year, the U.S. population is growing.

After an admirable run of success, France, Germany and other nations in Western Europe face serious prospects of economic decline and social dislocation. They must simultaneously manage their weakness and the unpredictable, rising power of Bush`s America. That is nightmare enough to disturb any catnap.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Stay Out of Iran


By Geneive Abdo

Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page B07


The latest student protests in the Iranian capital, Tehran, have quickened the collective pulse in Washington among those eagerly awaiting "regime change" in the Islamic republic.

President Bush has welcomed what he called popular demands for a "free Iran." Administration officials and their neoconservative allies have proclaimed that the Iranian people are at last acting on their calls to overthrow the ruling mullahs. Switch on CNN or Fox News and listen to Iranian exiles gleefully declare that the collapse of clerical power could be only months away.

But is Iran, once the center of radical Islam, really ripe for another revolution? Has it reached what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld likes to call a "tipping point," ready to fall with the slightest push? Neither history nor contemporary facts on the ground support such conclusions.

In marked contrast to the run-up to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the fruit of what has been called a "theology of discontent" created over many decades by disparate factions, politics in Iran today remains very much the preserve of a narrow circle of "insiders." These revolutionaries, comprising so-called reformers and hard-liners alike, have no intention of easing their shared monopoly on power.

The result is the complete lack of any credible opposition political movement or cohesive ideological challenge to the current Islamic political system. Restive students, often identified by the Bush administration as those who might lead an internal rebellion, remain few and have repeatedly failed to turn their street demonstrations into a broad-based opposition movement. Simply put, there is no viable alternative on the horizon.

At the same time, Iran`s constitution concentrates enormous power in the hands of the supreme clerical leader, appointed by conservative clerics. This includes command of the armed forces, control over the secret police and the courts, and the authority to confirm or reject the election of the president.

Backed by such institutional authority, and able to call on legions of Islamic vigilantes and other supporters sworn to uphold absolute clerical rule, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has little to fear from the Iranian "street." Militant hard-liners recently burst into a university dormitory and beat students as they slept.

The beatings were a repeat of 1999, when foot soldiers of Khamenei rampaged through a student hostel, igniting five days of protests in which thousands of students nationwide staged the largest demonstrations since the 1979 revolution. The ease with which those 1999 protests were suppressed and the brutality of the subsequent repression have helped ensure any threat will remain in the background for years to come.

The "pact" the Bush administration and its allies in Congress claim to have established with the disenchanted Iranian nation against its own leaders is a pure fabrication, one that plays into the hands of clerical hard-liners by allowing them to paint their opponents as U.S. stooges.

Iranians do want change, but the point on which most agree is that fundamental reform must come about peacefully and without U.S. interference. Besides, it is certain that whatever might emerge in a post-clerical Iran would not resemble a Western-style, secular democracy but would instead take into account Iranians` deeply felt commitment to Islam.

Last summer the White House publicly abandoned any hopes for Iran`s official reform movement, led by President Mohammad Khatami, and called on the Iranian people to push for political and social change on their own. With nothing to show for the intervening months, the administration is now groping toward a new strategy to be encompassed in what is known as a "national security directive."

The document, now circulating in competing drafts, is classified, but there are worrisome signs it will draw heavily on the experience of the unfinished Iraq campaign and will likewise rely on a coalition of Washington hawks and exiles to see it through.

Already, the familiar refrain can be heard from administration figures: intimations of high-level Iranian complicity with al Qaeda; the development of weapons of mass destruction outside international safeguards; and reassuring strains from the expatriate elite that disgruntled Iranians would welcome U.S.-inspired "regime change" with open arms.

U.S. officials now speak openly of deploying the armed Iranian opposition, allied with Saddam Hussein until his fall and listed by the State Department as a terrorist group, to pressure the Iranians. The son of the disgraced shah, who has no backing at home but enjoys the support of many in the diaspora and among Washington hawks, is already positioning himself for power.

If the chaos of postwar Iraq is not lesson enough, the administration would do well to ponder past experience with U.S.-led "regime change" in Iran; it is a sorry one, and there is nothing to suggest that things would be different this time. The CIA-inspired coup that ousted the elected government and restored the late shah to power in 1953 planted the seeds of the Islamic Revolution 25 years later, inflicting one of the greatest setbacks in U.S. diplomatic history.

It is likely a similar backlash could occur if the United States intervened once again in Iran.

The writer is a fellow at the New America Foundation and a former Tehran correspondent for the British newspaper the Guardian. She is co-author of "Answering Only to God: Faith and Freedom in Twenty-First-Century Iran."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

...................................................


WASHINGTON, DC—At a stockholders meeting Monday, the Republican Party announced record profits for the second quarter of 2003, exceeding analysts` expectations by more than 20 cents per share.


Above: Republican Party board members wave their quarterly dividend checks.
The gain marks the GOP`s third consecutive profitable quarter, and puts the party on track for its best 12-month cycle since 1991, the year of the first Gulf War.

"Obviously, we`re ecstatic," said Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL), who celebrated with other high-ranking GOP members at a champagne brunch in his chambers Tuesday. "This is heartening news for our party, especially coming as it does during such a sluggish overall period for the American economy."

The GOP posted a net profit of $3.48 per share, outperforming financial analysts` predictions in the $3.25 range. It ended the quarter with a market cap of $340 billion—a 17 percent gain attributed to a war-related rise in emotional investment in the party by the public and a rise in financial investment by such major corporations as Lockheed Martin and Halliburton.

"Quarters like this don`t come along very often," Republican Party CFO Dick Cheney said. "In a three-month span, we inked deals with more than 1,300 corporations, signing contracts to build everything from oil pipelines to surveillance equipment to aircraft carriers. We`ve also aggressively expanded into some lucrative new overseas markets. I honestly haven`t seen a boom like this since the go-go early `90s."

In spite of such successes, the GOP continues to look for new ways to improve its bottom line.


Above: Cheney enjoys the spoils of a profitable year.
"We still have to streamline certain divisions of our company, there`s no question about that," Cheney said. "We`re still, for example, spending way too much in our Health and Human Services and our Education departments. Once we get those areas and a few others under control, our balance sheet will look like a million bucks."

Added Cheney: "Or, I should say, a trillion bucks."

The Republican Party`s financial health stands in stark contrast to its biggest business rival. The Democratic Party, which suffered its 10th straight fiscal quarter in the red, is expected to miss its earnings mark for the third year in a row. The losses have prompted party leaders to consider the possibility of early retirement for some of its high-ranking legislative-branch officers.

"Right now, we`ve got some organizational problems that need to be worked out," Democratic Party CEO Dick Gephardt said. "To be successful in this game, you need an internal leadership structure that gives your company a top-to-bottom sales vision, and I`ll be the first to admit we`ve got room for improvement in that area. It certainly doesn`t help that the market for some of our core businesses, like public housing and health care, are in the toilet."

A majority of the GOP`s 7,500 employees work on the support end of the organization. Approximately 1,200 of these workers handle "professional services," such as helping voters choose the right Republican products for their home or business.

The party is traded on the NYSE under the symbol USGOP.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3923/gop_reports_record.html

[Joerver]

Building a bigger trough
Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com

06.18.03 - Here we go. It`s payback time.

Tuesday night, in a swank Washington ballroom, President George W. Bush, Leader of the Free Lunch, officially began collecting down payments on his second term. Before he`s done, the money Bush raises will become, dollar for dollar, perhaps the single greatest exercise in public corruption in the history of politics.

Somewhere between 1,200 and 1,400 people attended Bush`s dinner, according to the Washington Post, the newspaper of record for swank Washington ballrooms. The roomful of CEOs, lobbyists, and upper crust Republicans paid $2,000 each -- not including tips and suitcases full of cash left with the concierge -- to listen to Bush and his operatives rally the faithful and lay out their initial themes and strategies for an election 17 months away.

By then, the Bush campaign says, it hopes to rake in a stupefying $200 million -- twice the staggering record amount of money Bush raised in the 2000 race.

Dubya should have his D.C. speech memorized in no time -- he`ll be following up Tuesday`s dinner with ten more over the next five weeks, the first several intended to "intimidate" prospective foes before the first campaign deadline for reporting fundraising totals, on June 30.

Now, what makes this interesting is not just the unusually early timing or the surreal amounts of money. It`s also interesting because Bush is pledging to accept matching federal funding this time for the general election. This means that any money he raises now must be spent before the Republicans officially nominate him in their August 2004 convention. Thus far, he has no serious opposition, and he is not expected to face any. His coronation by his party has all the suspense of a Soviet election.

So why spend so much of that valuable presidential time raising so much money for it?

The answer is the same reality that led to Bush`s appointment this week of D.C. lobbyist Ed Gillespie to head the Republican National Committee.

Gillespie`s sole job is to raise money between now and November 2004, and he`s well-qualified for the task. His resume, as described by the New York Times, includes stints as "the party`s spokesman, the manager of the 2000 Republican convention, a Congressional aide, a campaign strategist and consultant, an official on Mr. Bush`s transition team, an outside adviser to the president, a political fund-raiser, a television pundit and, most recently, a lobbyist for big corporations and trade associations."

Gillespie is not running the Republican Party because he has his pulse on the needs and desires of America`s little people. His new gig comes specifically because he is expert at ensuring that the hotel concierge has to hire extra help during Dubya`s dinners to get all those suitcases hauled safely back to the hotel`s safety deposit vault. Gillespie knows who the donors are, knows what their histories are, knows what favors are owed and which favors can be promised for the second term.

What it adds up to is corruption on a scale that dwarfs that of any third rate third world kleptocrat in terms of the looting of the public treasury. Military contractors alone will probably be buying thousands of those gold- plated rubber chickens in gratitude. Bush is raising money equal to some small countries` GDPs, but it still pales next to the short- and long-term profits his policies are guaranteeing to every conceivable transnational corporation and conglomerate that does business in the U.S. For a company that might net billions of dollars in additional monies from single acts of corporate welfare -- like either of Bush`s massive tax cut plans, for example -- plowing a million or so back into a second term is an outstanding business investment. Think of it as public financing for incumbents: the elected official gives a company a billion or so, the company then gives the official a bit of our money back so that he can serve another term.

Multiply that by the Fortune 200, and you have your $200 million.

It`s not quite that simple, of course. But look at the sums being raised, and ask the obvious question: who else, in this economy, has any money? The net result of Bush`s public looting, abetted by a Republican Congress, is a society where the extremely wealthy think of government as an enormous feeding trough, and the rest of us just try not to think of it at all.

In the face of this, still, remember that Bush`s opponent in 2000 was the guy who -- despite a staggeringly incompetent campaign -- still bagged the second-most popular votes in U.S. history (next to Reagan in 1984). Plenty of people in America voted for the Democrat. Bush`s money does not guarantee him victory next year.

If he wins, however, guarantee a handsome return on investment for his donors.
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=15175

[Joerver]

NOTHiNG LiKE THE TRUTH __________

David Marsden`s Freshest asticle* of Thursday, June 19, 2003. (Vol 03 No 72)

Revisionist Historical Presidential Precedents

All week the President has been strongly defending the U.S.-led war to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein against “revisionist historians” he suggested were trying to diminish the threat once posed by the deposed Iraqi leader to America and the free world.
------------------------------------
Spearheaded by President George W. Bush himself two murky Cold War buzz phrases, “Revisionist Historians” and “The Free World” were officially released for re-entry into Washington’s official power lunch vocabulary this week.

For those of us born into glorious globalised freedom since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 it’s hard to imagine during the 44 dark years before that our sworn enemies ranging from Joseph Stalin to Mao Tse Tung and dozens of lesser Jackpot Winners, when dictating merrily-away from Albania to Yugoslavia and all letters in-between, used the “Revisionist” ploy at the drop of a sable fur hat whenever their secret service handed them an article seized at gunpoint before printing from their official—and only—morning press organ.

And the offending journalists and editors, no-one had ever heard of anyway, stood a much lesser chance of winning a Pulitzer after being banished to a Gulag inside the Arctic Circle where they couldn’t be further punished for daring to speak the truth because—short of death by absolutely unimaginable gruesome methods (by then-commonly accepted Western standards, since updated)—were already being punished to the full extent of the law.

It got so bad that whenever oppressed folk crushed under the communist dictatorial boot heel heard through the grapevine their leader was again decrying ill-informed journalists, historians, pimps, hairdressers, gypsies, rogues and thieves as “Revisionists” they knew that whatever had been written or said was the truth.

Even though they would never get to know what it was since the official—and only—morning newspaper wouldn’t get to print it even if—however unlikely—they had enough newsprint and ink that month.

But of course, that was then and now is now, and the crack policy makers and string-pullers currently running and prancing-in the White House obviously think enough water has flowed down the Volga, Yangtze and Potomac to resurrect “revisionist” without too many people knowing—or caring—what it really means.

So one-by-one high senior administration officials are slipping the phrase back into national circulation. Like national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who earlier this month warned against “revisionist history” in the context of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Blah-Blah.

Not all are on the same hymn-sheet however as this bizarre exchange shows.

On Tuesday President Bush shot back at those suggesting his administration inflated pre-war intelligence data on Iraq`s weapons program. He said the most important fact was that “the people of Iraq are free.”

“I know there`s a lot of revisionist history going on. But he is no longer a threat to the free world,” Bush said at a community college in a Washington suburb before a delightfully text-and-matching-colour-co-ordinated backdrop.

Afterwards, amid rising questions about the lack of hard evidence that such weapons existed, Bush`s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters that the president still goes about his daily activities oblivious and unconcerned, truly believing such weapons existed.

Asked what Bush meant by “revisionist history,” Fleischer said, “the notion that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction before the war.”

However, Fleischer cloned-sheepishly confessed, since Bush didn`t identify who he thought was revising history, he wouldn`t either.

Which is uncannily reminiscent of a barely-known 1951 Kremlin incident when Stalin’s official spokesperson—whose name was never officially known—was banished to maximum punishment for life inside escape-proof Gulag 15A for not only not knowing who Stalin was calling a “revisionist historian” but for being accused of being a “revisionist historian” himself for even daring to think about it.

Then there’s the return of that other chilling 50’s and 60’s phrase that kept so many of us awake, days and nights.

Throughout recorded history no other three words—spoken or written—have ever made the American Congress or “American People” more eager to approve another billion dollar military budget increase, than “The Free World”.

Which is exactly what President Bush was hoping to achieve when on Monday he said, “This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some who would like to rewrite history—revisionist historians is what I like to call them.”

Before dropping the “free world” bombshell.

“Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in `91, in `98, in 2003.”

Even though, as anyone old enough to read these lips knows, his predecessors, blood-related or not, assured us the “Un-Free World” completely ceased to exist in 1989.

But his well-heeled listeners gasped in wonderment as Mr. Bush continued unashamedly, “He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted.”

To rabid applause, Bush added, “And this is for certain: Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies throughout the free world.”

And so, at the risk of being called a “revisionist” unlikely to be ever heard from again, your humble reporter signs off today from somewhere deep inside the “free world” by timidly asking;

“Then just who the hell is doing all the U.S. troop killing, suicide bombing and protesting in Iraq?”

As asked in today’s editorial conference at The New Tork Yimes that will hit the streets and cyberspace without a satisfactory answer even though we have newsprint, ink and bandwidth coming out of our ears.

http://www.asticles.com/asticles/revisionist.htm

[Joerver]

Essay

Zeit der Rechthaber

von Peter Schneider

Der Krieg im Irak ist gewonnen, der Frieden hat noch nicht begonnen. In der chaotischen Übergangszeit justieren Befürworter wie Gegner der Invasion ihre Argumente. Zu den Überraschungen des Kriegs gehört ja die Tatsache, dass sich die Protagonisten beider Seiten durch den Kriegsverlauf vollständig bestätigt fühlen. Wir haben Recht gehabt, schallt es aus dem Weißen Haus nach Europa hinüber, wir waren die Weitsichtigen, ruft Klaus Staeck im Namen von Millionen deutscher Kriegsgegner zurück. Das paradoxe Schauspiel lässt sich nur damit erklären, dass sich die Wortführer nachträglich nur an diejenigen ihrer Voraussagen erinnern, die durch die Ereignisse bestätigt scheinen, und entschlossen jene anderen vergessen, die widerlegt worden sind.


Was die Strategen der amerikanischbritischen Koalition betrifft, so hat sich eine ihrer am heftigsten bestrittenen Annahmen als richtig erwiesen. Der Krieg gegen den irakischen Diktator ist nicht nur schnell, sondern auch erstaunlich unblutig gewonnen worden. Der rasche Sieg hat überdies erdrückendes Beweismaterial für eine vor allem von Tony Blair vorgetragene Anklage erbracht, die von vielen Kriegsgegnern als Gräuelpropaganda abgetan worden ist: dass es sich nämlich bei Saddam Husseins Regime nicht um irgendeine Diktatur, sondern um eine der schrecklichsten Tyranneien der jüngeren Geschichte gehandelt hat.

Wer die entsprechenden Berichte gelesen und das Herz hat, über den Sturz Saddam Husseins - unter Hinweis auf die vielen anderen Diktaturen in der Welt - mit den Achseln zu zucken, ist ein Schuft und zeigt damit nur, dass ihm die Verdammung der USA mehr am Herzen liegt als das Schicksal der Entrechteten, in deren Namen er zu sprechen meint. Was immer nach dem Sieg der Koalition kommen mag, es wird auf jeden Fall erträglicher sein als Saddams Schreckensherrschaft.

Aber wie steht es mit den übrigen Ansagen und Versprechen der stolzen Sieger aus dem Weißen Haus und aus der Downing Street? Für den offiziellen Kriegsgrund, die Existenz und Herstellung von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak, ist bekanntlich kein Beweis gefunden worden. Es wird immer deutlicher, dass die Weltöffentlichkeit von den Kriegsherren, die sich offenbar auf die Berichte von Scharfmachern - oder auf willige Helfer? - in ihren Geheimdiensten stützten, getäuscht worden ist. Ein solcher Vorwurf an zwei Führer des Westens, die sich in jedem zweiten Satz auf die Moral berufen, ist keine Kleinigkeit und muss in einer Demokratie ein Nachspiel haben. Am schlimmsten aber ist, dass sich die Befreier zwar mit großer Sorgfalt auf den Krieg, aber nur äußerst dilettantisch auf den Nachkrieg vorbereitet haben und jetzt schon Gefahr laufen, den Frieden zu verlieren.

In einer Hinsicht haben alle Kriegsgegner dieser Welt Recht behalten: Der Krieg gegen den Irak war ein längst beschlossener Krieg; er hatte wenig oder nichts mit einer aktuellen Bedrohung der USA durch irakische Massenvernichtungsmittel und wahrscheinlich nicht allzu viel mit einer "humanitären Intervention" zu tun; er war nach den derzeitigen Maßstäben des Völkerrechts ein völkerrechtswidriger Krieg, und die Völkergemeinschaft hatte nie eine ernsthafte Chance, ihn abzuwenden.

Aber wie steht es mit den übrigen Argumenten und Voraussagen der Kriegsgegner? Umweltminister Jürgen Trittin sah 40 000 bis 200 000 Kriegsopfer bei einem Angriff auf den Irak voraus. Angelika Beer war sicher, dass der ganze Nahe Osten explodieren würde. Peter Scholl-Latour, der greise König aller Unken, hatte schon vor dem Afghanistan-Krieg zu Protokoll gegeben, die Amerikaner hätten nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg keinen Krieg mehr gewonnen. Für den Irak-Krieg prophezeite er brennende Ölfelder und jahrelange Häuserkämpfe. Trotz solcher - wie soll man es höflich sagen - extrem weitsichtigen Prognosen blieb und bleibt Scholl-Latour ein andächtig befragter Talkshow-Gast. In den Wochen vor Beginn des Irak-Kriegs konnte man ihn manchmal gleichzeitig auf zwei oder drei TV-Kanälen sehen. Offenbar sagte und sagt er genau das, was viele Deutsche wider alle Evidenz und besseres Wissen hören wollen. Inzwischen hat er einen bevorstehenden Angriff der USA auf Iran angekündigt. Man darf sicher sein, dass niemand ihn an diese Voraussage erinnern wird, nachdem sie sich - das wage ich vorauszusagen - wiederum als falsch erwiesen haben wird.

Ich lebte in den Wochen vor und während des Kriegs in Washington, D. C. Dieser Zufall hat meine ursprüngliche Gegnerschaft gegen den Bush-Krieg eher bestärkt als besänftigt. Zwar kenne ich nur schlechte, keine guten Gründe gegen die Vertreibung von Menschenschindern und Tyrannen wie Saddam Hussein, möge sie denn auf friedlichem Wege oder durch eine militärische Invasion bewirkt sein.

Dennoch war ich gegen diesen Krieg - vor allem aus einem Grund: weil der Kriegsherr G. W. Bush war und die radikalste antiliberale Regierung anführt, die das Land bisher gesehen hat.



Wenn man im Herzen einer Krieg führenden Welthauptstadt lebt, schärfen sich die Sinne für den innenpolitischen "fall-out" eines "Befreiungskriegs": die keineswegs verordnete, eher freiwillige Verwandlung der Nachrichtensender in Instrumente der Regierungspropaganda; die schamlose Panikmache durch die neu geschaffene Riesenbürokratie der "Homeland Security"; die Festsetzung zahlreicher amerikanischer Bürger arabischer Herkunft und die Verweigerung ihres Rechts, einen Anwalt zu sehen; die primitive antieuropäische Hetze in den Medien.

Aber jeder Kriegsgegner, gleichgültig auf welcher Seite des Atlantiks und aus welchen Gründen er seine Stimme erhoben hatte, stand plötzlich vor einer Wahl, als der Krieg begonnen hatte. Er musste sich entscheiden, wie weit er in seiner Ablehnung der amerikanisch-britischen Invasion gehen wollte. Sollte er sich klammheimlich oder sogar offen freuen, als der Vormarsch der "coalition forces" im Süden von irakischen Milizen schon nach wenigen Tagen gestoppt schien? Sollte er der irakischen Armee und den Milizionären nicht sogar die Daumen drücken und ihnen zu jedem abgeschossenen amerikanischen Hubschrauber gratulieren? Ihnen wünschen, dass sie möglichst viele der Angreifer töten oder gefangen nehmen würden? Oder sollte er, nachdem der Einmarsch nicht mehr zu verhindern war, den Truppen der Koalition Erfolg wünschen und hoffen, dass sie möglichst rasch und unter möglichst geringen Verlusten in der Zivilbevölkerung und in den eigenen Reihen Bagdad erreichten und den Tyrannen stürzten?

Die Entscheidung für die zweite Option zog unweigerlich eine weitere Entscheidung nach sich: die Antwort auf die Frage nämlich, was man eigentlich für schlimmer hielt - das Terrorregime von Saddam Hussein oder G. W. Bushs Amerika, das, aus welchen Gründen immer, ausgezogen war, den Tyrannen zu entmachten.

Mein Eindruck ist, dass sich die meisten deutschen Kriegsgegner in dieser Frage entweder gar nicht oder gegen die USA - als das bei weitem größere Übel - entschieden haben. Vieles, was ich in diesen Tagen über die grotesk übertriebenen oder schlicht gefälschten amerikanisch-britischen Informationen über Saddam Husseins Waffenprogramm lese, irritiert mich. Ich teile die Empörung, aber ich höre auch einen falschen Unterton. Es entsteht der Eindruck, als wäre das größte, das "eigentliche" Verbrechen in der Region die amerikanische Invasion und nicht etwa das Regime des Massenmörders Saddam gewesen.


Doch gab es jenseits der falschen und vorgeschobenen Gründe nicht auch ein paar gute Gründe für diesen Krieg? Ist es, von der Frage der Legitimität einmal abgesehen, etwas Gutes oder Schlimmes, wenn demokratische Staaten ein Volk von einem Tyrannen befreien, das sich seiner aus eigenen Kräften erwiesenermaßen nicht entledigen konnte? Und worauf gründet sich eigentlich die felsenfeste Überzeugung so vieler Deutscher, das ehrgeizige Projekt eines Demokratie-Imports - das bei ihnen so gut funktionierte - könne unter Arabern keinesfalls gelingen?

Man wird einwenden, dass die Kreuzzügler aus dem Pentagon andere Interessen im Auge haben als die Menschenrechte im Irak. Ich widerspreche nicht. Aber vom Standpunkt eines politischen Gefangenen im Irak, das hat Adam Michnik entgegnet, ist es ziemlich gleichgültig, ob es eine liberale oder eine neokonservative amerikanische Regierung war, die ihn befreite. Es kommt in der Geschichte vor, dass die falschen Leute aus höchst zweifelhaften Gründen etwas Richtiges tun. Und es bleibt das Problem vieler Friedensfreunde, dass sie den Krieg nur aus der Perspektive ihrer Wut gegen den Aggressor USA betrachten, nicht aus der Perspektive der Opfer von Saddam Husseins Diktatur.

Was ist eigentlich wichtiger: das Wohl der Bürger im Irak oder das Wohl der eigenen vorgefassten Überzeugungen?



Die beispiellose Einmütigkeit, die sich zumal in Deutschland - anders als im Fall des Vietnam-Kriegs - gegen den Irak-Krieg herausbildete, hatte etwas Beängstigendes. Kurz vor Kriegsbeginn traten Hunderte Schriftsteller, Künstler und Wissenschaftler - vor allem deutsche - mit einem neuerlichen Aufruf gegen den Krieg an die Weltöffentlichkeit. Zu diesem Zeitpunkt wiesen alle Umfragen bereits eine 80- bis 90-prozentige Zustimmung der Deutschen zu dieser Haltung auf. Welchen Mutes, welcher Zivilcourage bedurfte es eigentlich, in einem solchen Umfeld noch einmal die warnende Stimme der Intellektuellen zu Gehör zu bringen? Waren 90 Prozent Zustimmung nicht genug? Mussten auch noch die letzten 10 Prozent der Deutschen überzeugt werden?

Eines der friedensfremden Motive, das in dieser Einmütigkeit mitschwang, hat Günter Grass in einer in Halle gehaltenen Rede benannt. "Man hat uns Deutsche oft gefragt, ob wir stolz seien auf unser Land. Die Antwort fiel schwer. Und es gab Gründe für unser Zögern. Ich kann sagen, dass mich die Ablehnung des jetzt begonnenen Präventivkrieges durch die Mehrheit der Bürger meines Landes ein wenig stolz auf Deutschland gemacht hat ... Zum ersten Mal hat die Regierung von dieser (1990 erlangten) Souveränität Gebrauch gemacht, indem sie den Mut hatte, dem mächtigen Verbündeten zu widersprechen ..."

Und kein Wort über das verbrecherische Regime, dem dieser Präventivkrieg galt? Bedurfte es ausgerechnet eines aus 90 von 100 deutschen Kehlen ausgestoßenen Protestschreis gegen die USA, den ehemaligen Befreier, um den "Stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein", wiederzuentdecken? Ich würde eher andere Anlässe nennen, um meinem ebenfalls schwach ausgeprägten Stolz, ein Deutscher zu sein, Beispiele zu verschaffen: etwa den Entschluss der rot-grünen Koalition, an einer - übrigens von der Uno ebenfalls nicht legitimierten - Intervention der Nato zur Beendigung der ethnischen Raserei im Kosovo teilzunehmen.

Die Aufgaben, vor die der prekäre Sieg im Irak die westlichen Demokratien stellt, verlangen den Rechthabern beider Seiten ein paar unbequeme Einsichten ab. Nichts wäre schlimmer, als wenn sich die Amerikaner, die sich selbst gerufen haben, nach dem Sieg so rasch wie möglich aus dem Irak zurückziehen würden. Beim Aufbau des von Diktatur und Krieg geschundenen Irak werden die Sieger gerade die geschmähten Kriegsverweigerer aus Europa dringend brauchen. Auf dem Balkan, aber auch in Afghanistan hat sich gezeigt, dass die Europäer beim Aufbau ziviler Strukturen in einem zerstörten Land mehr Geduld und Empathie aufbringen als die Verbündeten aus Übersee und dabei auf mentale und kulturelle Ressourcen zurückgreifen können, die jenen eher fehlen.

Jürgen Habermas hat in einem Manifest die kulturellen und historischen Unterschiede zwischen Europa und den USA herausgearbeitet und einen bemerkenswerten Vorschlag gemacht: Ebenjene europäischen Pionierländer, die vor bald 50 Jahren den Anstoß zur wirtschaftlichen Vereinigung gegeben haben, sollten sich nun zu einer politischen Union zusammenschließen und damit ein Modell für das übrige Europa schaffen. Hier sei nur angemerkt, dass eine ähnliche Diskussion über die Unterschiede in den USA stattfindet, die das Thema freilich viel brutaler formuliert: Gibt es überhaupt noch eine Gemeinsamkeit zwischen Europa und den USA? Und warum sollte man sich, falls es sie noch gibt, dafür ernsthaft interessieren?

Der anmaßende und selbstgerechte Stil der gegenwärtigen amerikanischen Administration sollte von den Europäern als eine Gelegenheit wahrgenommen werden, sich endlich ein politisches Gesicht zu geben. Die erste Bedingung für diesen Qualitätssprung wäre freilich die Verabschiedung von einer Arbeitsteilung, aus der Europa viel falsches Selbstbewusstsein zieht: Wenn es darauf ankommt, sagen wir, verstehen sich die Amerikaner nur aufs Schießen und aufs Bomben, wir schicken dann die Sanitäter und bauen wieder auf. Die Überzeugung, dass "das Böse", von dem die Amerikaner so gern sprechen, nur eine amerikanische Obsession sei, ist selbstverständlich eine europäische Illusion. Ein neues Europa mit der alten Arbeitsteilung - es wäre nur das alte, besserwisserisch-geschwätzige und ohnmächtige Europa.



© DER SPIEGEL 26/2003

[Joerver]

Building momentum for peace in Pakistan

By Teresita C. Schaffer and Karl F. Inderfurth, 6/22/2003

AS PAKISTANI President Pervez Musharraf heads for Washington and his meeting with President Bush at Camp David, the stage seems set for a feel-good public program highlighting US support for Pakistan in general and Musharraf in particular and an intense private dialogue on Pakistan`s role in antiterrorism operations. The United States needs to revisit its priorities and give peacemaking a central place in its message for Musharraf.

Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee`s recent offer to extend a ``hand of friendship`` to Pakistan, easing 17 months of strained relations, and the latter`s prompt response created a rare chance to start a serious search for India-Pakistan peace. This could be the last chance for several years. Unless both leaders take some quick steps down that road, internal politics in both countries could slam the window of opportunity shut. Camp David presents the opportunity for the United States to persuade Pakistan to move ahead with a serious peace strategy.

After 9/11 Bush called on Musharraf to join the United States in the war against terrorism. He did so by ``crossing the Rubicon`` and ending Pakistan`s long-standing support for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Since then, Pakistan has been at the epicenter of this conflict. It was instrumental in removing the Taliban from power and has arrested more than 400 members of Al Qaeda. Musharraf still needs to confront additional elements of the Al Qaeda leadership and Afghanistan`s toppled Taliban regime and, as Musharraf said last week, ``our own religious extremists and militants`` (a more difficult target).

Now Bush must convince Musharraf to cross a ``second Rubicon`` by making a fundamental change in his nation`s policy toward Kashmir, the flashpoint in India-Pakistan relations for the past half century. The change would not require Pakistan to cease its support for the legitimate aspirations of the Kashmiri people, but it would require Pakistan to end its assistance to those extremist groups that are trying to accomplish this goal with terrorist means.

Without this change, Pakistan`s efforts to put terrorist networks out of business will remain ambivalent, and the United States will achieve neither an end to terrorism nor progress toward South Asian peace.

Musharraf recently referred to the current ``lull`` along the Line of Control that separates the Indian and Pakistani-held parts of Kashmir. Bush must make the case to Musharraf that it is essential to sustain and extend this and to make good on his pledge a year ago to seek a ``permanent end`` to cross border infiltration and terrorism. India is unlikely to be completely satisfied with the results, but it needs to see a substantial downward trend. With that, the door will be open to the resumption of a serious dialogue between the two nuclear-armed adversaries.

The door could then be open to other possibilities as well. A delegation of Indian parliamentarians recently visited Pakistan and emphasized the need for developing the pathetically small trade between the two countries. For its part, Pakistan has been pushing India to join discussions on a pipeline bringing gas from Turkmenistan, through Pakistan, to the rapidly growing North Indian market.

They are both right. A trade-for-pipeline deal, or even the agreement to start working toward one, could meet one of the region`s greatest economic needs and create durable constituencies for peace in both countries.

The urgency of moving forward in all these areas reflects more than the usual concern about one of the most dangerous areas in the world. India faces elections before October 2004; they could come as early as the end of this year. That leaves a relatively small period before electoral compulsions swamp the good intentions of politicians.

On the Pakistan side, Musharraf`s desire to build a ``modern, tolerant, progressive Islamic state`` cannot be achieved without peace with his larger neighbor. Now is the time for both governments to create a new momentum for peace. This should be President Bush`s message at Camp David.

Teresita C. Schaffer, director for South Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is a retired US ambassador. Karl F. Inderfurth was assistant secretary of state for South Asia from 1997-2001, and is now a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.


This story ran on page D11 of the Boston Globe on 6/22/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/173/oped/Building_momentum…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-troops22…
THE WORLD


U.S. Enlists More Countries in Iraq, at Taxpayers` Expense
Bush administration has agreed to pay for several nations` participation in the peacekeeping effort.
By Paul Richter
Times Staff Writer

June 22, 2003

WASHINGTON — When the Pentagon proudly announced last week that more and more countries have been signing up to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq, one fact drew little attention: U.S. taxpayers will be paying a fair chunk of the bill.

As it has sought to spread the peacekeeping burden, the Bush administration has agreed to help underwrite the participation of such countries as Poland, Ukraine, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras and the Dominican Republic. India, which the United States has asked to provide thousands of troops, has been asking for financial help as well.

These deals, which by one estimate could cost $250 million over the next year, will enable the United States to relieve some of its overworked troops and give more of an international face to the American-led undertaking. But they may also draw criticism that the U.S. partners in the reshaping of Iraq are those whose support can be bought — the "coalition of the billing," as some wags have put it.

Pentagon officials say it remains unclear what the total tab will be, because they are still trying to work out arrangements with the nearly 50 countries that they say have expressed interest. But it is already clear that the bills will substantially add to U.S. troop expenses that, by one congressional estimate, are currently running $3 billion a month.

Between 20,000 and 30,000 troops from more than a dozen nations will arrive in the next two months to augment a force of about 146,000 troops from the United States and 12,000 from Britain and seven other countries.

In most major peacekeeping missions, the United Nations has taken the lead and covered most of the expenses of countries that contribute troops. In this case, because the Bush administration did not want to surrender its lead role in Iraq to the U.N., the United States had little choice but to build and underwrite the peacekeeping coalition itself.

The U.S. will be helping out with contingents large and small. The Poles, who have become one of the United States` staunchest military allies, have committed 2,300 soldiers and will oversee a division-size force that will patrol a large section of south-central Iraq. But with Poland`s government budget under stress and unemployment at about 20%, Warsaw asked for assistance.

The United States is also going to pick up most of the tab for 840 doctors, nurses and engineers from Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and the Dominican Republic who are going to Iraq for a year, according to diplomats from Central America.

Western European countries such as Spain, Denmark and the Netherlands will pay the full cost of their participation, diplomats said.

U.S. financing makes participation politically easier for countries that opposed the war or pushed to give the United Nations a lead role in the aftermath.

The government of Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, for example, has been eager to build good relations with Washington by taking part, yet faces strong pressure at home to turn down the American request.

Michael O`Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, estimated that it might cost the administration $250 million to fund the estimated 20,000 troops for the next year.

That assumes that about half the countries would require help and that the United States would have to put up less than half as much money per soldier as the $10,000 to $20,000 it costs to support an American in the field for a month. Many foreign troops are far less expensive than the highly trained, elaborately equipped U.S. forces.

O`Hanlon noted that even when the United Nations finances peacekeeping missions, the U.S. Treasury covers about 25% of the cost, through U.N. dues. The deals are worthwhile, in his view, because they ease the burden on U.S. troops and bring other countries into the mission.

Word of these arrangements has emerged at a time of increasing congressional concern about the staffing and financial burdens of the military mission in Iraq.

At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday, Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) said that at the present level of U.S. troop commitment, it would cost $54 billion to pay for the efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq for a year.

He noted that although allies covered most of the cost of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, in this war, allies have agreed to put up only about $3 billion. "Surely we can`t sustain the burden of being the world`s only superpower, protecting region after region, without some well-developed alliances or allied participation," Spratt said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, asked whether the Pentagon would soon be seeking a special supplemental budget request, said he believes that the burden in Iraq "can change a lot over the next few months, hopefully change for the better."

Yet he acknowledged that the costs are hard to predict.

There are signs that, in the face of the mission`s mounting costs, the administration is rethinking its foreign policy spending priorities.

The fight against guerrillas and drug rings in Colombia has been one of the U.S. government`s top priorities, and it has spent nearly $2 billion in mostly military aid to the Latin nation`s armed forces. But last week, U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson signaled that the United States now wants to shift the burden.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op…
IRAN



National Change Must Come From Within
By L. Bruce Laingen
L. Bruce Laingen is a former hostage and now president of the American Academy of Diplomacy.

June 22, 2003

WASHINGTON — In August 1953, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, regarded by the Eisenhower administration as too weak in the face of growing communist influence in Iran, was forced from office by street violence engineered, in part, by CIA operatives with the help of British counterparts. The acquiescence of certain Iranian political and clerical elites facilitated the coup. The young shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had fled the country in the midst of the violence, was restored to the throne.

I was among a half-dozen young Foreign Service officers pulled from other assignments (Kobe, Japan, for me) and put to work in an expanded U.S. mission under Ambassador Loy Henderson. Thus began a rapidly evolving, close and frequently rewarding security relationship between the United States and Iran. Over the next 25 years, U.S. economic assistance, especially in agriculture and education, and private investment fueled the shah`s determined modernization drive. But it became apparent that change was too rapid. The economic aspirations of ordinary citizens were going unmet. The frequently well-meaning shah was unable to overcome his imperial pretensions and an innate lack of trust in his people, including his own advisors.

As a result, more and more Iranians became alienated from a regime that seemed to identify with U.S. political purposes and culture at the expense of Iran`s own cultural and religious traditions. At the same time, the shah`s reluctance to legalize political opposition and participation frustrated Iranians. A pervasive and feared security system, the Savak, intensified his political isolation. All this culminated in the shah`s overthrow in 1979, the advent of the Islamic revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the attendant hostage crisis, which ended in 1981.

Today, with the future of U.S.-Iran relations a principal item on our post-Saddam Hussein agenda, we would be well advised to recall that regime change in 1953. Mossadegh was hardly a democrat, but to most Iranian readers of history, his ouster halted an evolving democratic impulse that the shah`s increasingly rigid rule ultimately killed. As hostages in the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy, when we railed about our status, a typical response from our captors was that the U.S. government had taken an entire country hostage in 1953, so we had no basis to complain.

While the exact dimensions of U.S involvement in the shah`s restoration to power remain a matter of historical debate, the U.S. thereafter was seen as the real power behind his throne, setting the high- water mark of foreign intrusion into the body politic of Iran. In the 19th century, it was the Russians under the czars, in occasional collusion with the British. In the 20th century, the Soviets in Azerbaijan and the British in the oil-nationalization crisis before the ouster of Mossadegh meddled in Iranian affairs.

Khomeini built on this historical "foreign-hand" theme in Iranian politics to accomplish his revolution with the rallying cry of America as the Great Satan. Today, that theme continues to politically underpin the clerical leadership`s hold on power, even in the face of clear evidence that a majority of Iranians favors dialogue with the U.S.

The revolution, from its beginnings, has been out of touch with Iran`s national and cultural traditions. Khomeini`s doctrine of "veleyati i faqui" — the concept of the supreme leader as God`s representative on Earth — is out of line with Shiite doctrinal traditions. The provision for a separate executive — today in the person of President Mohammad Khatami — is demonstrably unworkable. The result is that Iran`s immense human and material potential is hobbled by a failing governmental structure. Students are again on the street protesting the theocracy`s denial of their desire for greater political and personal freedom.

Regime change in Tehran is inevitable. But it must come from within. Iran is not Iraq. It is big; it is populous: 70 million and counting. It is overwhelmingly Shiite. Its people are culture-proud and intensely nationalistic. The current student unrest is symptomatic, but there is little evidence of a burgeoning public movement sufficient to press revolutionary change. A quasi-democratic process and an evolving civil society work to keep political agitation largely under control, with the Basij and other militants put on the streets to curb student unrest. After the climactic events of the revolution and the eight years of devastating war with Iraq, there is little public readiness for institutional upheaval. Nor is there any evident alternative leadership of any stature among either the students or other opposition.

Change will come, but it can and should be "soft" change. Playing our cards wisely, there are ways we can encourage it. Iran is confronted on both its eastern and western borders with a U.S. military presence. Contact is inevitable, and so is dialogue, albeit limited for the present to discussions in Geneva on what were billed as "practical matters" — before we summarily ended them in the aftermath of the suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and the suspicion of Iranian involvement in support of Al Qaeda elements. If there is such evidence, that is all the more reason for contacts to resume, as counterintuitive as that seems.

The U.S. and Iran have shared interests in seeing progress toward cohesion in Afghanistan. The reality of our presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf states virtually dictates the need to start thinking seriously about a regional focus on long-term security arrangements. Working with the Russians, who have no interest in seeing Iran armed with nuclear weapons, we should exploit the opportunity that the current focus on Iran`s nuclear facilities offers for putting real pressure on the regime to come clean on its long-range intentions. Meanwhile, we should continue to make clear in all our public statements that we support the evident desire of young Iranians for greater freedoms, evident also in a majority in the Parliament.

This is no time for a Mossadegh repeat. Outside involvement risks derailing the momentum for change already underway in Iran, change that could eventually force the theocracy to collapse of its own weight. As an old expression has it, patience is a bitter cup that only the strong can drink.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-op…
IRAQ


Kurds Deserve a State
By Shlomo Avineri
Shlomo Avineri is a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

June 22, 2003

JERUSALEM — The current difficulties faced by the United States and Britain in building a representative government in Iraq could have been foreseen. If we have learned one thing from watching East European countries struggle to establish democratic systems in the wake of the Soviet Union`s collapse, it is this: Democracy is not easily exported. The job will be particularly difficult in Iraq because of its unique history and its ethnic and religious composition.

Perhaps the starting point to building a relatively nonrepressive society should be an admission that Britain`s creation of Iraq in the 1920s by stitching together three Ottoman provinces (Mosul, Baghdad and Basra) into one body politic was far from successful. The enormous social engineering project almost guaranteed Iraq would become — as it had even before Saddam Hussein — the most repressive regime in the Arab world.

With a well-defined Kurdish region in the north and a majority Shiite population in the south, the Sunni elites of central Iraq found themselves thrown into the almost impossible task of governing two large groups resistant to their rule. Consequently, Iraq`s leaders engaged in almost constant repression and massacres of the Kurds and Shiites, as well as of Turkmens and Christian Assyrians.

Hussein`s use of poison gas against his Kurdish citizens in Halabja was only one in a long list of atrocities perpetrated by Sunni-dominated Iraqi regimes against those who were ethnically or religiously different.

The most obvious route toward a less-repressive political culture in Iraq would be to accept the right of the Kurds in the north to self-determination. Just as the Palestinians should have the right not to live under Israeli rule, so the Kurds in northern Iraq should not have to live under Arab rule.

The U.S. and Britain have expressed a commitment to "preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq." But preserving the territorial integrity of a country makes sense only so long as the country remains a coherent entity. When this is no longer the case — as we saw with both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia during the 1990s — legitimacy disappears and other alternatives have to be sought.

At this point, the only argument against Kurdish self-determination is one of crude realpolitik: Turkey, with its repressive policies toward its own Kurdish minority, would not tolerate a Kurdish state carved out of northern Iraq.

But just as Israel`s territorial claims must not ultimately be allowed to trump the Palestinian right of self- determination, so Turkish claims should not be allowed to trump the rights of the Kurds of northern Iraq to a polity of their own. And after its ambivalent role in the Iraq war, Turkey should carry much less weight with the U.S. than before.

Iraq`s Kurds are obviously a nation — though, like many emergent nations, still in a process of formation. They have enjoyed, since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, some measure of independence, and they have used the experience to build some rudimentary democratic institutions and traditions. Forcing them to abandon these attempts and squeeze themselves back into an Iraqi state where they are unlikely to enjoy the same degree of self-determination could be harmful not only to the Kurds but to the prospects of Iraq as a whole. As we saw in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia — and even in Czechoslovakia — attempting to force different nationalities into a single (and often Procrustean) state leads to friction and violence and ultimately hinders democratic development.

Though the atrocities of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia were unspeakable, there is no doubt today that Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia have a better chance of developing working democracies as independent states than they would have had if the world had tried to keep a dysfunctional nation together despite deep ethnic rifts. And the future of democratic development in Kosovo depends ultimately on the province`s becoming independent from Serbia, where ethnic Albanians would always be a feared and oppressed minority.

There is no universal formula for ethnically diverse states, but when a minority is oppressed by the ruling elite, when violent ethnic clashes are commonplace, then minorities have a right to create their own sovereign communities.

This raises the question of oil, which presents both a barrier to a Kurdish state and an opportunity. Iraq has one of the richest oil deposits in the Middle East, and some of it is in the north, where Kurds are in the majority. The dominant Sunni minority in Iraq would not be eager to relinquish petroleum-rich areas. On the other hand, if the Kurds were to gain control of a share of Iraq`s oil — say, by being given control of the oil-rich and once predominantly Kurdish city of Kirkuk — a Kurdish entity would be much more economically viable.

Even without the Kirkuk fields, the rest of Iraq would still possess enough oil resources to guarantee its population prosperity and economic development on a much greater scale than under Hussein.

Arab public opinion, which has been universally supportive — and rightly so — of the Palestinian right of self-determination, will probably see in an attempt to create a Kurdish state another American, if not outright Zionist, plot. It may be difficult to calm such Arab fears. Yet universal values demand granting the Kurds their place in the sun. And the rest of Iraq would then also have a better chance for a bright future.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR.
The First Casualty
by John B. Judis & Spencer Ackerman
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis06300…
Post date: 06.19.03
Issue date: 06.30.03
[ Editor`s Note: This article has been corrected online. ]

Foreign policy is always difficult in a democracy. Democracy requires openness. Yet foreign policy requires a level of secrecy that frees it from oversight and exposes it to abuse. As a result, Republicans and Democrats have long held that the intelligence agencies--the most clandestine of foreign policy institutions--should be insulated from political interference in much the same way as the higher reaches of the judiciary. As the Tower Commission, established to investigate the Iran-Contra scandal, warned in November 1987, "The democratic processes ... are subverted when intelligence is manipulated to affect decisions by elected officials and the public."

If anything, this principle has grown even more important since September 11, 2001. The Iraq war presented the United States with a new defense paradigm: preemptive war, waged in response to a prediction of a forthcoming attack against the United States or its allies. This kind of security policy requires the public to base its support or opposition on expert intelligence to which it has no direct access. It is up to the president and his administration--with a deep interest in a given policy outcome--nonetheless to portray the intelligence community`s findings honestly. If an administration represents the intelligence unfairly, it effectively forecloses an informed choice about the most important question a nation faces: whether or not to go to war. That is exactly what the Bush administration did when it sought to convince the public and Congress that the United States should go to war with Iraq.

From late August 2002 to mid-March of this year, the Bush administration made its case for war by focusing on the threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein`s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and by his purported links to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Officials conjured up images of Iraqi mushroom clouds over U.S. cities and of Saddam transferring to Osama bin Laden chemical and biological weapons that could be used to create new and more lethal September elevenths. In Nashville on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of a Saddam "armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror" who could "directly threaten America`s friends throughout the region and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail." In Washington on September 26, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "bulletproof" evidence of ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. And, in Cincinnati on October 7, President George W. Bush warned, "The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons." Citing Saddam`s association with Al Qaeda, the president added that this "alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

Yet there was no consensus within the American intelligence community that Saddam represented such a grave and imminent threat. Rather, interviews with current and former intelligence officials and other experts reveal that the Bush administration culled from U.S. intelligence those assessments that supported its position and omitted those that did not. The administration ignored, and even suppressed, disagreement within the intelligence agencies and pressured the CIA to reaffirm its preferred version of the Iraqi threat. Similarly, it stonewalled, and sought to discredit, international weapons inspectors when their findings threatened to undermine the case for war.

Three months after the invasion, the United States may yet discover the chemical and biological weapons that various governments and the United Nations have long believed Iraq possessed. But it is unlikely to find, as the Bush administration had repeatedly predicted, a reconstituted nuclear weapons program or evidence of joint exercises with Al Qaeda--the two most compelling security arguments for war. Whatever is found, what matters as far as American democracy is concerned is whether the administration gave Americans an honest and accurate account of what it knew. The evidence to date is that it did not, and the cost to U.S. democracy could be felt for years to come.



THE BATTLE OVER INTELLIGENCE
Fall 2001-Fall 2002

he Bush administration decided to go to war with Iraq in the late fall of 2001. At Camp David on the weekend after the September 11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz floated the idea that Iraq, with more than 20 years of inclusion on the State Department`s terror-sponsor list, be held immediately accountable. In his memoir, speechwriter David Frum recounts that, in December, after the Afghanistan campaign against bin Laden and his Taliban sponsors, he was told to come up with a justification for war with Iraq to include in Bush`s State of the Union address in January 2002. But, in selling the war to the American public during the next year, the Bush administration faced significant obstacles.

In the wake of September 11, 2001, many Americans had automatically associated Saddam`s regime with Al Qaeda and enthusiastically backed an invasion. But, as the immediate horror of September 11 faded and the war in Afghanistan concluded successfully (and the economy turned downward), American enthusiasm diminished. By mid-August 2002, a Gallup poll showed support for war with Saddam at a post-September 11 low, with 53 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed--down from 61 percent to 31 percent just two months before. Elite opinion was also turning against war, not only among liberal Democrats but among former Republican officials, such as Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence Eagleburger. In Congress, even conservative Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott and House Majority Leader Dick Armey began to express doubts that war was justified. Armey declared on August 8, 2002, "If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, without proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation-states who might do so."

Unbeknownst to the public, the administration faced equally serious opposition within its own intelligence agencies. At the CIA, many analysts and officials were skeptical that Iraq posed an imminent threat. In particular, they rejected a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. According to a New York Times report in February 2002, the CIA found "no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda or related terrorist groups."

CIA analysts also generally endorsed the findings of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which concluded that, while serious questions remained about Iraq`s nuclear program--many having to do with discrepancies in documentation--its present capabilities were virtually nil. The IAEA possessed no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program and, it seems, neither did U.S. intelligence. In CIA Director George Tenet`s January 2002 review of global weapons-technology proliferation, he did not even mention a nuclear threat from Iraq, though he did warn of one from North Korea. The review said only, "We believe that Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its nuclear program." This vague determination didn`t reflect any new evidence but merely the intelligence community`s assumption that the Iraqi dictator remained interested in building nuclear weapons. Greg Thielmann, the former director for strategic proliferation and military affairs at the State Department`s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), tells The New Republic, "During the time that I was office director, 2000 to 2002, we never assessed that there was good evidence that Iraq was reconstituting or getting really serious about its nuclear weapons program."

The CIA and other intelligence agencies believed Iraq still possessed substantial stocks of chemical and biological weapons, but they were divided about whether Iraq was rebuilding its facilities and producing new weapons. The intelligence community`s uncertainty was articulated in a classified report from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in September 2002. "A substantial amount of Iraq`s chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions, and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] actions," the agency reported. "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or where Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities."

Had the administration accurately depicted the consensus within the intelligence community in 2002--that Iraq`s ties with Al Qaeda were inconsequential; that its nuclear weapons program was minimal at best; and that its chemical and biological weapons programs, which had yielded significant stocks of dangerous weapons in the past, may or may not have been ongoing--it would have had a very difficult time convincing Congress and the American public to support a war to disarm Saddam. But the Bush administration painted a very different, and far more frightening, picture. Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat who ultimately voted against the war, says of his discussions with constituents, "When someone spoke of the need to invade, [they] invariably brought up the example of what would happen if one of our cities was struck. They clearly were convinced by the administration that Saddam Hussein--either directly or through terrorist connections--could unleash massive destruction on an American city. And I presume that most of my colleagues heard the same thing back in their districts." One way the administration convinced the public was by badgering CIA Director Tenet into endorsing key elements of its case for war even when it required ignoring the classified findings of his and other intelligence agencies.



s a result of its failure to anticipate the September 11 attacks, the CIA, and Tenet in particular, were under almost continual attack in the fall of 2001. Congressional leaders, including Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wanted Tenet to resign. But Bush kept Tenet in his job, and, within the administration, Tenet and the CIA came under an entirely different kind of pressure: Iraq hawks in the Pentagon and in the vice president`s office, reinforced by members of the Pentagon`s semi-official Defense Policy Board, mounted a year-long attempt to pressure the CIA to take a harder line against Iraq--whether on its ties with Al Qaeda or on the status of its nuclear program.

A particular bone of contention was the CIA`s analysis of the ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda. In the immediate aftermath of September 11, former CIA Director James Woolsey, a member of the Defense Policy Board who backed an invasion of Iraq, put forth the theory--in this magazine and elsewhere--that Saddam was connected to the World Trade Center attacks. In September 2001, the Bush administration flew Woolsey to London to gather evidence to back up his theory, which had the support of Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, then the Defense Policy Board chairman. While Wolfowitz and Perle had their own long-standing and complex reasons for wanting to go to war with Iraq, they and other administration officials believed that, if they could tie Saddam to Al Qaeda, they could justify the war to the American people. As a veteran aide to the Senate Intelligence Committee observes, "They knew that, if they could really show a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, then their objective, ... which was go in and get rid of Hussein, would have been a foregone conclusion."

But this theory immediately encountered resistance from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Woolsey`s main piece of evidence for a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda was a meeting that was supposed to have taken place in Prague in April 2001 between lead September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official. But none of the intelligence agencies could place Atta in Prague on that date. (Indeed, receipts and other travel documents placed him in the United States.) An investigation by Czech officials dismissed the claim, which was based on a single unreliable witness. The CIA was also receiving other information that rebutted a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. After top Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah was captured in March 2002, he was debriefed by the CIA, and the results were widely circulated in the intelligence community. As The New York Times reported, Zubaydah told his captors that bin Laden himself rejected any alliance with Saddam. "I remember reading the Abu Zubaydah debriefing last year, while the administration was talking about all of these other reports [of a Saddam-Al Qaeda link], and thinking that they were only putting out what they wanted," a CIA official told the paper. Zubaydah`s story, which intelligence analysts generally consider credible, has since been corroborated by additional high-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody, including Ramzi bin Al Shibh and September 11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

Facing resistance from the CIA, administration officials began a campaign to pressure the agency to toe the line. Perle and other members of the Defense Policy Board, who acted as quasi-independent surrogates for Wolfowitz, Cheney, and other administration advocates for war in Iraq, harshly criticized the CIA in the press. The CIA`s analysis of Iraq, Perle said, "isn`t worth the paper it is written on." In the summer of 2002, Vice President Cheney made several visits to the CIA`s Langley headquarters, which were understood within the agency as an attempt to pressure the low-level specialists interpreting the raw intelligence. "That would freak people out," says one former CIA official. "It is supposed to be an ivory tower. And that kind of pressure would be enormous on these young guys."

But the Pentagon found an even more effective way to pressure the agency. In October 2001, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a special intelligence operation in the Pentagon to "think through how the various terrorist organizations relate to each other and ... state sponsors," in Feith`s description. Their approach echoed the "Team B" strategy that conservatives had used in the past: establishing a separate entity to offer alternative intelligence analyses to the CIA. Conservatives had done this in 1976, criticizing and intimidating the agency over its estimates of Soviet military strength, and again in 1998, arguing for the necessity of missile defense. (Wolfowitz had participated in both projects; the latter was run by Rumsfeld.) This time, the new entity--headed by Perle protégé Abram Shulsky--reassessed intelligence already collected by the CIA along with information from Iraqi defectors and, as Feith remarked coyly at a press conference earlier this month, "came up with some interesting observations about the linkages between Iraq and Al Qaeda." In August 2002, Feith brought the unit to Langley to brief the CIA about its findings. If the separate intelligence unit wasn`t enough to challenge the CIA, Rumsfeld also began publicly discussing the creation of a new Pentagon position, an undersecretary for intelligence, who would rival the CIA director and diminish the authority of the agency.

In its classified reports, the CIA didn`t diverge from its initial skepticism about the ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. But, under pressure from his critics, Tenet began to make subtle concessions. In March 2002, Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iraqi regime "had contacts with Al Qaeda" but declined to elaborate. He would make similar ambiguous statements during the congressional debate over war with Iraq.



he intelligence community was also pressured to exaggerate Iraq`s nuclear program. As Tenet`s early 2002 threat assessments had indicated, U.S. intelligence showed precious little evidence to indicate a resumption of Iraq`s nuclear program. And, while the absence of U.N. inspections had introduced greater uncertainty into intelligence collection on Iraq, according to one analyst, "We still knew enough, [and] we could watch pretty closely what was happening."

These judgments were tested in the spring of 2002, when intelligence reports began to indicate that Iraq was trying to procure a kind of high-strength aluminum tube. Some analysts from the CIA and DIA quickly came to the conclusion that the tubes were intended to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon through the kind of gas-centrifuge project Iraq had built before the first Gulf war. This interpretation seemed plausible enough at first, but over time analysts at the State Department`s INR and the Department of Energy (DOE) grew troubled. The tubes` thick walls and particular diameter made them a poor fit for uranium enrichment, even after modification. That determination, according to the INR`s Thielmann, came from weeks of interviews with "the nation`s experts on the subject, ... they`re the ones that have the labs, like Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where people really know the science and technology of enriching uranium." Such careful study led the INR and the DOE to an alternative analysis: that the specifications of the tubes made them far better suited for artillery rockets. British intelligence experts studying the issue concurred, as did some CIA analysts.

But top officials at the CIA and DIA did not. As the weeks dragged on, more and more high-level intelligence officials attended increasingly heated interagency bull sessions. And the CIA-DIA position became further and further entrenched. "They clung so tenaciously to this point of view about it being a nuclear weapons program when the evidence just became clearer and clearer over time that it wasn`t the case," recalls a participant. David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, who had been asked to provide the administration with information on past Iraqi procurements, noticed an anomaly in how the intelligence community was handling the issue. "I was told that this dispute had not been mediated by a competent, impartial technical committee, as it should have been according to accepted practice," he wrote on his organization`s website this March. By September 2002, when the intelligence agencies were preparing a joint National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Saddam`s weapons of mass destruction, top CIA officials insisted their opinion prevail. Says Thielmann, "Because the CIA is also the head of the entire U.S. intelligence community, it becomes very hard not to have the ultimate judgment being the CIA`s judgment, rather than who in the intelligence community is most expert on the issue."

By the fall of 2002, when public debate over the war really began, the administration had created consternation in the intelligence agencies. The press was filled for the next two months with quotes from CIA officials and analysts complaining of pressure from the administration to toe the line on Iraq. Says one former staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, "People [kept] telling you first that things weren`t right, weird things going on, different people saying, `There`s so much pressure, you know, they keep telling us, go back and find the right answer,` things like that." For the most part, this pressure was not reflected in the CIA`s classified reports, but it would become increasingly evident in the agency`s declassified statements and in public statements by Tenet. The administration hadn`t won an outright endorsement of its analysis of the Iraqi threat, but it had undermined and intimidated its potential critics in the intelligence community.



THE BATTLE IN CONGRESS
Fall 2002

he administration used the anniversary of September 11, 2001, to launch its public campaign for a congressional resolution endorsing war, with or without U.N. support, against Saddam. The opening salvo came on the Sunday before the anniversary in the form of a leak to Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon of The New York Times regarding the aluminum tubes. Miller and Gordon reported that, according to administration officials, Iraq had been trying to buy tubes specifically designed as "components of centrifuges to enrich uranium" for nuclear weapons. That same day, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on the political talk shows to trumpet the discovery of the tubes and the Iraqi nuclear threat. Explained Rice, "There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don`t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Rumsfeld added, "Imagine a September eleventh with weapons of mass destruction. It`s not three thousand--it`s tens of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Many of the intelligence analysts who had participated in the aluminum-tubes debate were appalled. One described the feeling to TNR: "You had senior American officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that`s just a lie." Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, recalled, "I became dismayed when a knowledgeable government scientist told me that the administration could say anything it wanted about the tubes while government scientists who disagreed were expected to remain quiet." As Thielmann puts it, "There was a lot of evidence about the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons programs to be concerned about. Why couldn`t we just be honest about that without hyping the nuclear account? Making the case for active pursuit of nuclear weapons makes it look like the administration was trying to scare the American people about how dangerous Iraq was and how it posed an imminent security threat to the United States."

In speeches and interviews, administration officials also warned of the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. On September 25, 2002, Rice insisted, "There clearly are contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. ... There clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there`s a relationship there." On the same day, President Bush warned of the danger that "Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam`s madness." Rice, like Rumsfeld--who the next day would call evidence of a Saddam-bin Laden link "bulletproof"--said she could not share the administration`s evidence with the public without endangering intelligence sources. But Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, disagreed. On September 27, Paul Anderson, a spokesman for Graham, told USA Today that the senator had seen nothing in the CIA`s classified reports that established a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in fact, was the greatest congressional obstacle to the administration`s push for war. Under the lead of Graham and Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the committee enjoyed respect and deference in the Senate and the House, and its members could speak authoritatively, based on their access to classified information, about whether Iraq was developing nuclear weapons or had ties to Al Qaeda. And, in this case, the classified information available to the committee did not support the public pronouncements being made by the CIA.

In the late summer of 2002, Graham had requested from Tenet an analysis of the Iraqi threat. According to knowledgeable sources, he received a 25-page classified response reflecting the balanced view that had prevailed earlier among the intelligence agencies--noting, for example, that evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program or a link to Al Qaeda was inconclusive. Early that September, the committee also received the DIA`s classified analysis, which reflected the same cautious assessments. But committee members became worried when, midway through the month, they received a new CIA analysis of the threat that highlighted the Bush administration`s claims and consigned skepticism to footnotes. According to one congressional staffer who read the document, it highlighted "extensive Iraqi chem-bio programs and nuclear programs and links to terrorism" but then included a footnote that read, "This information comes from a source known to fabricate in the past." The staffer concluded that "they didn`t do analysis. What they did was they just amassed everything they could that said anything bad about Iraq and put it into a document."

Graham and Durbin had been demanding for more than a month that the CIA produce an NIE on the Iraqi threat--a summary of the available intelligence, reflecting the judgment of the entire intelligence community--and toward the end of September, it was delivered. Like Tenet`s earlier letter, the classified NIE was balanced in its assessments. Graham called on Tenet to produce a declassified version of the report that could guide members in voting on the resolution. Graham and Durbin both hoped the declassified report would rebut the kinds of overheated claims they were hearing from administration spokespeople. As Durbin tells TNR, "The most frustrating thing I find is when you have credible evidence on the intelligence committee that is directly contradictory to statements made by the administration."



n October 1, 2002, Tenet produced a declassified NIE. But Graham and Durbin were outraged to find that it omitted the qualifications and countervailing evidence that had characterized the classified version and played up the claims that strengthened the administration`s case for war. For instance, the intelligence report cited the much-disputed aluminum tubes as evidence that Saddam "remains intent on acquiring" nuclear weapons. And it claimed, "All intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons and that these tubes could be used in a centrifuge enrichment program"--a blatant mischaracterization. Subsequently, the NIE allowed that "some" experts might disagree but insisted that "most" did not, never mentioning that the DOE`s expert analysts had determined the tubes were not suitable for a nuclear weapons program. The NIE also said that Iraq had "begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents"--which the DIA report had left pointedly in doubt. Graham demanded that the CIA declassify dissenting portions.

In response, Tenet produced a single-page letter. It satisfied one of Graham`s requests: It included a statement that there was a "low" likelihood of Iraq launching an unprovoked attack on the United States. But it also contained a sop to the administration, stating without qualification that the CIA had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." Graham demanded that Tenet declassify more of the report, and Tenet promised to fax over additional material. But, later that evening, Graham received a call from the CIA, informing him that the White House had ordered Tenet not to release anything more.

That same evening, October 7, 2002, Bush gave a major speech in Cincinnati defending the resolution now before Congress and laying out the case for war. Bush`s speech brought together all the misinformation and exaggeration that the White House had been disseminating that fall. "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," the president declared. "Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." Bush also argued that, through its ties to Al Qaeda, Iraq would be able to use biological and chemical weapons against the United States. "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," he warned. If Iraq had to deliver these weapons on its own, Bush said, Iraq could use the new unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that it was developing. "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas," he said. "We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." This claim represented the height of absurdity. Iraq`s UAVs had ranges of, at most, 300 miles. They could not make the flight from Baghdad to Tel Aviv, let alone to New York.

After the speech, when reporters pointed out that Bush`s warning of an imminent threat was contradicted by Tenet`s statement the same day that there was little likelihood of an Iraqi attack, Tenet dutifully offered a clarification, explaining that there was "no inconsistency" between the president`s statement and his own and that he had personally fact-checked the president`s speech. He also issued a public statement that read, "There is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or our allies ... grows as his arsenal continues to build."

Five of the nine Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Graham and Durbin, ultimately voted against the resolution, but they were unable to convince other committee members or a majority in the Senate itself. This was at least in part because they were not allowed to divulge what they knew: While Graham and Durbin could complain that the administration`s and Tenet`s own statements contradicted the classified reports they had read, they could not say what was actually in those reports.

Bush, meanwhile, had no compunction about claiming that the "evidence indicates Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." In the words of one former Intelligence Committee staffer, "He is the president of the United States. And, when the president of the United States says, `My advisers and I have sat down, and we`ve read the intelligence, and we believe there is a tie between Iraq and Al Qaeda,` ... you take it seriously. It carries a huge amount of weight." Public opinion bears the former staffer out. By November 2002, a Gallup poll showed 59 percent in favor of an invasion and only 35 percent against. In a December Los Angeles Times poll, Americans thought, by a 90 percent to 7 percent margin, that Saddam was "currently developing weapons of mass destruction." And, in an ABC/Washington Post poll, 81 percent thought Iraq posed a threat to the United States. The Bush administration had won the domestic debate over Iraq--and it had done so by withholding from the public details that would have undermined its case for war.

THE BATTLE WITH THE INSPECTORS
Winter-Spring 2003

y January 2003, American troops were massing on Iraq`s borders, and the U.N. Security Council had unanimously approved Resolution 1441, which afforded Saddam a "final opportunity" to disarm verifiably. The return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq after four years had raised hopes both in the United States and abroad that the conflict could be resolved peacefully. On January 20, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin launched a surprise attack on the administration`s war plans, declaring bluntly, "Nothing today justifies envisaging military action." Nor was this sentiment exclusively French: By mid-January, Gallup showed that American support for the impending war had narrowed to 52 percent in favor of war and 43 percent opposed. Equally important, most of the nations that had backed Resolution 1441 were warning the United States not to rush into war, and Germany, which opposed military action, was to assume the chair of the Security Council in February, on the eve of the planned invasion.

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney`s office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq`s purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador`s report to the vice president`s office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

On February 5, Secretary of State Colin Powell took the administration`s case to the Security Council. Powell`s presentation was by far the most impressive the administration would make--according to U.S. News and World Report, he junked much of what the CIA had given him to read, calling it "bullshit"--but it was still based on a hyped and incomplete view of U.S. intelligence on Iraq. Much of what was new in Powell`s speech was raw data that had come into the CIA`s possession but had not yet undergone serious analysis. In addition to rehashing the aluminum-tube claims, Powell charged, for instance, that Iraq was trying to obtain magnets for uranium enrichment. Powell also described a "potentially ... sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder." But Powell`s evidence consisted of tenuous ties between Baghdad and an Al Qaeda leader, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had allegedly received medical treatment in Baghdad and who, according to Powell, operated a training camp in Iraq specializing in poisons. Unfortunately for Powell`s thesis, the camp was located in northern Iraq, an area controlled by the Kurds rather than Saddam and policed by U.S. and British warplanes. One Hill staffer familiar with the classified documents on Al Qaeda tells TNR, "So why would that be proof of some Iraqi government connection to Al Qaeda? [It] might as well be in Iran."

But, by the time Powell made his speech, the administration had stopped worrying about possible rebukes from U.S. intelligence agencies. On the contrary, Tenet sat directly behind Powell as he gave his presentation. And, with the GOP takeover of the Senate, the Intelligence Committee had passed into the hands of a docile Republican chairman, Pat Roberts of Kansas.



s Powell cited U.S. intelligence supporting his claim of a reconstituted nuclear weapons program in Iraq, Jacques Baute listened intently. Baute, the head of the IAEA`s Iraq inspections unit, had been pestering the U.S. and British governments for months to share their intelligence with his office. Despite repeated assurances of cooperation, TNR has learned that Baute`s office received nothing until the day before Powell`s presentation, when the U.S. mission in Vienna provided the IAEA with an oral briefing while Baute was en route to New York, leaving no printed material with the nuclear inspectors. As IAEA officials recount, an astonished Baute told his aides, "That won`t do. I want the actual documentary evidence." He had to register his complaints through a United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) channel before receiving the documents the day Powell spoke. It was an incident that would characterize America`s intelligence-sharing with the IAEA.

After a few weeks of traveling back and forth between Baghdad and Vienna, Baute sat down with the dozen or so pages of U.S. intelligence on Saddam`s supposed nuclear procurements--the aluminum tubes, the Niger uranium, and the magnets. In the course of a day, Baute determined, like the ambassador before him, that the Niger document was fraudulent. Though the "president" of Niger made reference to his powers under the constitution of 1965, Baute performed a quick Google search to learn that Niger`s latest constitution was drafted in 1999. There were other obvious mistakes--improper letterhead, an obviously forged signature, a letter from a foreign minister who had not been in office for eleven years. Baute also made quick work of the aluminum tubes. He assembled a team of experts--two Americans, two Britons, and a German--with 120 years of collective experience with centrifuges. After reviewing tens of thousands of Iraqi transaction records and inspecting Iraqi front companies and military production facilities with the rest of the IAEA unit, they concluded, according to a senior IAEA official, that "all evidence points to that this is for the rockets"--the same conclusion reached by the State and Energy Departments. As for the magnets, the IAEA cross-referenced Iraq`s declarations with intelligence from various member states and determined that nothing in Iraq`s magnet procurements "pointed to centrifuge enrichment," in the words of an IAEA official with direct knowledge of the effort. Rather, the magnets were for projects as disparate as telephones and short-range missiles. Baute, who according to a senior IAEA official was in "almost daily" contact with the American diplomatic mission in Vienna, was surprised at the weakness of the U.S. evidence. In one instance, Baute contacted the mission after discovering the Niger document forgeries and asked, as this official described it, "Can your people help me understand if I`m wrong? I`m not ready to close the book on this file. If you`ve got any other evidence that might be authentic, I need to see it, and I`ll follow up." Eventually, a response came: The Americans and the British were not disputing the IAEA`s conclusions; no more evidence would be provided.

On March 7, IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei delivered Baute`s conclusions to the Security Council. But, although the United States conceded most of the IAEA`s inconvenient judgments behind closed doors, Vice President Cheney publicly assaulted the credibility of the organization and its director-general. "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong," Cheney told Tim Russert on NBC`s "Meet the Press" on March 16. "I think, if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq`s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don`t have any reason to believe they`re any more valid this time than they`ve been in the past." Incredibly, Cheney added, "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Cheney was correct that the IAEA had failed to uncover Iraq`s covert uranium-enrichment program prior to the Gulf war. But, before the war, the IAEA was not charged with playing the role of a nuclear Interpol. Rather, until the passage of Resolution 687 in 1991, the IAEA was merely supposed to review the disclosures of member states in the field of nuclear development to ensure compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By contrast, in the `90s, the IAEA mounted more than 1,000 inspections in Iraq, mostly without advance warning; sealed, expropriated, or destroyed tons of nuclear material; and destroyed thousands of square feet of nuclear facilities. In fact, its activities formed the baseline for virtually every intelligence assessment regarding Iraq`s nuclear weapons program.

UNMOVIC Chairman Hans Blix received similar treatment from American officials--even though he repeatedly told the Security Council that the Iraqis had yet to account for the chemical and biological weapons they had once possessed, a position that strengthened the U.S. case for war. According to The Washington Post, in early 2002 Wolfowitz ordered a CIA report on Blix. When the report didn`t contain damning details, Wolfowitz reportedly "hit the ceiling." And, as the inspections were to begin, Perle said, "If it were up to me, on the strength of his previous record, I wouldn`t have chosen Hans Blix." In his February presentation, Powell suggested that Blix had ignored evidence of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons production. After stalling for months, the United States finally shared some of its intelligence with UNMOVIC. But, according to UNMOVIC officials, none of the intelligence it received yielded any incriminating discoveries.



AFTERMATH

hat we must not do in the face of a mortal threat," Cheney instructed a Nashville gathering of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2002, "is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness." Cheney`s admonition is resonant, but not for the reasons he intended. The Bush administration displayed an acute case of willful blindness in making its case for war. Much of its evidence for a reconstituted nuclear program, a thriving chemical-biological development program, and an active Iraqi link with Al Qaeda was based on what intelligence analysts call "rumint." Says one former official with the National Security Council, "It was a classic case of rumint, rumor-intelligence plugged into various speeches and accepted as gospel."

In some cases, the administration may have deliberately lied. If Bush didn`t know the purported uranium deal between Iraq and Niger was a hoax, plenty of people in his administration did--including, possibly, Vice President Cheney, who would have seen the president`s State of the Union address before it was delivered. Rice and Rumsfeld also must have known that the aluminum tubes that they presented as proof of Iraq`s nuclear ambitions were discounted by prominent intelligence experts. And, while a few administration officials may have genuinely believed that there was a strong connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, most probably knew they were constructing castles out of sand.

The Bush administration took office pledging to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House. And it`s true: Bush has not gotten caught having sex with an intern or lying about it under oath. But he has engaged in a pattern of deception concerning the most fundamental decisions a government must make. The United States may have been justified in going to war in Iraq--there were, after all, other rationales for doing so--but it was not justified in doing so on the national security grounds that President Bush put forth throughout last fall and winter. He deceived Americans about what was known of the threat from Iraq and deprived Congress of its ability to make an informed decision about whether or not to take the country to war.

The most serious institutional casualty of the administration`s campaign may have been the intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. Some of the CIA`s intelligence simply appears to have been defective, perhaps innocently so. Durbin says the CIA`s classified reports contained extensive maps where chemical or biological weapons could be found. Since the war, these sites have not yielded evidence of any such weapons. But the administration also turned the agency--and Tenet in particular--into an advocate for the war with Iraq at a time when the CIA`s own classified analyses contradicted the public statements of the agency and its director. Did Tenet really fact-check Bush`s warning that Iraq could threaten the United States with UAVs? Did he really endorse Powell`s musings on the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Or had Tenet and his agency by then lost any claim to the intellectual honesty upon which U.S. foreign policy critically depends--particularly in an era of preemptive war?

Democrats such as Durbin, Graham, and Senator Jay Rockefeller, who has become the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, are now pressing for a full investigation into intelligence estimates of the Iraqi threat. This would entail public hearings with full disclosure of documents and guarantees of protection for witnesses who come forward to testify. But it is not likely to happen. Senator John Warner, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, initially called for public hearings but recanted after Cheney visited a GOP senators` lunch on June 4. Cheney, according to Capitol Hill staffers, told his fellow Republicans to block any investigation, and it looks likely they will comply. Under pressure from Democrats, Roberts, the new Intelligence Committee chairman, has finally agreed to a closed-door hearing but not to a public or private investigation. According to Durbin, the Republican plan is to stall in the hope that the United States finds sufficient weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to quiet the controversy.

The controversy might, indeed, go away. Democrats don`t have the power to call hearings, and, apart from Graham and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are treating the issue delicately given the public`s overwhelming support for the war. But there are worse things than losing an election by going too far out on a political limb--namely, failing to defend the integrity of the country`s foreign policy and its democratic institutions. It may well be that, in the not-too-distant future, preemptive military action will become necessary--perhaps against a North Korea genuinely bent on incinerating Seoul or a nuclear Pakistan that has fallen into the hands of radical Islamists. In such a case, we the people will look to our leaders for an honest assessment of the threat. But, next time, thanks to George W. Bush, we may not believe them until it is too late.

Correction: This article originally referred to Trent Lott as Senate majority leader in August of 2002. At the time he was Senate minority leader. The article has been corrected to reflect that change. We regret the error.



John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR.



Copyright 2003, The New Republic

[wolaufensie]

...guten Morgen Autisten...

[Joerver]

Anarchy engulfs the new Iraq


The war ended 10 weeks ago, but neither peace nor freedom prevail as the US struggles to keep control
By James McGowan
http://www.sundayherald.com/34766

Agamemnon, the general of ancient Greece who was charged with rescuing Helen from Troy, said that starting a war was like throwing a pebble into a lake -- you never know where the last ripple will end up. The ripples sent out following the war in Iraq have barely reached the banks and look likely to turn into waves .
Just over 10 weeks have passed since the collapse of Saddam Hussein`s regime, and in that time Iraq has been plunged into unimaginable chaos and disorganisation .

The situation was brought home last week with the announcement that Valerie Amos, the secretary of state for international development, who is in charge of British efforts to reconstruct Iraq, is unable to visit the country for fear of guerrilla attacks, while the British commander Major General Freddie Viggers said British troops may be required in Iraq for four years because of the continued resistance.

Although the war might have been won with relative ease, the peace is looking more fragile each day. Any goodwill felt by the Iraqis towards the allied forces has quickly evaporated and turned into anger and resistance.

The Americans are becoming frustrated as the growing movements are now killing an average of one soldier a day. According to US Commander Lieutenant General David McKiernan, it has turned into `a cycle of action, reaction and counter-action`.

This equates to more than 50 US troops killed since President George Bush declared the war over on May 1 -- nearly half of the total number of US troops killed in the war itself. How long before the bodybag-adverse American public questions this strategy ?

Resistance is being waged by Saddam loyalists, Sunni radicals, non-Iraqi Islamic fighters and disgruntled ex-soldiers, with much of the fighting in the `Sunni triangle` north and west of Baghdad. The chief resistance group is the Party of the Return, or Hizab al-Awda, which consists of small cells of up to two dozen men in the main cities. They are believed to be working with elements of the Fedayeen (Saddam`s former militia) who are scattered throughout the country.

The resistance hasn`t yet evolved into any kind of coherent force, making it difficult for the Americans to police, but last week alone US troops made more than 400 arrests . And the news that Saddam and his sons are probably alive and well and still in Iraq is fuelling resistance against the 150,000 occupying troops -- not a huge force in a country of 22 million people.

Fighting has yet to spread to the south, where British troops are based and where Shi`ite Islamist groups are gaining political strength. The continued occupation and Iranian influence are likely to result in future volatility in this area, and the pro-Iranian Shi`ite leader, Ayatollah Hakim, has predicted that armed resistance will grow.

Iraq is a country with a strong social fabric, but public order has disintegrated into lawlessness and near-anarchy. Public institutions are looted, and anyone with the remotest links to the Ba`ath party is cast aside -- that`s most of the population, including the 400,000 soldiers from the Iraqi army sacked by the interim administration.

All essential services and infrastructure have been devastated. The impact of war and regime collapse on top of 12 years of stifling sanctions has turned Iraq into a wasteland.

The nightly curfew prevents anyone leaving home after 11pm, so Iraqis who lived in fear under Saddam`s regime are today too afraid to walk American-policed streets. This is particularly difficult in the unbearable summer heat, with temperatures of up to 50ûC, and because Iraq is a country where life is lived on the streets during the night as well as the day. People used to eat at 10pm or later and didn`t venture out until after the sun had set, but now they return home before dusk. Unsurprisingly, it`s hard to see this as liberation for a proud people who have been turned into victims.

However, there is at least the solace that Saddam`s brutal dictatorship has ended . Political opponents no longer disappear without trace to be tortured or imprisoned. The climate of fear and paranoia has ended. There is a free press, and media and political parties can organise as they wish.

Iraqi political parties want a broadly representative coalition to elect a transitional government, yet the head of the Coalition Protection Agency (CPA), Paul Bremer, will only consider an advisory council chosen by him. He even went so far as to proclaim illegal any `gatherings, pronouncements or publications` which call for the return of the Ba`ath party or for opposition to the US occupation. This is surely a sign of control and sends the conflicting message that it is OK to demonstrate in Tehran but not in Baghdad. Bremer has also insisted the Iraqi people will be free to choose their future `even if it is socialism`.

But sweeping changes are taking place. In a bid to kick-start the economy, Iraq will resume its oil exports at the Turkish oil terminal of Ceyhan this week, as sources at the Ministry of Industry and Minerals admit that dozens of Iraqi companies will be privatised without waiting for a new government to be in place . Of some 100 state-owned enterprises in Iraq, the industry ministry controls 48 -- which employ 96,000 people.

With $100 million promised for reconstruction to help jump-start the economy, $15m will go to each of the three administrative regions set up by the US , $20m will be spent on repairing ministry buildings damaged in the war and $35m will go to complete public works projects.

For the foreseeable future, it seems the US will take a unilateral approach to the reconstruction even though EU leaders yesterday called for the United Nations to be given a leading role in the process. Detailed proposals for the management of Iraqi oil receipts released last Tuesday threaten to sideline the UN and give US commitments to the `vital` post-war role for the organisation a rather hollow ring.

It is instructive to consider the situation in Afghanistan 20 months after the invasion. The deteriorating security scenario is now so bad that the US and Pakistani intelligence officials recently met with Taliban leaders in an effort to devise a political solution to prevent the country from being ripped apart.

It remains to be seen whether America can ride out its storm in Iraq.

22 June 2003

[Joerver]

Wolauf..
Ist etwas zu viel Information für Dein schlichtes Gemüt. Geh wieder in Deine Sandkiste mit den mit den kleinen Quenglern spielen.

[Joerver]

The Most Dangerous Lie
June 21, 2003
By Pamela Troy

The most dangerous lies are told in what the liars imagine to be the service of a Greater Truth. These "Greater Truths" must be striven for covertly because they go so far beyond what is publicly acceptable that they can`t be defended openly. The liars for a "Greater Truth" may envision a future when they no longer have to hide their agenda, but in the present, they see no shame in deceit and will utter blatant falsehoods with a conviction that the careless listener can mistake for sincerity.

Only the most careless listeners, however, because what`s truly nasty about such liars is the extent to which they invite their victims to collude in the lies. If the "Greater Truth" is one that appeals to the worst instincts of a people, intolerance, avarice, vindictiveness, arrogance, it`s depressing to observe how many will either believe, or pretend to believe the most transparent fibs.

Recently we invaded a weak country that had not attacked us, offering as a rationale its possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Many of us expressed our skepticism for this rationale in large demonstrations against the war. Now it has become apparent that the claim that Iraq possessed WMD was a lie. And recently, some liberals and progressives have been rubbing their hands in anticipation of the Bush Administration crashing and burning.

I hope they are right. I think lying to America and the rest of the world about our reasons for going to war is a good reason for impeachment. But one thing that is being overlooked, I fear, is the nature of the lie we were told, and the extent to which many Americans were and apparently are still willing to participate in it.

The rationales for the war I heard over and over again from my fellow Americans were not so much about Hussein`s possession of WMDs, but about the fact that Iraq is an Islamic country that we dislike, and therefore Hussein was a reasonable stand-in for Osama bin Laden. Running through the arguments was often the assumption that the United States possesses a unique moral right to invade any country it wants to invade, topple any government it dislikes. The "Greater Truth" behind the lie of Saddam`s possession of WMD is the barely concealed doctrine of American exceptionalism, an idea that appeals so strongly to the unthinking arrogance of many American citizens that it seems well on its way to graduating from "Greater Truth" to an openly held conviction.

And there`s the increasing possibility of another "Greater Truth," another lie-spawning covert agenda that may be even more dangerous to us than the notion that the United States is above international law. Evidence of its existence has grown and been studiously ignored since the 2000 presidential election.

Every time a Democrat confidently informs me, after the latest Bush Administration whopper, that "the American people won`t put up with it," every time I hear Democrats pointing at our crumbling economy as something that will drive determined citizens to oust Bush in the next election, every time someone writes about how he heard his barber, or a lady in the checkout counter, or a guy in the next booth at a diner denouncing Bush and boy, that means Bush is in trouble now, the hope I begin to feel is dampened by the following simple statement of fact.

Our president was not elected.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not even as a Vice-President who ran with a presidential candidate and then inherited the office in the wake of the standing president dying or resigning.

Roughly three years ago, a major political party showed it was willing to push its candidate into the White House by disenfranchising Americans. The Supreme Court showed that it was willing to give its assent to this gross subversion of the political process. With only a few exceptions, the rest of us showed that we were willing to let them get away with it. It`s possible that a political movement that succeeds in installing a president using these methods will retain the rock-solid conviction that voters are an important part of the process, but it`s unlikely.

The lie we are being told in many forms is that the "will of the people" is as meaningful and unassailable as it was before the 2000 election. The "Greater Truth" this lie seeks to conceal, the "Greater Truth" behind the 2000 election voter purge in Florida, Bush`s dismissive response to the massive anti-war demonstrations, the increasing use of "Free Speech Zones," and the expansion of the Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative branch, is the conviction that certain Americans can`t be trusted and do not deserve to have a voice in the political arena.

Certain Americans are not conservative enough. Certain Americans are not well off enough. Certain Americans are not Christian enough. Certain Americans are not white enough.

One can`t, of course, come out and say such things. In the current political climate, those citizens who believe that Americans of a certain color or a certain economic strata or a certain political or religious persuasion are less American and less entitled to participate as Americans are not yet confident enough about their numbers to embrace the idea openly. But make no mistake about it, the idea is out there and its expression is becoming more and more overt.

While we`ve been slapping fruitlessly away at the obvious and petty lies that everyone knows are obvious and petty lies: "Gore is a compulsive liar," "no legal voters were turned away in the last presidential election," "Bush won the popular vote," "Most of those foreign residents we rounded up and detained were terrorists," "anti-Bush demonstrators pose a physical danger to our president," "there`s no need for a paper trail with electronic voting," the largely unexamined agenda that has inspired them has become more powerful and more widely accepted.

There comes a moment when the only option is to look the liar directly in the eyes and confront him, not with his lies, but with his reasons for telling them. There comes a moment when we must realize that time is running out, that if we wait much longer, the shame that currently prevents the widespread and open advocacy of an unconscionable agenda will be gone.

Worse, if we wait much longer, the tools provided the American people by our constitution, the power of the legislative branch, the ability to vote and have one`s vote counted, the right to voice your opposition and make yourself heard, may no longer be available. They will have been rendered meaningless, or thrown away entirely.

The most dangerous lie being told to the American people by the Bush administration is that they believe in the Bill of Rights as a meaningful legal blueprint for the rights of every American. And because many Americans imagine that it`s only "unaverage" Americans whose rights don`t actually "count" when it comes to things like voting, or demonstrating, or even having access to a lawyer or a hearing, they are willing to overlook the broad wink with which the lie is told.

Lately, as I`ve observed the number of Americans, liberal, moderate and conservative, Republican and Democrat, who have been willing to give the Bush administration a pass on its lies about Saddam Hussein because they dislike Saddam Hussein, who`ve been willing to give the Bush administration a pass on its brutal treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo because they dislike the Taliban, who have been willing to give the Bush administration a pass on its treatment of dissenters because, well, those demonstrators are so shrill, so embarrassing and they block traffic, I`ve been reminded of an illustration by the great artist Francisco Goya. It shows a young woman fleeing from monsters. But as she flees, she peeks over her shoulder at her pursuers and she smiles. The caption reads, "She who allows herself to be caught will never escape."

Will the American people eventually reject Bush because of the WMD issue? Perhaps. Eventually.

The more important question is, will it matter when we finally do?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/06/21_lie.h…


© Democratic Underground, LLC

[Joerver]

Michael Schuler: Protesting may be our final distinction from `1984`

By Michael Schuler
June 21, 2003

Since 9-11, the War on Terror has been fuzzily described as one of indeterminate duration against enemies of uncertain and shifting identity. Again and again U.S. citizens have been told to expect a costly, protracted struggle, and have been reminded that this "war" is our (not the international community`s, but America`s) highest priority. To support the "war effort" citizens have been asked to increase consumer spending, make do with fewer civil liberties, and swallow their doubts about the administration`s ambitions.

Further concessions to federal authority are now being sought. Attorney General John Ashcroft appeared before the House Judiciary Committee recently to ask that the Patriot Act - a comprehensive security statute that already has raised serious human rights concerns - be enhanced. According to Ashcroft, the original act`s teeth weren`t quite sharp enough. Government`s right to detain and hold its citizens must be expanded further, and vaguely defined terrorist-related activities reclassified as capital crimes. Although thoughtful Americans have deplored the tendency of foreign dictators to "disappear" their troublesome opponents, Mr. Ashcroft`s proposals seem less worthy of Thomas Jefferson than of a Middle Eastern potentate.

At the same time, Americans are being gradually conditioned to accept the necessity of further pre-emptive strikes against putative threats to our security. The cost to domestic programs of future battles in the war on terror is not, however, spelled out. Clearly, between high-tech wars and tax relief for the wealthy, something (like Medicare) must give.

The picture painted more than half a century ago by George Orwell is not yet complete, but its outlines have been traced and gradually the sordid details are being added. Neither network journalists nor the general public have seen fit to question these developments because, as Big Brother reminds us, "Ignorance is Strength."

If the worst elements of Orwell`s prophecy are not fully realized, it may be because courageous, high-minded citizens like the Truax Four have taken up the slack. Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, these Madisonians protested our government`s casual disregard for international law and the U.N. Charter by nonviolently blocking an entrance to the Wisconsin Air National Guard installation at Truax Field. On June 26 they will appear before Judge Shelley Gaylord to defend their civil disobedience as an appropriate response to U.S. actions that one protester described as "immoral, illegal and illogical."

Another of the accused, Diane Farsetta, put it this way: "The Bush administration would have us believe that the war is over ... but the need for such action will continue until our government abandons its current policies."

A few commentators of late have expressed concerns about the future of citizen rule, civil liberties and economic opportunity in this country. The signs, they say, are ominous. In George Orwell`s dystopia, protest was out of the question. We, on the other hand, still have time to conquer our fear and to raise our voices.

Rev. Michael Schuler is senior minister at the First Unitarian Society.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/51401.p…

Published: 7:02 AM 6/21/03

[wolaufensie]

... ...ist wahrscheinlich nicht nur für mich Kleingemüt
zu viel Texttapete, die Du hier abrollst, wie wie ein
Schwarzenegger des Copy and Paste...

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/126871_wmd22.html

Laws governing warfare are evolving fast
Sunday, June 22, 2003

By DON MELVIN

LONDON -- On June 7, 1981, a cluster of F-15 and F-16 jet fighters took off from Etzion Air Force Base in southern Israel. Their mission, the pilots had been told, was critically important.

"The alternative is our destruction," said Lt. Gen. Rafael Eitan, the head of the Israel Defense Forces.

Ninety minutes later, they spotted their target: the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osiraq, south of Baghdad. They released their bombs. The reactor was reduced to rubble.

Iraq was not launching an attack. It had no nuclear weapons. By some estimates, it was five to 10 years away. Other experts estimated just a year or two. But Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin feared his party would lose the next election and the new government would not have the stomach for a pre-emptive strike.

The international community was unimpressed by this reasoning. The U.N. Security Council unanimously condemned the raid.

Jeanne Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called it "shocking."

"Armed attack in such circumstances cannot be justified," said British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. "It represents a grave breach of international law."

But international law evolves over time, and now the United States is seeking to make the practice it condemned in 1981 a centerpiece of its defense policy. The doctrine, announced last fall, allows pre-emptive strikes against countries that are not attacking but pose a potential threat.

Whether that doctrine has coherence, and whether it comes to be accepted by the rest of the world, depends in part on whether a new U.S. search team finds weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The original team, the U.S. military`s 75th Exploitation Task Force, visited more than 230 sites before running out of places to look. All that has been found so far are two trailers the CIA believes were biological weapons production facilities. Iraqi officials have said they were for making hydrogen for weather balloons; no traces of biological agents were found in them.

A new team, the Iraq Survey Group, will take up the search. With a staff of 1,400, including about 50 former U.N. inspectors, it will try to find the much-ballyhooed weapons of mass destruction.

Even in an era when terrorism is acknowledged as a threat, many experts in international relations criticize the new U.S. doctrine.

"This is an exceptionally dangerous idea because if everyone adopted it the world would become a far more dangerous place and there would be wars everywhere," said Robert Pastor, vice president of international affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., and a former member of the National Security Council.

But the possibility of a pre-emptive strike can never be completely excluded, he said. The question is when is it justified.

"Bush made the argument on Iraq that the threat was so imminent and so dire that the U.S. had to act -- even act alone," he said.

Pastor said the intelligence the Bush administration presented about the threat is critical because it was the central argument for going to war at a time when many other countries disagreed.

"So if it turns out that the U.S. was wrong, then he needs to revise his doctrine of pre-emption and accept the public opinion of the rest of the world in the next instance when he feels confident that an imminent threat requires U.S. action," he said.

If the Bush doctrine were to become accepted, it would represent an evolution of international law. But if search teams turn up nothing and it turns out there was no threat, acceptance of the change, already in short supply around the globe, will be hard to come by.

And other countries may be reluctant to support the U.S. the next time it says it is under threat.

The idea of whether waging war, an inherently violent act, is legal may seem incongruous. But people have long been engaged in attempts to codify when war is appropriate.

The Geneva Conventions, the League of Nations and the United Nations have been attempts not only to prevent wars but to specify when they are justified and according to what rules they must be fought.

There are no fines for violating international law. No world court will impose penalties. The United States will retain the ability to fight wars when it sees fit.

But violating international law can result in international disrepute. Diplomatic difficulties can make other ventures more difficult. Allies can be hard to find.

So it was that Iraqi officials, as U.S. forces massed in the Persian Gulf region, loudly declared that an invasion would be illegal.

International law has recognized for more than 160 years that nations have a right to defend themselves from an attack that is about to take place.

"You don`t have to wait for the blow to fall," said William Hopkinson, a former official in the British Ministry of Defense.

But the blow must be imminent. Under international law as it is now recognized, nations are not allowed to attack countries they feel might threaten them later on. Few legal experts believe that the case of Iraq, which might have posed a threat some years down the line, qualifies. Even finding weapons now won`t change the legality of the war, they say.

So what about another rationale offered in support of the invasion? Investigators have uncovered mass graves. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a mass killer.

Is there no legal doctrine that allows for the protection of human beings?

There is -- and this is an area where international law has recently evolved.

Formerly, the international community held that how a government treated its own citizens was no one else`s business.

But in early 1999, after increasing strife in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, the bodies of 45 people, presumably ethnic Albanians, were discovered in the village of Racak.

In March, Yugoslav soldiers began to drive thousands of ethnic Albanians from their homes, executing some and setting fire to houses. By the end of the month, 4,000 refugees an hour were crossing from Kosovo into Albania and Macedonia.

Ethnic cleansing was under way. But the Security Council would never approve action to stop it. Russia, an ally of the Serb-dominated Yugoslav government, was certain to cast a veto.

So, on April 3, NATO starting bombing Belgrade. On June 9, after 78 days of bombing, Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic agreed to withdraw his forces from Kosovo.

Some legal experts say that NATO`s bombing of Yugoslavia was illegal but justified. Others, though, say that it set a new legal standard.

But they say, too, that even though Saddam was a tyrant more brutal than Milosevic the Kosovo precedent does not apply to Iraq.

First, there was no effort to oust the Yugoslav government. And the operation, though it had no U.N. authorization, was nevertheless conducted through a recognized international organization. Most importantly, it was done to stave off a disaster that was about to happen.

Most of the graves uncovered in Iraq are a decade old or more.

"We would have had to build a case, which might have been possible to build, to show that Saddam was causing a major humanitarian disaster at the time and had to be stopped," said Sir Timothy Garden, a former assistant chief of Britain`s Defense Staff. "And it`s a bit difficult to see quite how he was doing that at the time the place was crawling with U.N. inspectors."

But the world changes and international law changes with it. Today`s illegal action, if carried out in good faith and with a successful result, can be accepted as legal tomorrow. The bombing of Yugoslavia allowed Kosovars to return to their homes; many legal experts now view that kind of action as permissible.

The key, they say, is acting through the U.N., or if that`s impossible, through another international institution. Having each country decide on its own what is legal is not a recipe for an orderly world.

If weapons of mass destruction -- weapons with potentially horrific effects -- are found in Iraq, it could bolster the U.S. contention that a pre-emptive strike can be justified.

In any event, said Garden, the United States deserves some credit for trying to meet the challenge posed by the twin threats of weapons proliferation and terrorist groups.

"I think we`ve got a real problem that the U.S. has decided to tackle and it is the only place in the world that has decided at least to put down its thoughts in writing," Garden said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don Melvin covered the war in Iraq for Cox News Service; [e-mail].

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[wolaufensie]

...aber nett, dass Du mich bemerkt hast...

[rv_2011]

@ wolaufensiedenn

Hätte ich mir gleich denken können, dass du mit einer solchen Sammlung von Informationen und Meinungen nichts anfangen kannst. Sind sie dir zu negativ oder zu positiv oder schlicht etwas zu kompliziert?

Du wirst wohl nie herausfinden, wo sie laufen.

[Joerver]

American foreign policy needs to be more `American`
Jamil Khoury
Sunday, June 22, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/22/ED82…


Progressive Muslims have often observed that the United States is a country with few Muslims but much Islam, whereas the Middle East is home to many Muslims but very little Islam.

It is an observation that ascribes to Islam a fundamental belief in human rights, pluralism, freedom of expression, women`s equality, intellectual inquiry and democracy -- values embodied by the U.S. Constitution and championed by most Americans, yet abandoned and betrayed by most Middle East leaders.

Hence, when studying U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, one is struck with similar observations: Policies are executed in the name of 280 million Americans, yet they miss the very point of America.

It is said that nations have no morals, only interests. Some argue that foreign policy is the domain of realpolitik -- might makes right, pragmatism trumps idealism. Moral and ethical considerations are derided as irrelevant, naive, the anguish of bleeding-heart liberals not suited to the harsh, untrustworthy world in which we live.

And so, to advocate a genuinely American foreign policy, one premised on American values and beliefs, is to invite reminders that America has changed since Sept. 11, 2001. More specifically, America`s relationship to the Arab and Muslim worlds has changed. Implicit in that statement is the assumption we`re somehow following a new script, undeterred from exhibiting force and demonstrating our will, no longer squeamish in the face of adversity. But changes in tone and posture hardly constitute an overhaul of alignments and priorities.

For the record, I am adamant in the belief that the United States has a responsibility to be vigilant and aggressive in the war against terrorism. Efforts aimed at eradicating a global terrorist infrastructure, and holding accountable the governments, organizations and individuals that support that infrastructure, have my support. Americans deserve nothing less than full peace and security, both at home and abroad.

Integral to that peace and security is the safeguarding and expansion (not curtailment) of our civil liberties.

I am also adamant about preserving that which makes the United States a beacon of hope for peoples around the world. The oft whispered refrain to the ubiquitous "Yankee go home" chant has long been, "and take me with you." It is a refrain rooted in the knowledge that the United States promises freedom, justice and opportunity -- all unimaginable in many other countries. I am enormously grateful to be a part of this great human experiment called America,

a gratitude reinforced by my experiences living in the Middle East.

I also believe that the values we espouse at home, values being undermined and eroded by the Bush administration, must define our behavior abroad. Call me simplistic and starry-eyed, but America`s poor standing in world opinion is directly related to the perceived amorality of this administration. Which brings me to the moral compass theory. America`s interests (political, economic, strategic, cultural) are best served and realized when driven by moral impulses.

In presenting the case for war against Iraq, the Bush administrations relied on unsubstantiated allegations about weapons of mass destruction and links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. A third tier of the argument focused on the Iraqi regime`s crimes against humanity (while conveniently ignoring our past complicity in sustaining that regime). It was the only argument that resonated powerfully for me and made the case for war a compelling and moral one, an argument vindicated by each new mass grave that is uncovered. While the jury`s still out about Iraq`s future government, and the extent of the U.S. occupation, I am hopeful that vicious totalitarianism will be consigned to Iraq`s past.

On the issue of Israel and Palestine, the United States has made a moral case for decades about the need to assure Israel`s security and survival, and it has defended the existence of the Jewish state on largely moral and humanitarian grounds. Unfortunately, U.S. policy-makers have shied away from launching an equally vigorous moral campaign on behalf of Palestinian national rights and against Israel`s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

A cursory glance at America`s two "special" friends in the Arab world -- Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both home to the Sept. 11 terrorists -- reveals the depravity of basing relationships solely on access to natural resources and/or strategic considerations, while paying scant attention to corrupt, oppressive and dictatorial practices.

All of this leads me to wonder what the Middle East would look like if only America acted more like Americans.

Jamil Khoury is an instructor of Middle East Studies at the University of Chicago Graham School of General Studies and the artistic director of Silk Road Theatre Project (www.srtp.org).

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page D - 5

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com Immigrants in battle, in jail and indignant
Welcome to America
Fighting for Uncle Sam
Vanessa Hua, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/22/IN33…


United under the American flag, soldiers born of many nations fought in Iraq.

Almost 60,000 immigrants serve on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, accounting for 5 percent of enlisted personnel. More than 20,000 are naturalized, and 37,000 are noncitizens who are legal permanent residents.

Of the noncitizen soldiers, 32 percent are Hispanic, 36 percent are Asian or other, 10 percent white, and 21 percent black, according to the Department of Defense. The Pentagon does not track such information for naturalized immigrants.

The strong immigrant presence comes at a time of tightened borders and crackdowns on foreigners.

In recent months, the U.S. government has required that men from predominantly Muslim countries be fingerprinted, photographed and interviewed by immigration officials. The Federal Bureau of Investigations interviewed Iraqi expatriates.

The investigations highlight the conflicting relations between immigrants and the U.S. government.

Though their pledge to the armed forces reflects the immigrant patriotism, at times the country they serve fails their community at home, critics say.

Some activists question the heavy recruitment of poor people of color -- many of them Latino immigrants. The military`s offer of a college education takes advantage of the poverty of the recruits, according to Elizabeth Martinez of the Institute for Multiracial Justice in San Francisco.

Marine Sgt. Lesly Ungo, who immigrated from El Salvador to San Francisco`s Mission District in 1987, is now a recruiter.

Ungo, who witnessed a civil war tear apart his homeland, said it helped him appreciate freedoms here. As a child, he lived in a tiny village in a tin shack and scavenged for toys.

"My experiences helped me understand what it is that we have," said Ungo, 24, adding that the promise of educational support also appealed to him.

Immigrants were among those first members of U.S. forces to die in the Iraq war. Marine Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, born in Guatemala, was killed in a battle near the Iraqi port city of Umm Qasr.

Gutierrez, an orphan, slipped illegally into California as a teenager, and was allowed to stay under a program for undocumented minors. The United States granted his citizenship posthumously.

Native sons from Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and the Philippines are among those who have died for their adopted homeland in the war.

Bay Area casualties include Sgt. Joseph Menusa, born in the Philippines, and Lance Cpl. Patrick O`Day from Scotland.

Those lacking U.S. citizenship may be on the front lines in part because they cannot attain the clearance for higher positions. They cannot become officers, with few exceptions.

Only U.S. citizens are eligible for a U.S. security clearance, said Carolyn Alison, Navy spokeswoman.

In July, President Bush signed an executive order granting immediate consideration of citizenship for noncitizens in the U.S. military on active duty since Sept. 11.

Previously, noncitizen members of the military in peacetime could apply for citizenship after three years of service. By comparison, civilian legal residents can apply for citizenship after five years, while those married to U. S. citizens can apply after three years.

This order only applies while the United States is engaged in the war on terror. However, a bill now moving through the Senate would permanently cut the three-year wait period to one year, waive application fees, make the process accessible to those serving overseas, and clear up technical barriers faced by non-citizen relatives of soldiers killed in the line of duty. The House approved a similar bill earlier this month.

ProjectUSA, an anti-immigrant group based in Washington, D.C., questions the practice of awarding naturalization to noncitizens in the Armed Forces. The noncitizen involvement is a sign that the nation is "overextending itself, " the group argues.

In Iraq, Arab immigrants have used their cultural and language skills to assist the U.S. military.

Soldiers hailing from impoverished countries may also bring a personal understanding of what civilians are going through, observed Jan Scruggs, founder of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The participation of immigrants in the military has helped accelerate their integration into American society, historians say.

In World War I, the foreign-born accounted for 800,000 or 20 percent of the U.S. armed forces -- many of them draftees drawn from the waves of newcomers from Italy and Eastern Europe.

The rapid, large-scale World War I buildup transformed the small, largely Anglo Protestant U.S. military. Leaders brought in English teachers, built interdenominational chapels and reached out to immigrants in other ways, said Chris Sterba, author of "Good Americans: Italian and Jewish Immigrants During the First World War."

Upon their return, veterans could point to the sacrifices they made for the country, he said.

Then came a backlash. Native-born Americans felt they were losing ground to foreigners, that U.S. institutions were at risk, Sterba added. Lawmakers curtailed immigration, and anti-Semitic and racist groups rose to power.

Two decades later, during World War II, the government tapped citizens of the Philippines -- then under U.S. rule -- to enlist, promising them American citizenship and veterans` benefits.

A 1946 law reversed the wartime pledge, with some in Congress arguing that Filipinos should help pay for the islands` liberation from the Japanese.

While a 1990 act granted U.S. citizenship to Filipino veterans, many lobbied for veterans benefits. About 3,200 are in the Bay Area, living on Supplementary Security Income.

Luciano Simangdan served as a guerrilla messenger for the U.S. military in World War II, spying on the Japanese. He became a U.S. citizen in 1992 and moved to San Francisco alone. His nine children live in the Philippines.

"We`re fighting for equality," said Simangdan, 75, who gathered with other veterans in April to commemorate the 1942 fall of Bataan in the Philippines.

At the Veterans Equity Center in San Francisco, they sang and prayed in Tagalog and English. Some relatives put slips of paper with the names of deceased veterans on a memorial table.

Some community leaders are asking not only for recognition of the immigrant contribution to the war effort, but support in combatting social problems here.

For example, when it comes to the issues of education and Latinos, some feel that the United States doesn`t deliver, said Julio Moreno, professor of Latin American Studies at the University of San Francisco.

"This sentiment comes out when we talk about the fact in times of war, we are just as patriotic," Moreno said.

The equality bred among soldiers in war disappears here, said David Rodriguez, a Vietnam War veteran.

Rodriguez, 55, is state commander of the GI Forum, an association of Mexican American veterans. Born in San Jose, Rodriguez is the son of Mexican farmworkers.

"You`re all American. You fight for this country, and when you come back, you`re nothing but a second-class citizen," he said.

E-mail Vanessa Hua at [e-mail].

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com Return to regular view
Truth Is the First Casualty
Desperately Seeking Jessica
M.M. Acosta
Sunday, June 22, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/22/IN27…


" You see this sort of thing in spy movies and wonder if it`s really true.

Now we know it is."

-- NBC official to Variety .

All the major networks are dying to be Army Pvt. Jessica Lynch`s new best friend. NBC`s Katie Couric sent the world`s most popular supply clerk several patriotic books, a gift of marvelous cluelessness. ABC`s Diane Sawyer sought to win her favor by giving Lynch a locket -- oooh, shiny! -- and an offer of a primetime special. CBS upped the ante by offering Lynch a two-hour documentary,

a Simon & Schuster book deal, and an MTV special aimed at inspiring youth.

Lynch has been sequestered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center more securely than an alien spaceship in Area 51. Rather than wait for the supply clerk`s version of events, NBC is already moving forward with a movie of the week.

In light of all this enthusiasm, it`s quite petty of BBC News to kvetch that Lynch`s story is riddled with falsehoods. For example, they say she didn`t actually get into a gun battle with Iraqi forces; she didn`t have any bullet or stab wounds; she wasn`t slapped around at the hospital; and she never had amnesia. They say witnesses believe the rescue team used blanks instead of bullets to shoot up the hospital.


MASTERPIECE THEATER
Hell-o-o-o, BBC, if we wanted a dull-as-paint-drying Masterpiece Theatre version of this story, we would have asked you first. And it isn`t as if we Yanks don`t possess our own tedious documentary filmmakers and couldn`t produce something like "Ken Burn`s `The Private Jessica Lynch Story.` "

BBC`s reporting of the Lynch rescue would be sorta all right maybe for an afternoon special. Young American gets in a crash and is taken to a hospital where the kindly staff members donate blood to her and even send their children to keep the friendly girl company. The theme would be, buckle up and drive your tank safely. Very warm and fuzzy, but I`m not seeing major ratings or A-list star power here.

NBC says their movie will be "based on the facts and on newspaper reports." But facts aren`t really the big selling point. You`ve got a teenage hottie military chick, like "GI Jane" but without all that annoying feminist hostility.

You`ve got a blazing shootout with Iraqi troops. Lots of opportunities for suggestively torn uniforms as our young heroine goes down fighting armed with guns and knives. My absolute favorite part of the NBC and U.S. intelligence version is Jessica`s "amnesia."


THE `SPELLBOUND` SCENARIO
We can`t forget how amnesia has been the theme of some the greatest films ever made. Think of passionate sanitarium scenes as our heroine recovers her memory, a la "Spellbound," with amnesia-victim Gregory Peck under the care of psychiatrist Ingrid Bergman. Or perhaps Jessica could find herself in a strange town, embraced as a long lost hero, like Jim Carrey in "The Majestic." Or she could discover she has amazing fighting and linguistic skills, like Matt Damon in "The Bourne Identity." Arty types might want to see her story unfold in reverse time, as in the cult hit, "Memento."

(I was too busy organizing my sock drawer to see the acclaimed amnesia movie, "The English Patient," but I hear it`s available on DVD if the BBC is seriously interested in investigating historical revisionism.)

These are all really wonderful ideas, but we`ve got to deal with the fact that American audiences like their heroines to be spunky, but confused, independent, but happier with a nice guy. To make this movie a success, NBC must pay homage to the greatest female amnesia story ever told -- yes, "Desperately Seeking Susan."

As many recall, spunky and confused amnesiac Rosanna Arquette quickly adapts to her situation by wearing co-star Madonna`s hip wardrobe. While searching for her identity, she falls in love with the cool guy who found her on the roadside. Some bad guys are after her, but she doesn`t know why, because she`s such a really great girl.


KNIFE-FIGHT TWEAK
NBC could just tweak this story a bit. Instead of hitting her head on the sidewalk, Jessica gets amnesia in an exciting shootout/knife fight. Instead of Madonna`s clothes, our heroine puts on a really sexy hospital gown. A hunky young resident at the Saddam Hospital attends to her wounds reluctantly at first, but the cute way she wrinkles her pert nose soon has him falling for her.

You see the possibilities. Sarah Michelle Geller as Pvt. Jessica Lynch and Ashton Kutchner as the dissident Iraqi doc with a heart of gold. As for BBC`s claim that the story has been largely fabricated, I`d like to say, thank you, U.S. military, for having the artistic cojones to give us an exciting plot and thrilling visuals. After all, if we wanted reality, we`d turn off the television.

M.M. Acosta, a freelance writer who lives in the East Bay, may be contacted at [e-mail].

[Joerver]

A Peek Inside Bush`s Post-War Diary: "F*** Impeachment!"

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers
June 22, 2003

Dear Diary:

The war went well. We licked those Iraqi towelheads real quick. We didn`t get Saddam, though, which is more than a little embarassing, since we also didn`t get Osama in Afghanistan. Makes me look bad. Also makes me look like I`d rather have those guys out there, scaring Americans...hee, hee, hee!

The worst thing is that some columnists and Democrats and even some disloyal Republicans are yapping like hungry dogs about the damn WMD thing. Poor Blair may even lose his job over the bullshit intelligence we sent his way. Now there`s one good loyal puppydog; he knows which side his international bread is buttered on.

There`s even talk of impeachment here. Do they really expect me to come right out and say it? "Ladies and gentlemen, we knew Saddam`s forces were weak and that they had nothing to hit us with, no WMD, no air force, no navy, no nothing. We just needed a pretext to invade, anything would do, and WMD was a good and scary reason. We went in there to demonstrate to his A-rab neighbors (and to the U.N.) not to mess with us; we want oil to stay at a certain price, in U.S. dollars, and securely in Western-oriented hands." No way I`m going to admit that in public. Let those idiots try to get an impeachment resolution through the Congress we control. F*** `em!

The point is that our policies of "shock&awe" and invasion worked, just like it got drawn up. It`s a clever twist of the old Nixon/Kissinger strategy: better think twice about geting the U.S. riled up, we`re "crazy" enough to start raining bombs and missiles on you.

Syria seems to have learned the Afghanistan/Iraq lessons, along with a good share of the other A-rab states, backing away from their harsh anti-Americanism and open support for terrorists.

So Rummy and Wolfowitz and Cheney and the rest of the Project for the New American Century boys were right: We can do what we want in the world, there ain`t nobody big enough or strong enough to stop us. Next stop Iran, or maybe Syria, or we go after Hizbollah in Lebanon, or, if we have to, that mad midget in North Korea.

But, dang it, not everything is working out the way we want. Here we are moving into the 2004 election mode, and Iraq is starting to look like Vietnam guerrilla warfare -- including the oil pipelines being sabotaged -- and we may be bogged down there for a long time, right into the election cycle. Not good. And the longer we stay, the more we have to be an OPEN occupational force rather than the quiet one we were as "liberators." Also not good.

The whole idea of these military operations is to pick weak countries, make our point, get our troops in and out quickly, install a U.S.-friendly regime in power, make the corporate deals with that government, and move on to the next operation. Having to keep 100,000 or more troops in a country like Iraq is not good; too many Americans keep getting attacked and killed each day -- and things are also heating up again in Afghanistan -- and that could start parents of those boys asking too many questions about why we went there in the first place. (On the other hand, as Karl keeps reminding me, having American GIs shot at regularly guarantees rally-round-the-flag patriotism that keeps our domestic program running.)

And then there`s the Middle East. Talk about quagmire! We announced our "road map" plan because we had to do something before we invaded Iraq -- the A-rab leaders needed some movement toward a just peace in the Mideast, to keep their Islam populations under control -- even if all we were buying was a year or so of relative quiet. But the extremists, on both sides, can tear that plan into pieces any time they want with some major violence and terror -- and that`s where we are right now: Israel tearing up the place with rockets and bulldozers, Palestine sending over wave after wave of suicide bombers.

Sharon has a road map all his own. He doesn`t want peace -- he`s after restoring Biblical Israel -- and he`s backed by my fundamentalist Christian supporters here in this country. The more warfare and destruction and oppression, the better, so the prophecy goes. As for Arafat and Hamas, they also have their own map, and it doesn`t include the existence of Israel. They don`t want peace; they still want to make Israel disappear and believe they can pull it off through suicide bombing. Poor Abbas is in the middle; he and the rest of the moderates are going to get so wiped out when the civil war between Palestinian factions begins big-time. Poor Abbas? Poor ME! Everyone warned me not to get near Palestine/Israel, that it`s hatred-quicksand there and every American president that`s gone near it has been pulled down into the vortex of violence and revenge. But it was a great and timely photo-op and we couldn`t resist; besides, we`re buying some pre-election time.

What I should do -- withdraw (or at least threaten to withdraw) aid to Israel and get them to leave the Occupied Territories and abandon their settlements -- I won`t do, for very good political reasons. First, I support Israel out of principle. Second, we need Israel as our friend in that region, the one pro-Western military force that we can count on, and that can handle the A-rabs. Finally, the American population supports Israel by a huge majority, for all kinds of good and sometimes crazy reasons, and we want to lure the Jew vote over to the Republican side.

If we can calm things down enough to slide by Election Day 2004, then the Jews and A-rabs can go on slaughtering each other big time, I don`t care. Maybe I`ll send Colin over there soon to see what he can do; at least it`ll get him and Rummy apart for a few days (talk about civil war!...whew!).

At home, Karl seems to have everything under control, using threats and spin and a marvelous bag of nasty tricks -- and a possible October surprise waiting in the wings. The guy`s a genius. The Democrats remain flummoxed, not quite knowing how to attack us, since Karl`s got all the bases covered and all the potential scandals under control. 9/11 investigations? Never going to get us. WMDs? We can drag that one out, and can find a patsy at the CIA or somewhere, if it comes to needing a scapegoat. Cheney and energy? Enron? Harkin? Halliburton? Westar? Impeachment? All dead in the water. It`s not about sex, we don`t have to worry.

The American people -- or at least enough of them -- are properly frightened to accept whatever we say. They understand that in a war against terrorists, lying is just a natural part of the game. It`s just a few malcontent columnists and those internet wackos going after us, and we can pretend to not mind all that -- see, we`re not fascists, Krugman and the website writers are still writing uncensored. If, after the election, those guys get too effective in stirring up opposition, Ashcroft can always take care of them; and, when Patriot 2 gets passed, if we don`t want them imprisoned here, we can always revoke their American citizenship and deport them to Estonia or somewhere.

No, we`re sitting pretty. We`ve starved the government for money to operate social programs and have messed up the liberal agenda so bad -- with more to come after Election Day, goodbye Medicare and Social Security and Head Start -- that even if the Democrats ever were to come to power again, maybe after Jeb`s presidency, it would take them forever to change what we`ve done domestically and out in the world. And we`ve planted the seeds of our longterm success with our new appointed judges. Oh mama, life sure is sweet.#

Bernard Weiner, a poet-playwright and former writer/editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, has authored numerous "diary" satires, including peeks inside those of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rove and others; for links to those articles, see The Crisis Papers www.crisispapers.org/, where he is co-editor.
http://www.bushwatch.com/weiner.htm

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Our Fearless Monkey Leader separates the two types of posters. Them vs. Us.

[Joerver]

Iraqis Suffer From Radiation Symptoms

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?floc=NW_1-L1&…

AL-MADA`IN, Iraq (AP) - Dozens of people are showing up every day at a hospital near a defunct Iraqi nuclear plant, suffering from rashes, bloody noses and other symptoms of radiation poisoning, doctors said Saturday.

The Tuwaitha nuclear facility, 12 miles south of Baghdad, was left unguarded after Iraqi troops fled the area on the eve of the war. It is thought to have contained hundreds of tons of natural uranium and nearly two tons of low-enriched uranium, which could be used to make nuclear weapons

U.S. troops didn`t secure the area until April 7. By then, looters from surrounding villages had stripped it of much of its contents, including uranium storage barrels they later used to hold drinking water.

People suffering from symptoms of radiation sickness started showing up at the hospital closest to the nuclear site as early as two months ago, two doctors interviewed by The Associated Press said Saturday. Their numbers have since grown considerably.


``Some 30 to 40 patients suffering from bloody diarrhea visit our hospital every day, probably due to their exposure to nuclear radiation,`` said Bassim Abbud, a physician at the Mada`in General Hospital, about 9 miles from the Tuwaitha nuclear facility.


The International Atomic Energy Agency sent a team to Iraq earlier this month to see if any of the uranium was missing, fearing it had been stolen in the chaos of the war. The experts found most of the uranium on or near the site, diplomats said Friday.


Plastic bags containing the uranium were found on the ground where the looters emptied out the barrels and some bags apparently spilled, the diplomats said from Vienna,where the U.N. agency is based.


The mission - whose scope was restricted by the U.S.-led interim administration of Iraq - was not allowed to give medical exams to Iraqis reported to have been sickened by contact with the materials, the diplomats said.


But two doctors at the closest hospital to Tuwaitha said suspicions of radiation poisoning were aroused as early as April 16, when 13-year-old Iltifat Risan came to the hospital with a severely bleeding nose.


Dr. Jaafar Naseer said he diagnosed symptoms of radiation. He said Iltifat had used a blue plastic barrel that her brother had brought from the facility for washing clothes.


``We gave her treatment for her symptoms,`` and sent her to a larger hospital in Baghdad for further treatment.


A week later, another patient, Hassan Oda, a 35-year-old electrician came to the hospital with white spots on his skin after installing a generator which he had stolen from the Tuwaitha.


``If we had a medical survey in the whole region, we would have many similar cases,`` Naseer said.


Abbud, who has been treating more recent cases, said the soaring temperatures of summer could explain some of the diarrhea complaints. But it was unlikely to be the cause this time, since the standard tests for parasites administered to diarrhea patients proved negative.


``Some people were subjected to radiation after emptying the barrels,`` Abbud said, resulting in skin problems, respiratory ailments and bloody noses. ``We have no particular measures to take. We just diagnose them and send them to Baghdad hospitals.``


He said after people were warned against using the contaminated equipment, some of the barrels were collected at a secondary girls school, where they remained while the girls returned to school for their final exams. U.S. military experts involved in the cleanup offered to buy back the barrels at $3 each.


``Symptoms may appear after months or years. Radiation can have genetic effects and could result in cancer tumors,`` he said.



06/21/03 15:30



© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

[Joerver]

A fire burns at a strategic oil pipeline near the town of Hit, 140 km (90 miles) northwest of Baghdad, June 22, 2003. The fire at a key Iraqi oil pipeline was caused by sabotage and could affect production at Baghdad`s main al-Doura oil refinery, Oil Ministry officials said on Sunday. REUTERS/Aladin Abdel Naby

`Apocalypse Now` Music Fires Up U.S. Troops for Raid
Sat June 21, 2003 07:25 PM ET


By Alistair Lyon
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. troops psyched up on a bizarre musical reprise from Vietnam war film "Apocalypse Now" before crashing into Iraqi homes to hunt gunmen on Saturday, as Shi`ite Muslims rallied against the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

With Wagner`s "Ride of the Valkyries" still ringing in their ears and the clatter of helicopters overhead, soldiers rammed vehicles into metal gates and hundreds of troops raided houses in the western city of Ramadi after sunrise as part of a drive to quell a spate of attacks on U.S. forces.

A previously unknown group, calling itself the Iraqi National Front of Fedayeen, vowed to intensify assaults on U.S. troops until they leave Iraq.

A man with his face swathed in a red-and-white headscarf read the threat on a videotape received by Lebanon`s LBC television. There was no way to verify its authenticity.

"If they want their soldiers to be safe, they must leave our pure land," the man said, disavowing any link to Saddam Hussein. He was flanked by three masked men with weapons.

Iraqi assailants have killed 17 U.S. soldiers since major combat was declared over on May 1, three weeks after the fall of Baghdad ended 24 years of Saddam Hussein`s iron rule.

U.S. officials blame the attacks on Saddam loyalists. Many Iraqis say the resistance is fueled by resentment at the occupation and the behavior of U.S. troops.

"The Americans are occupiers and aggressors," said Sayyid Ali, one of about 2,000 Shi`ites who protested outside the vast palace compound in Baghdad now used by Iraq`s U.S. rulers.

"They were supposed to free us from the oppressor, now they are only occupying us," he said. "We want to form a national government. "We want freedom and justice."

SOUR PERCEPTIONS

The United States and Britain say their forces will stay put until they can restore security, revive the economy and arrange a transition to an elected, sovereign Iraqi government.

However, they have failed to find Saddam or his alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction which they cited as their main justification for going to war on March 20.

U.S. officials in Washington said the deposed president`s captured former secretary Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti had told interrogators Saddam and his two sons were alive and in Iraq.

They said intelligence agencies were not certain Mahmud Tikriti was telling the truth, but that U.S. Special Operations troops and paramilitary intelligence agents were on an intense hunt for the three.

Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator of Iraq, said the issue of Saddam`s fate needed to be resolved one way or another, because uncertainty emboldened supporters of the toppled regime.

"It gives them an ability to say Saddam is still alive, he`s coming back, and we`re coming back, and what that does is it disinclines people who might otherwise want to cooperate with us from cooperating with us," Bremer told reporters on a visit to neighboring Jordan.

President Bush, floating a new explanation for the failure to find banned weapons, said suspected arms sites had been looted as Saddam`s government crumbled.

"For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world. And in the regime`s final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

A U.S. treasury official attending a meeting organized by the World Economic Forum in Jordan for political and business leaders, said world donors must provide aid as well as debt relief to Iraq for postwar reconstruction.

BOOTS AND ALL

Before Saturday`s robust sweep through Ramadi, 100 km (60 miles) west of Baghdad, soldiers of the First Battalion of the 124th Infantry Regiment psyched themselves up at a base nearby in a musical moment redolent of Francis Ford Coppola`s 1979 film about the Vietnam war.

Hit-and-run strikes on U.S. troops have been concentrated in Sunni Muslim towns such as Ramadi west and north of Baghdad.

One unit of troops dragged half a dozen men from their homes as women wailed. They seized weapons and a computer disk.

Officers said they aimed to capture five men from the Fedayeen paramilitary force, which put up some of the fiercest resistance to U.S. troops during their invasion.

The raid was part of Operation Desert Scorpion, launched on June 15 to crack down on militants and befriend civilians by helping with aid and reconstruction projects.

A U.S. military spokesman said on Saturday that 90 Desert Scorpion raids had captured 540 people. (Additional reporting by Andrew Gray and Michael Georgy)

U.S. Soldier Killed in Iraq as Pipeline Blazes
Sun June 22, 2003 03:05 PM ET


By Alistair Lyon
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A grenade attack killed a U.S. soldier in Iraq Sunday as a pipeline fire blazed on after an overnight explosion described by an Oil Ministry official as sabotage.

The U.S. military said a second soldier was wounded in the attack on a military convoy at Khan Azad, some 12 miles south of Baghdad. The first was dead on arrival at hospital.

It was the latest in a spate of deadly assaults on U.S. forces in which 19 soldiers have been killed since President Bush declared major combat in Iraq over on May 1.

Two U.S. soldiers were wounded in the town of Hit, about 90 miles northwest of Baghdad, Saturday afternoon when their vehicle ran over a land mine.

About an hour before midnight, a U.S. patrol reported a fire at an Iraqi fuel pipeline in the desert near Hit.

"This incident is an act of sabotage. The pipeline was blown up deliberately," said one Oil Ministry official. He did not elaborate and asked not to be named.

A Reuters correspondent at the scene said orange fireballs and thick black smoke were billowing from the damaged pipeline near a metal pylon more than 12 hours after the blast.

He said no U.S. troops or Iraqi officials were on the spot and no attempt was being made to extinguish the blaze. A U.S. military spokesman said earlier that efforts were under way to put out the fire. He had no word on its cause.

It was the second major fire to damage Iraqi pipelines this month. U.S. officials blamed the first on gas leaking from the main export pipeline from the Kirkuk oilfields to Turkey.

The oil pipeline at Hit, with a gas pipeline alongside it, was built in the 1980s to connect Iraq`s southern and northern oilfields, enabling exports to flow smoothly.

THREAT TO BAGHDAD REFINERY

An Oil Ministry official said any disruption to the oil pipeline could hit Baghdad`s main refinery, forcing it to rely on crude from the south, where oil facilities are in bad shape.

The refinery at al-Doura serves a city whose five million people have barely had time to forget the misery of petrol queues that snaked through sweltering streets for weeks after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein on April 9.

Iraq, which exported around two million barrels per day (bpd) before the U.S.-led war, relaunched oil sales Sunday from eight million barrels stored in Turkey.

A Turkish tanker loaded a million barrels of oil bound for Turkish refineries from the Mediterranean terminal of Ceyhan.

De facto oil minister Thamir Ghadhban said Saturday it would take 18 months -- and well over $1 billion -- to restore pre-war production capacity of three million bpd.

Postwar looting and sabotage at oil facilities have delayed the resumption of Iraq`s oil exports and will keep shipments well below pre-war levels for several months, officials say.

Iraqi oil pipelines and installations are spread over vast swathes of sparsely populated desert that is hard to patrol.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=29…

[Joerver]

Unfair America

By 0, 6/22/2003

WHEN CONGRESS last year caved in to special interests in agribusiness and passed a farm bill laden with subsidies for commodity crops like cotton, corn, wheat, and soybeans, there was little discussion of its foreign policy impact. But the subsidies encourage US farmers to produce far more than the nation needs and to dump the rest on world markets, undercutting farmers in the Third World.

Western Europe does much the same, but it at least does not preach to the rest of the world quite as loudly as Washington does the merits of a free market and unbridled trade. The US failure to walk the walk while talking the talk was especially evident recently when President Bush criticized Europeans for refusing to approve imports of some genetically modified foods. This action, Bush said, caused Africans to reject such foods from the United States and contributed to famine in Africa.

Whatever the merits of the European position, the United States should not blame others for contributing to African poverty. US cotton subsidies, inflated by the 2002 law, are a major reason world prices for that crop are at a 30-year low and falling. Cotton is the main cash crop of West Africa, and low prices are harmful to farmers there.

This contrast between US rhetoric and US action is a theme of a book recently published by Clyde Prestowitz, a Commerce Department official under President Reagan. Prestowitz mentions the plight of African cotton farmers, who are actually lower-cost growers than their highly mechanized US counterparts, in ``Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism and the Failure of Good Intentions.``

To the question ``Why do they hate us?`` Prestowitz has an interesting answer. It isn`t our freedom they hate, he writes; it is our failure to live up to our own preachments. Prestowitz cites other examples of how the United States loads the dice in world trade. Under the NAFTA accord, for example, Mexico is soon going to have to open its borders to highly subsidized US corn, which will hurt many Mexican farmers.

Many of them, Prestowitz writes, could be driven ``into the dangerously hot trucks of the smugglers who ship immigrants across the US border.`` Instead of being reassured by America`s mythic appeal to desperate immigrants, Americans should be more aware of the US role in creating the desperation.

Congress`s practice of passing a farm bill without a nod to its international impact is of a piece with the go-it-alone policies of the Bush administration on issues like global warming, the land mines treaty, and the International Criminal Court. In an increasingly interdependent world, unilateralism cannot be the best policy.


This story ran on page D10 of the Boston Globe on 6/22/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/173/editorials/Unfair_Amer…

[Joerver]

Sheriff mit Krawatte

Geplatzte Träume in Bagdad: Washingtons neuer Zivilverwalter entledigt sich der alten Partner des Pentagon. Amerika muss sich auf eine jahrelange Besatzungszeit einstellen.


Das weit über die Stadtgrenze hinaus berühmte Restaurant "al-Tabbich" liegt im Herzen von Bagdad und ist bekannt für seine raffinierten Desserts. Zu Saddam Husseins Zeiten war es ein bevorzugter Treffpunkt von Basarhändlern, Diplomaten und Uno-Mitarbeitern; jetzt, im besetzten Irak, würde es zweifellos brummen: Das Lokal liegt im Schatten der beiden größten Hotels der Stadt - Hunderte von internationalen Geschäftsleuten, Journalisten und Hilfsorganisatoren wären froh über eine Abwechslung zum tagtäglichen Kebab.

Ein schlechtes Zeichen also, dass "al-Tabbich" noch immer geschlossen ist. Der Besitzer, ein wohlhabender Christ, hat Angst: Schwere Eisengitter schützen sein Lokal, das nur ein paar Straßenecken vom nächsten US-Checkpoint entfernt liegt. Private Wachleute sitzen den ganzen Tag in der brütenden Sommerhitze davor. Stammkunden werden mit einem Achselzucken nach Hause geschickt: "Kommt wieder, wenn wir Strom haben und die Gegend hier sicherer ist."

Die Vorsicht macht Sinn. Zwar sind die großen Plünderungswellen der ersten Nachkriegstage vorüber, doch das befreite Bagdad ist gut sieben Wochen nach dem offiziellen Ende der Kampfhandlungen noch längst nicht jene friedliche Hauptstadt eines wohlhabenden Landes, die Washingtons Kriegsherren den Irakern versprochen hatten.

Akute Armut und permanente Stromausfälle plagen die Bürger, Straßenraub und Bandenkriminalität beherrschen die Fünf-Millionen-Einwohner-Metropole am Tigris. Viele Eltern, frustriert von der erzwungenen Untätigkeit und besorgt um ihren Nachwuchs, bringen ihre Kinder persönlich zur Schule. Inzwischen werden Autofahrern auch am helllichten Tag mit vorgehaltener Kalaschnikow die Fahrzeuge abgenommen.

Kein Abend vergeht, an dem nicht in den Stadtvierteln Schurdscha, Fadhil oder Badawin geschossen wird. "Jeden Morgen", sagt ein Anwohner vor dem "Tabbich"-Restaurant, "lesen Rettungsmannschaften hier zwei, drei Leichen von der Straße auf."

Immer öfter entlädt sich die Wut über die untragbaren Verhältnisse in Gewaltakten gegen die amerikanische Besatzungsmacht. 91 tote GIs haben die Amerikaner seit dem Fall Bagdads durch Überfälle und Unfälle zu beklagen. Erst am vergangenen Donnerstag kamen bei Angriffen auf US-Fahrzeuge in Iraks Hauptstadt und Iskandarija vier Soldaten ums Leben.

Am Tag zuvor hatten US-Wachtrupps vor dem ehemaligen Präsidentenpalast zwei Iraker erschossen - sie waren, wie 2000 andere Soldaten der aufgelösten Armee Saddam Husseins, dort aufmarschiert und wollten ihrer Wut über das ausgebliebene Überbrückungssalär Ausdruck geben.

Hinter dem schwer bewachten Palasttor hat seit Mitte Mai Paul Bremer, der Chef der neuen Zivilverwaltung des Landes, sein Hauptquartier. Für den Karrierediplomaten, der von seiner PR-Abteilung verbreiten lässt, er jogge jeden Morgen um fünf Uhr durch den Palastgarten, war der Vorfall die erste direkte Begegnung mit der blutigen Realität im besetzten Irak - bislang war stets von "Widerstandsnestern" in der 50 Kilometer entfernten Stadt Falludscha und den renitenten Sunniten-Provinzen nördlich von Bagdad die Rede gewesen.

Bremer war mit reichlich Vorschusslorbeeren an den Tigris gekommen, um das "Debakel" ("Newsweek") zu beenden, das sein Vorgänger Jay Garner nach nur dreiwöchiger Amtszeit hinterlassen hatte. Er sei eine "Wird erledigt"-Persönlichkeit, lobte Präsident George W. Bush den 61-Jährigen, dessen Ernennung ein Kompromiss zwischen dem US-Außenministerium und dem bis dahin im Irak federführenden Pentagon war. Als einen "Sheriff mit Anzug und Krawatte" begrüßte ihn die überwiegend wohlwollende US-Presse in Bagdad.

Tatsächlich scheint es, als habe mit Bremers Antritt eine Art Null-Toleranz-Regime im Irak begonnen. Bremer löste offiziell die Armee auf; er entschied, bis zu 30 000 führende Mitglieder der Baath-Partei von der Beteiligung an jeder künftigen Verwaltung auszuschließen und kündigte einen harten Kurs in der Verbrechensbekämpfung an. Das Gerücht, er befürworte die Erschießung von Plünderern, kam - obwohl bestritten - außerordentlich gut an bei den Irakern, die laut einer ersten Umfrage mit äußerst knapper Mehrheit begrüßen würden, wenn die Besatzer bis zur Bildung einer eigenständigen irakischen Regierung im Land blieben.

Hinter den Kulissen zeichnet sich unterdessen ein Kurswechsel der US-Politik ab. Entgegen allen früheren Ankündigungen des Pentagon, möglichst schnell eine irakische Interimsverwaltung auf die Beine zu stellen, scheint es Bremer mit der Regierungsbildung nicht eilig zu haben. Und schon gar nicht denkt er daran, die sieben ehemaligen Oppositionsgruppen, mit denen sich Washington seit mehreren Jahren auf den Sturz von Diktator Saddam Hussein vorbereitet hatte, an seinen Plänen zu beteiligen.

Über heftige Wortgefechte berichten Teilnehmer eines Treffens der Oppositionsführer mit Washingtons neuem Statthalter: Bremer habe kritisiert, die seit Wochen über einen Neuanfang palavernde Versammlung von Monarchisten, Kurden, Schiiten und Exil-Irakern sei desorganisiert und repräsentiere das Land nicht.

Bremer habe sie wiederholt aufgefordert, mehr Frauen, Christen und lokale Stammesführer in ihre Reihen aufzunehmen - vergebens. "Wir haben ihnen eine Chance gegeben", so ein US-Offizieller aus seinem Team: "Doch sie haben es einfach nicht geschafft. Es war die Stunde der Amateure."

Statt einer irakischen Übergangsregierung, die nach ersten Nachkriegsplänen bereits im Juli ihr Amt antreten sollte, wird nun ein 25- bis 30-köpfiges Beratergremium von Irakern die neue Zivilverwaltung unterstützen - und das wird keineswegs demokratisch bestimmt: Bremer selbst wird entscheiden, welche Iraker ihm künftig zur Hand gehen sollen.

Vor allem zwei ehemalige Exilgruppen sind von der offenbar im Weißen Haus angeordneten Kehrtwende betroffen: die Schiiten des von Ajatollah Mohammed Bakir al-Hakim geführten "Obersten Rates der Islamischen Revolution im Irak" und der von Ahmed Tschalabi geleitete Irakische Nationalkongress (INC).

Beide Organisationen hatten sich mit paramilitärischen Milizen für den erwarteten Machtkampf im neuen Irak gewappnet. Hakims 10 000 Mann starke Badr-Brigade wurde aufgefordert, ihre schweren Waffen abzugeben; Tschalabis "Free Iraqi Forces" (FIF), nach damaligen US-Plänen "die Keimzelle der neuen irakischen Armee", wurde einfach aufgelöst.

Mit hängenden Köpfen trafen sich Anfang Juni ehemalige FIF-Soldaten noch einmal am verwaisten Hunting Club, Tschalabis geräumtem Hauptquartier. Der INC-Chef, einst Wunschkandidat des Pentagon für das Amt des irakischen Präsidenten, ist ins US-Exil zurückgekehrt und warnt nun seine früheren Fürsprecher vor den Folgen des unerwarteten Kurswechsels. Washingtons Weigerung, die Iraker selbst an der Gestaltung ihrer politischen Zukunft zu beteiligen, werde den Widerstand gegen die Besatzungsmacht erheblich verstärken - und damit dem alten Regime in die Hände spielen, sagt Tschalabi voraus.

Zwar sei den Amerikanern mit Saddams Privatsekretär Abd al-Hamid Hamud al-Tikriti vergangenen Mittwoch das bislang höchstrangige Mitglied der alten Führung ins Netz gegangen. Doch der INC verfüge über Informationen, wonach auch Saddam selbst den Krieg überlebt habe, weitgehend ungehindert durch die Provinzen nördlich der Hauptstadt reise und die loyalen Sunniten-Stämme gegen die Amerikaner mobilisiere: "Er hat Kopfgeld auf amerikanische Soldaten ausgesetzt", behauptet Tschalabi, "er wird für jeden getöteten US-Soldaten Prämien auszahlen."

Washington, das sich offenbar auf eine weit über die ursprünglichen Planungen hinausgehende Besatzungszeit am Tigris einrichtet, reagiert höchst gereizt auf Tschalabis Warnungen: "Ich kann seine Behauptungen nicht bestätigen", kanzelte US-Außenminister Colin Powell den einstigen Pentagon-Schützling ab. "Er stellt jedes Jahr neue auf." Wenn Tschalabi wisse, wo Saddam sich aufhält, solle er das State Department offiziell darüber in Kenntnis setzen.

BERNHARD ZAND



© DER SPIEGEL 26/2003

[Joerver]

Kommt der Ball doch noch ins Rollen?

Craig Morris 22.06.2003
Impeach, or not impeach - ein Update

Im Artikel Impeach, or not impeach? vom 10.6. wurde darauf hingewiesen, dass die ersten Stimmen außerhalb des US-Kongresses ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren gegen George W. Bush gefordert hatten, aber dass dies ohne Wirkung bleiben würde, solange sich keine Gruppe von Angeordneten findet, um die Vorwürfe in die Tat umzusetzen. Seitdem haben einige Abgeordnete schwere Vorwürfe gegen Bush erhoben.


Die ersten Stimmen aus dem US-Kongress, die der Bush-Regierung bewusste Irreführung vorwerfen, kommen - wen wundert`s - aus der Ecke, die am meisten davon direkt profitieren könnte. So hat z.B. Senator John Kerry, ein demokratischer Präsidentschaftskandidat, deutlich gemacht: "[Bush] hat uns alle irregeführt. Deshalb kandidiere ich für die Präsidentschaft." Sollte er die Wahlen gewinnen, werde er der Sache auf den Grund gehen.


Abgeordneter Kucinich, ein weiterer Kandidat für die Nominierung der Demokraten, hatte bereits am 5.6. die Resolution 260 verfasst, die vorsieht, dass die Bush-Regierung ihre Beweise für Massenvernichtungswaffen dem Abgeordnetenhaus vorlegen muss. Doch der Misserfolg dieser Resolution - bis zum 17.6. hatten lediglich 41 Abgeordnete die Resolution unterschrieben, wobei mehr als 200 Stimmen notwendig wären - zeigt, wie weit man von einem Amtsenthebungsverfahren immer noch entfernt ist.

Zugleich ist es klar, dass die Demokraten sich überlegen, die Amtsenthebung als politische Waffe einzusetzen. Auch Howard Dean, Gouverneur von Vermont und Präsidentschaftskandidat für 2004, warf der Bush-Regierung letzte Woche "Irreführung" vor. Und es gibt anscheinend mehr als 41 Abgeordnete, die Bush Lügen strafen wollen, denn auch der demokratische Abgeordnete Jose E. Serrano aus New York, der die Resolution 260 nicht unterschrieben hat, spricht mittlerweile sogar offen von "Lügen":


[Bush] lied to the American people, to Congress, and to the United Nations about weapons of mass destruction, bombed a country and killed many people, [and] in the process we lost some of our own brave folks.



Der nächste Schritt wäre also, die öffentliche Meinung für den Wahrheitsgehalt der Gründe für Operation Iraqi Freedom zu interessieren. Erst dann könnte eventuell eine Mehrheit für ein Verfahren gegen Bush im Kongress gebildet werden. Am dem 18.6. wurde zwar ein Ausschuss im Kongress ins Leben gerufen, um die Beweise aus Intelligenzkreisen zu untersuchen, doch die Ergebnisse der Untersuchung sollen nicht veröffentlicht werden. Dagegen würde Kerrys Resolution 260 solche Ergebnisse publik machen, und das könnte durchaus Konsequenzen haben.

Beweise, selbst aus den eigenen Reihen, gäbe es genug, dass Bush & Co. gelogen haben. General Wesley Clark sagte im US-Fernsehen letztes Wochenende, dass er bereits am 11.9.2001 vom Weißen Haus dazu aufgefordert worden sei, vor der Presse zu behaupten, Saddam Hussein sei in die terroristischen Anschläge verwickelt gewesen. Und aus England kommt der Vorwurf von der ehemaliges Entwicklungshilfeministerin Claire Short, dass Bush und Blair sich bereits im Sommer 2002 auf einen Krieg gegen den Irak geeinigt hatten.

Doch auf dem Weg zum Amtsenthebungsverfahren kommt es gar nicht darauf an, ob die Bush-Regierung tatsächlich gelogen hat, sondern lediglich, ob ein Verfahren politischen Gewinn für die Ankläger verspricht. Zur Zeit scheint es gar nicht klar zu sein, ob es den Amerikanern überhaupt wichtig ist, dass Massenvernichtungswaffen jemals im Irak gefunden werden: Anfang Mai 2003 war es 79% der Befragten egal, ob die Waffen auftauchen - Hauptsache, die USA haben den Krieg gewonnen. Wenn sich das nicht ändert, dürften die Republikaner leichtes Spiel haben, solche Vorwürfe aus den demokratischen Reihen als politisches Kalkül abzutun. Schließlich sind immer noch keine Ergebnisse aus dem 9/11-Ausschuß veröffentlicht worden. Außerdem würden die Republikaner ein Verfahren gegen Bush als Racheakt für das Verfahren gegen Clinton leicht abstempeln können.

Kommt es dennoch zu einem Verfahren, wären die Demokraten darauf angewiesen, dass ein paar Republikaner - wie z.B. John Warner, der dem Intelligenzausschuss vorsitzt - gegen Bush stimmen, denn die Republikaner stellen die Mehrheit im Kongress. Wahrscheinlicher ist jedoch, dass die Bush-Regierung es verstehen wird, das Fehlen der Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak herunterzuspielen, und dass die Medien genügend Ausreden für Bush liefern. Schon jetzt ist klar, dass die großen Medien von The Atlantic bis zur Los Angeles Times das Problem der Glaubwürdigkeit darin sehen, dass die Bush-Regierung für künftige Interventionen weniger Unterstützung bekommen könnte:


If America must mobilize the world in the days to come about grave concerns such as the nuclear intentions of North Korea or Iran, it will need intelligence that isn`t under a cloud of doubt about what may, or may not, have happened with Iraq.
LA Times




Richtige Kritik dürfte indessen weitgehend den Medien außer dem Mainstream vorbehalten bleiben.

Dass es auch anders geht, bewies man am 18.6. in Finnland. In Skandinavien wird viel Wert auf die Glaubwürdigkeit der Politiker gelegt. Deshalb musste die Ministerpräsidentin Jaeaetteenmaeki am Mittwoch ihren Hut nehmen, denn ihr wurde vorgeworfen, sie habe das finnische Parlament angelogen, um den Schulterschluss mit der Koalition der Willigen zu vollziehen. Jaeaetteenmaeki meinte beim Rücktritt, das Vertrauen in sie sei verschwunden. Der bloße Vorwurf der Irreführung reichte also in Finnland aus.

[Joerver]

Now Bush wants to buy the complicity of aid workers
Relief groups have been told they must be an "arm of the US government"

Naomi Klein
Monday June 23, 2003
The Guardian

The Bush administration has found its next target for pre-emptive war, but it`s not Iran, Syria or North Korea. Not yet anyway.

Before launching any new foreign adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take care of: it is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organisations that are helping to turn world opinion against US bombs and brands.

The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts. One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts. The other marginalises and criminalises more independent-minded NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The US Agency for International Development (USaid) is in charge of handing out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most powerful think-tank in Washington, is wielding the sticks.

On May 21 in Washington, Andrew Natsios, the head of USaid, gave a speech blasting US NGOs for failing to play a role many of them didn`t realise they had been assigned: doing public relations for the US government. According to InterAction, the network of 160 relief and development NGOs, Natsios was "irritated" that starving and sick Iraqi and Afghan children didn`t realise that their food and vaccines were coming to them courtesy of George Bush. From now on, NGOs had to do a better job of link ing their humanitarian assistance to US foreign policy and making it clear that they are "an arm of the US government". If they didn`t, InterAction reported, "Natsios threatened to personally tear up their contracts and find new partners".

For aid workers, there are even more strings attached to US dollars. USaid told several NGOs that have been awarded humanitarian contracts that they cannot speak to the media - all requests from reporters must go through Washington. Mary McClymont, CEO of InterAction, calls the demands "unprecedented" and says: "It looks like the NGOs aren`t independent and can`t speak for themselves about what they see and think."

Many humanitarian leaders are shocked to hear their work described as "an arm" of government - most see themselves as independent (that would be the "non-governmental" part of the name). The best NGOs are loyal to their causes, not to countries, and they aren`t afraid to blow the whistle on their own governments. Think of Médecins Sans Frontières standing up to the White House and the European Union over Aids drug patents, or Human Rights Watch`s campaign against the death penalty in the US.

Natsios embraced this independence in his previous job as vice president of World Vision. During the North Korean famine, Natsios didn`t hesitate to blast his own government for withholding food aid, calling the Clinton administration`s response "too slow" and its claim that politics was not a factor "total nonsense".

Don`t expect candour like that from the aid groups Natsios now oversees in Iraq. These days, NGOs are supposed to do nothing more than quietly pass out care packages with a big "brought to you by the US" logo attached - in public-private partnerships with Bechtel and Halliburton, of course.

That is the message of "NGO Watch", an initiative of the American Enterprise Institute and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies that takes aim at the growing political influence of the non-profit sector. The stated purpose of the website, launched on June 11, is to "bring clarity and accountability to the burgeoning world of NGOs". In fact, it is a McCarthyite blacklist, telling tales on any NGO that dares speak against Bush administration policies or in support of international treaties opposed by the White House.

This bizarre initiative takes as its premise the idea that there is something sinister about "unelected" groups of citizens getting together to try to influence their government. "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies," the site claims.

Coming from the AEI, this is not without irony. As Raj Patel, policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First, points out: "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet. They are accountable only to their board, which includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil."

As for influence, few peddle it quite like the AEI, whose looniest of ideas have a habit of becoming Bush administration policy. And no wonder. Richard Perle, member and former chairman of the Pentagon`s Defence Policy Board, is an AEI fellow, along with Lynne Cheney, the wife of the vice-president, and the Bush administration is crowded with former AEI fellows. As President Bush said at an AEI dinner in February: "At the American Enterprise Institute, some of the finest minds in our nation are at work on some of the greatest challenges to our nation. You do such good work that my administration has borrowed 20 such minds."

In other words, the AEI is more than a think-tank - it`s Bush`s outsourced brain. Taken together with Natsios`s statements, this attack on the non-profit sector marks the emergence of a new Bush doctrine: NGOs should be nothing more than the charity wing of the mili tary, silently mopping up after wars and famines. Their job is not to ask how these tragedies could have been averted, or to advocate solutions. And it is certainly not to join anti-war and globalisation movements pushing for real political change.

The control freaks in the White House have really outdone themselves this time. First they tried to silence governments critical of their foreign policies by buying them off with aid packages and trade deals. (Last month US trade representative Robert Zoellick said that the US would only enter into new trade agreements with countries that offered "cooperation or better on foreign policy and security issues".)

Next they made sure the press didn`t ask hard question during the war by trading journalistic access for editorial control. Now they are attempting to turn relief workers in Iraq and Afghanistan into publicists for Bush`s Brand US. The US government is usually described as "unilateralist", but I don`t think that`s quite accurate. The Bush administration may be willing to go it alone, but what it really wants is legions of self-censoring followers, from foreign governments to national journalists and international NGOs.

This is not a lone wolf we are dealing with; it`s a sheep-herder. The question is: which of the NGOs will play the sheep?

Links
www.nologo.org


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Betrayed
David Hare used to have an instinctive sympathy for politicians, particularly Labour politicians. The war on Iraq changed that. Now it is impossible to imagine any US policy that Britain would not support - and so the government has become irrelevant to the people

David Hare
Monday June 23, 2003
The Guardian

"When I try to understand what`s going on every morning, I tell myself there`s been a military coup." - American diplomat

One of my favourite literary jokes of the past 20 years was made when a well-known novelist, hitherto apolitical, announced that the recent birth of his first baby had convinced him that he could not tolerate living in a world that contained nuclear weapons. The critic Adam Mars-Jones responded by noting that he had heard many powerful and convincing arguments both for and against the bomb, but that his final judgment on the question was unlikely to be swayed by the fact that Martin Amis had recently become a father.

The same potential for epic self-importance attends all those of us who have found the last period of international conflict among the most seriously disillusioning of our lives. We risk making fools of ourselves. Frankly, you may ask, who cares? It would, after all, be a rare idiot who had followed the direction of our last two governments and imagined that their leaders gave a hoot, private or public, for the thoughts and feelings of those who had argued or even campaigned for their election.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown claim, in their rhetoric, not to be victims of the traditional deformities of the left. But, curiously, for all their talk of breaking the bonds of the past, they have both inherited one of the left`s most disabling characteristics. They continue to show much more vigour when finding fault with their friends than they do when giving stick to their enemies. Any plain citizen - anyone, in fact, ruled rather than ruling - would have to be blind with conceit not to notice that the Blair-Brown project has motored forwards on a powerful fuel made up of two-parts admiration for the opposition mixed with three-parts contempt for their own supporters.

What does it matter, then, if those of us who have always believed in social democracy now find ourselves seized by a unique, impotent sense of shame at the collusion of a British government in a manifestly cooked-up invasion of a foreign country? When, 10 weeks ago, I wrote in these pages about an illegal occupation which was predicated on at least five principal untruths - 1) That Iraq represented a threat to the United States; 2) That it presented a current or increased threat to its neighbours; 3) That it had developed nuclear weapons; 4) That it was linked in any way to al-Qaida and to the devastation of September 11; and 5) That Hans Blix was being fooled, through his own ingenuousness, in what turned out, in reality, to be his scrupulous and thorough searches for chemical weapons - then I was properly rebuked by correspondents asking why I was so ready to press the case against the US, and yet had, apparently, not a word of blame for my own government. It was a fair question. It was also hard to reply.

My fault, but alongside an apparently small minority of my fellow countrymen, I have always been instinctively sympathetic to domestic politicians. It had long seemed to me that many of them, and most obviously those in leftwing parties, were people willing to take on problems which most of us find easier to leave alone. My experience in 1993 of being given access to watch Neil Kinnock at close quarters throughout his doomed attempt to become prime minister left me markedly intolerant of people who love to declare that anyone standing for election must necessarily be a fool or a crook. It seemed even sillier, as Fleet Street does, to seek first to elevate individual politicians and then, through an inevitable cycle of attrition and fatigue - a kind of boring media war - always to consign them to a place where they are deemed no longer worthy of the journalistic community`s high standards.

My own belief in the difficulty and desirability of democratic politics was hardly based on a utopian view of what might be achieved. Just as important, I could reluctantly see that most western societies were made up of people and interest groups who wanted very different things. They could not all be satisfied at the same time. Whereas most of us could airily wave a leader-writer`s hand and proclaim, "This should be done - and then this," without actually having to follow through the practical implications of what we urged, politicians were the poor mugs who were allocated the job of reconciling the irreconcilable. In our own lives, most of us habitually equivocated, elided, jumped logic, changed our minds and generally faffed about on the margins of conviction. But it was only politicians whose profession obliged them to be held to account for these particular offences.

When I heard some stray minister being roasted in parliament for a chance remark he had unwittingly made five years previously, I would wince in sympathy and think how few of my own utterances would survive this kind of examination. If politicians dodged, weaved and buckled language to a point where it screamed for mercy ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman"), then it was, in part, because their trade committed them to higher levels of scrupulousness than the rest of us. They were under scrutiny. A lot of us aren`t. Watching all the hallmark sweating and wriggling of the professional pol, I was usually persuaded of Fawn Brodie`s famous pronouncement: "There`s a little bit of Richard Nixon in all of us." Only on occasions did I tend instead towards John Kenneth Galbraith`s equally memorable riposte: "I say, the hell there is."

It is difficult, therefore, for someone of my temperament to accept that my own feelings about politicians have become worse than irrelevant. They have become worthless. Why? Because local politicians are, definitively, no longer speaking to me. The important dialogue in Britain is no longer carried on between the governors and the governed, but is maintained in another direction entirely: neither up nor down, but east-west, between the colony and the imperial capital. The charge has been made - as though it were the most damning possible - that Britain and America decided to annexe Iraq and then afterwards search for any random justification, however implausible, which they could find to decorate their intentions. (Paul Wolfowitz`s own words plainly bear that meaning, and Clare Short is telling us the same). But far more troubling, at least to those of us who imagine that some sort of national conversation still goes on, is the knowledge that it is now impossible to imagine any American foreign policy, however irrational, however dangerous, however illegal, with which our present prime minister would not declare himself publicly delighted and thrilled.

These are, it is clear, frightening times. A revolutionary doctrine of the pre-emptive strike has been introduced into international relations, but its use is to be the privilege of one country alone, on no other grounds than that this particular country is so powerful as to be beyond sanction. The UN, which was established, in Samantha Power`s words, "specifically to end the days of military intervention dressed up as humanitarianism", has been pushed brutally to the side. From now on, America will do what it damn well pleases, but the messy business of explaining and justifying will be left largely to the junior partner. Harold Wilson is held in history to be the most untrustworthy and wily practitioner of the black arts of politics, yet even he managed the principled feat of remaining allied to Lyndon Johnson without uselessly killing British soldiers in a similarly doubtful venture. If, as Stanley Kubrick claimed, large states often behave like gangsters while small states often behave like prostitutes, then we may at least console ourselves that we have descended to a point where we are more whore than racketeer. But the sum effect is to leave us in a world where no one will listen to us. They know we have voluntarily surrendered our wish for an independent voice in foreign affairs. Worse, we have surrendered it to a country which is actively seeking to undermine international organisations and international law. Lacking the gun, we are to be only the mouth. The deal is this: America provides the firepower; we provide the bullshit.

The easy thing, of course, in response to this fait accompli, is to hand all discourse back to the cynics and to say that the deeply impressive massed ranks of two million voters in February indeed represented, as the Labour government hoped, nothing but a walk in the park. As the Americans lie back on their Roman pillows and toy insincerely with a laughable road map for the Middle East which is touted, among other things, as Blair`s reward for his loyalty, and which, in a world now pathologically distrustful of American intentions, has no conceivable chance of success, the temptation is to throw our hands up and declare that there is no alternative but for the rest of us to join our short-sleeved cousins lolling in the bleachers. We are to watch as innocent people spin to their deaths, whether in Gaza, on the West Bank or in Tel Aviv. The status quo of occupation and chaos in Afghanistan and Iraq, and of savage butchery in the Palestinian territories and Israel is already acquiring a disturbingly permanent look. Summer is coming, the weather is changing on the Potomac and in the home counties, and you can feel, as our rulers reach for the barbecue forks and the Chardonnay, as they gather forgivingly again for their frotteurs` trade union meetings in Evian - "How lovely to see you, Mr Bush"; "No, how lovely to see you" - a growing confidence that although something utterly dishonourable happened in public life earlier this year, there is no reason that, like all dishonourable things, it should not soon be forgotten.

Well, there it is. Those of us who opposed the war from the start have won the argument and lost all influence. Even if we are unwise, as I think we are, to focus our vindication on the fruitless 96-day search for weapons of mass destruction - the war was wrong, it was wrong regardless, because it was outside the authority of the United Nations - nevertheless we are left at the end of it all in the curious position of finding no satisfaction or purpose in our own rightness. The policies are not going to change. We are going to be ignored. In the aftermath of an invasion which is now recognised all over the world to have been conceived, born and carried out in mendacity, we have, it seems, only one obligation, and it is one which may one day even provide our shivering democracy with a useful antibiotic. It is to set out and nail the remaining lies which the belligerent are still trying to advance for their cover.

Of these, the most important and insidious is the idea, given much romantic play, particularly in Europe, that Americans are, by nature, isolated from the rest of the world and therefore charmingly incompetent at the exercise of diplomacy. This seems to me the exact opposite of the truth. It may well have been useful to the pursuit of recent US policy to pretend that there is still some element of prairie innocence at large on Capitol Hill. Implicitly, the question is put: "How can we homespun regular folk be expected to find our way through these damned complicated international organisations?"

But the disastrous mistake, on our side of the argument, has been to indulge this American exceptionalism for even one moment. Whatever the patronising propaganda emanating from Downing Street - "Yes, the Americans are a bit crude, but don`t worry, we`ll smooth things over" - there is nothing peculiar to the American character which exempts it from the obligations of diplomacy. On the contrary. For an administration which is widely held to be provincially ignorant of the world, you may notice that it is doing remarkably well at getting its way in it.

It may be perfect fun to crack our sides at the witty anti-war campaigner who claims that "God invented war to teach the Americans geography." But we should be aware that when we do so, we play straight into the war-makers` hands. It suits them better than they can tell. They love it when we choose to assume that they are rough and artless, even naive. The truth is, it isn`t likely. The more plausible interpretation is that they know exactly where they`re going. When Colin Powell walks out of the General Assembly in a snit because he believes a Frenchman has been rude to him, it is not, as he would claim, because he has tried very hard to be reasonable, but, dammit, there is a limit. It is because he is deliberately using diplomatic incompetence as an excuse for the US to thenceforward be licensed to do exactly as it chooses. If it wished, America could perfectly well do as its critics advise and "grow up". It could easily engage with the world`s arguments against it. Why not? It wouldn`t be hard. It is, oddly, a mark of our own stupidity that we seem incapable of grasping the point that the US does not engage for the simple reason that it does not want to - any more than Bush wants to take notice of unthinking liberals who keep advising him to "travel more".

The overriding offence of all of us in Europe, on whatever side of the argument, has been to have peddled the notion that because Bush is inarticulate, he must therefore be stupid. It is a peculiarly English snobbery and it is damaging. Anyone who has read the high-wire Darwinism of Stephen Pinker would know that an inability to competently handle language does not argue a lack of coherent purpose or intention. We can laugh as much as we wish at slogans such as "The moron`s got a war on." We can even buy Private Eye and indulge its falsely comforting view of a man who is too dumb to know how many beans make five. We may, like Blair himself, elevate our own importance, and parlay our world role by managing to imply that we are acting as a restraining influence on these hopeless barbarians. (To a friend, who said he was grateful that Blair had been in the room when some of the recent discussions had gone on in the White House, the prime minister replied that only those who had been in the room could have any idea just how wild some of those discussions had been.) But when we do so, we miss the larger facts and we mistake our analysis. Consider. At the end of the war, Bush has rising popularity, a cowed and craven media which has abandoned all serious pretensions to investigation or even to basic reporting, and a Democratic opposition which has been triumphantly blackmailed into nervous, pseudo-patriotic silence. Meanwhile, he is raising money, hand over fist, for his own coronation. Blair has falling popularity, the media on his neck, and may never be trusted again. The Labour party, by report, is not expanding. Which one clever? Which one stupid?


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Dead or alive? Why America needs to know whatever happened to Saddam Hussein
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
23 June 2003


The United States hoped it had dealt with Saddam Hussein almost before the war to oust him had properly begun.

In the early hours of 20 March, putting aside its long-considered plans for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration launched a hastily prepared operation to end hostilities at their very inception. At about 5.33am local time, a series of closely spaced explosions shook the south of Baghdad as 36 cruise missiles and two J-Dam bombs struck an isolated residential compound known as Doura Farms. The "target of opportunity" on whom President George Bush had been briefed only hours before, was believed to be spending the night at the house with at least one of his two sons, Uday and Qusay.

Last week the Bush administration admitted, semi-officially, that the strikes against Saddam and his sons had almost certainly failed. Not only was the former president alive, officials told reporters, but intercepted phone calls between Saddam`s supporters talking of the need to protect him suggested that he was still inside Iraq and acting as a focus for anti-US resistance. King Abdullah of Jordan said yesterday that he believed Saddam was still alive and that many Iraqis believe he "might come back to haunt them".

As a result of this new intelligence, the secretive military-CIA unit that is searching for the former Iraqi leader - Task Force 20 - is now launching new operations to locate him. The unit has been helped by information provided to it by Saddam`s closest confidant, Abid Hamid Mahmoud al- Tikriti, who was captured last week near the city of Tikrit and who told interrogators that Saddam may have spent some time in Syria. Other reports say Saddam was killed last week during a strike on a convoy near the Syrian border.

But why should the American and British occupying forces be making such efforts to locate Saddam or even to determine whether he is alive or dead?

Earlier this month Paul Bremer, head of the Allies` administration in Iraq, outlined one of the most important reasons for locating the former dictator: to prevent him acting as a focus for resistance groups inside Iraq. He said Saddam`s survival and potential return to power - and with it the subsequent punishment of "collaborators" - could be used to threaten Iraqis who were co-operating with the occupying forces.

He said: "I would obviously prefer that we had clear evidence that Saddam is dead or that we had him alive in our custody. It does make a difference because it allows the Baathists to go around in the bazaars and in the villages, as they are doing, saying `Saddam is alive and he`s going to come back. And we`re going to come back`."

There is something in this. There appears little doubt that resistance to the US-led occupation in Iraq is increasing rather than easing off. Last Friday, the Pentagon announced that 55 US soldiers had been killed in assaults and accidents since Mr Bush declared an end to hostilities on 1 May. Yesterday another American soldier was killed and a second injured in a grenade attack just outside Baghdad, while in the city of Hit, a fuel pipeline exploded in a suspected act of sabotage.

There are many that believe Saddam is acting as a focus for these resistance elements and Ahmed Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, claimed the former Iraqi president was even offering rewards of $200 for each US soldier killed. One Pentagon official said: "These guys are growing in resistance, and they`re still being troublesome ... and you have to ask what`s motivating them."

But there is more to the capture of Saddam than denying the Baath party loyalists, Fedayeen and other resistance fighters a figurehead. In the run-up to the war, Mr Bush repeatedly highlighted Saddam as the cause of Iraqi suffering and the sole reason why the US and Britain were prepared to "disarm" the regime. At times it became very personal. As far back as November 2001, Mr Bush said: "Saddam is evil." But as the war started and it became increasingly clear that Saddam might not be found, so the administration changed its language. Mr Bush`s spokesman said: "So clearly, the future or the fate of Saddam Hussein is a factor but ... whether he is or is not alive or dead, the mission is moving forward, and the regime`s days are numbered."

The shift in language represents an understanding at the White House that it cannot allow itself to be judged on whether Saddam is found. After the war in Afghanistan, the administration was criticised for failing to find either al-Qa`ida`s leader, Osama bin Laden, or the head of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, having declared, in the case of Bin Laden, that he was wanted "Dead or alive". For Saddam to appear on grainy videotape broadcast by an Arab news channel and vowing resistance to the US during the build-up to the presidential elections would be damaging politically and hugely embarrassing.

"Saddam is the [Iraqi] regime personified," said François Boo, of the Washington-based military research group GlobalSecurity.Org. "It`s much easier to declare victory if you have captured the leader of the country and the person said to represent the major obstacle to rebuilding." The flip-side is the huge PR coup capturing Saddam would represent for Mr Bush and Mr Blair. The war on Iraq was always presented as a fight between good and evil with Saddam playing the part of the devil. If they could actually find him, both Mr Bush`s chances of securing re-election and Mr Blair`s of silencing Labour critics would receive a massive boost.

The fate of Iraq`s ousted leader: The theories

By Hugh Macleod

WAS HE KILLED IN AIRSTRIKE?

A few people believe Saddam was killed in one of two strikes, the first early on 20 March on a residential compound in the south of Baghdad and the second on a house behind a restaurant in the Mansur district. After extensive tests of DNA samples, most experts believe he survived.

WAS HE KILLED LAST WEEK?

The Observer said yesterday that DNA tests are being made on remains from a convoy of vehicles hit by US Hellfire missiles on 18 June, after "firm" information that Saddam and members of his family were near the Syrian border. Abid Hamid Mahmud al-Tikriti, Saddam`s personal secretary and No4 on the Americans` most-wanted list, was captured two days earlier and his information may have triggered the attack. A White House spokesman said it was unclear if Saddam was alive.

WAS HE SMUGGLED TO SYRIA BY RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS?

Another theory is that Saddam fled to Syria after the fall of Baghdad but returned to Iraq. Syria has denied harbouring Saddam or members of his family, or knowing where he might be. In the Arab world ,conspiracy theories about the collapse of the Iraqi regime are rife.

Nabih Berri, Speaker of the Lebanese parliament, and Abd al-Aziz Salamah, the former deputy head of the Egyptian intelligence, talked of a covert arrangement to bundle Saddam out of Iraq in exchange for an end to the bloodshed. As tanks swept into Baghdad, Mr Berri suggested he might have taken refuge in the Russian embassy, prompting rumours that he fled to Syria aided by Russian diplomats, a charge Moscow strongly denies.

IS HE ALIVE IN IRAQ?

The leader of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi, said Saddam has been spotted frequently, moving from Diyala, north-east of Baghdad, around the Tigris river to his home town of Tikrit, and west of the Tigris. Most ordinary Iraqis appear to support this view.

Also missing

By Hugh Macleod

MULLAH OMAR

Since the US-led war to overthrow the regime in Afghanistan in December 2001, the Taliban supreme leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, has all but vanished. In July last year the US thought it might have cornered the one-eyed Omar when it launched an attack that hit a wedding party near his extended family`s home in Uruzgan Province. The Pentagon has since acknowledged that more than 30 people were killed in the attack, most of them women and children, but that none of those killed was the senior Taliban cleric. The hunt for Omar has focused recently on the areas around Uruzgan, Kandahar and Helmand, according to coalition intelligence sources.

In February this year Omar issued his first message of defiance since the fall of his government in December 2001, calling on Afghans `to rise up and use your sword against infidels and their puppets`.

OSAMA BIN LADEN

Osama Bin Laden gave his last public address at the Islamic Studies Centre in Jalalabad on 10 November 2001. Traced to the Tora Bora cave complex during the war in Afghanistan and pounded by airstrikes, it is believed he slipped through the fingers of Afghan fighters working with US forces and was thought to have crossed the border into Pakistan. In November 2002 Ronald Noble, the head of Interpol said Mr bin Laden was alive and planning further high-profile terrorist attacks. In March this year up to 1,000 US soldiers from the army`s 82nd Airborne Division were sent on an assault near the city of Kandahar in the largest operation in a year. In April an Algerian national, identified only as `Aadil`, presented news services with a tape he claimed was Mr bin Laden`s most recent recording - the latest since the end of the war in Afghanistan.
23 June 2003 09:01


© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

[Joerver]

Man zahlt einen Teil der Gewinne aus der Steuersenkung zurück.

June 23, 2003
The Money Magnet
By BOB HERBERT


It`s a great time to be George W. Bush.

The president will waltz into Manhattan today for another $2,000-a-plate fund-raiser, the latest stop on his fabulously successful dining-for-dollars tour. These are fun events at which the fat cats throw millions of dollars at the president to reinforce their already impenetrable ring of influence around the national government.

Mr. Bush is expected to pull in $5 million at this evening`s sit-down, and may ultimately raise an astonishing quarter of a billion dollars for his re-election bid. During a brief stop Friday at a reception in Greensboro, Ga., where he picked up a quick $2.2 million, the president happily told his supporters, "You put the wind at my back."

I`m sure there`s no connection between fat-cat fund-raising and, say, federal tax policy. But there was some particularly interesting information about the Bush tax cuts in an article yesterday by The Times`s David E. Rosenbaum. Citing data from a study by Citizens for Tax Justice, Mr. Rosenbaum pointed out that the richest 1 percent of Americans will get an average tax reduction of nearly $100,000 a year, while "the tax relief most people will receive is quite meager."

Half of all taxpayers will get a cut of less than $100 this year. By 2005, three-quarters will get less than $100.

The middle class and working people don`t seem to mind that they`ve been blithely left behind. Mr. Bush`s approval ratings are way high, so high they`ve got the terminally timid Democrats scared to death to confront the president head on. The man who elbowed his way into the White House with a minority of the popular vote is on a roll.

But while these may be the best of times for George W., this is not such a great moment for America.

Start anywhere. Tax cuts? Mr. Bush has behaved like a profligate parent who spends every dollar the family has accumulated, mortgages everything the family owns and maxes out every credit card he can get his hands on. At some point in this scenario the children and grandchildren will be left with nothing but a mountain of debt.

Jobs? More than three million private-sector jobs have been lost on this president`s watch. People are staying out of work longer and the pay gains of the late 90`s are being eroded. Time Magazine recently asked, "Why are American workers dying the death of a thousand pay cuts?"

Government services? Prepare to wave goodbye to Medicare and Social Security as you`ve known them. Right wingers have always wanted to cripple the government`s social service programs and now they are racing toward achievement of that poisonous goal. With the president`s tax cuts bankrupting the government, there will be no money left for meaningful support of even the most popular social programs.

The environment? Among other things, the Bush White House does not like global warming. So it just edits out, eliminates, erases important references to it in official government documents. Gas-guzzling S.U.V.`s are good. But in the Bush II White House, global warming as most scientists know it doesn`t even exist.

We`ve got some waking up to do.

A budget catastrophe is hammering state and local governments across the country, driving up taxes and fees, and driving out important government services. This story is still not getting the attention it deserves. Some public school districts have had to shorten the school year because they ran out of money. In some areas medical services to seriously ill individuals are being curtailed. In some jurisdictions, criminal offenders are being released from prison early, and some criminal laws are not being enforced because of a lack of funds.

Because of cuts in the police budget, station houses in Portland, Ore., now close at night.

These are not topics that will be explored in depth at this evening`s presidential fund-raiser. And you can bet that there will not be any straight talk about the quagmire we are sinking into in Iraq, or the outlandish deceptions that the president employed to get us in there.

No, this will be a fun evening filled with the sound of joyous plutocratic laughter. Mr. Bush will leave with his pockets bulging and the wind at his back. The reality of life in George Bush`s America for working men and women, and for the poor, will be left for others to attend to, presumably in some post-Bush administration.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Iraqi Shiite Leader Uneasy With U.S. Role
Rare Political Remarks Advocate Self-Rule

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 23, 2003; Page A01


BAGHDAD, June 22 -- Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the senior religious figure of Iraq`s Shiite Muslim majority and the community`s most influential voice, has expressed "great unease" about the 10-week-old U.S. occupation and demanded that the United States allow Iraqis to rule themselves.

Sistani`s statements, in written responses to questions from The Washington Post, represent a rare foray for the Iranian-born cleric into political affairs. Sistani, viewed by U.S. officials as a crucial force for moderation in the turbulent postwar aftermath, stopped far short of demanding a withdrawal. But his words seemed to signal growing anxiety among the country`s religious leadership over the direction of the U.S. occupation.

"We feel great unease over their goals, and we see that it is necessary that they should make room for Iraqis to rule themselves by themselves without foreign intervention," Sistani responded from his home in the southern city of Najaf.

A reclusive, scholarly figure in his seventies, Sistani has not been seen in public since before the U.S.-led invasion began in March. His replies, conveyed Saturday, were put in written form by his son and spokesman, Mohammed Rida Sistani, who acts on his father`s authority.

Echoing other Shiite clerics, many of whom have become increasingly vocal in their denunciations of Western influence, Sistani also warned that the biggest threat facing the Arab country is "the obliteration of its cultural identity."

Despite Sistani`s disavowal of any political role, U.S. officials, even as the war was underway, sought to open channels to the cleric, given his standing as the most respected among Iraq`s senior ayatollahs in Najaf. He has refused to meet with U.S. officials, but U.S. commanders said that in the wake of Najaf`s fall, Sistani issued a judgment urging Shiites not to interfere with American troops.

A copy of the edict was never published. But in a series of rulings, or fatwas, Sistani was credited with easing the transition after the fall of Saddam Hussein`s government, and in contrast to the Sunni region in the northwest, Iraq`s largely Shiite south has remained relatively quiet. He ordered an end to looting that wrecked Baghdad and scarred other cities, demanded that stolen items be turned over to local authorities and forbade revenge killings against members of the Baath Party, whose rule was especially repressive in the south.

In a move welcomed by U.S. authorities, and in clear distinction with the Islamic government in neighboring Iran, he instructed Iraq`s clergy to remain outside of government. That counsel was grounded in Sistani`s theological view, a traditional line of thought that sees the clergy`s calling as confined to spiritual affairs, not administrative. While other clerics in Iraq have spoken openly about political ambitions, Sistani has made clear that he seeks no role in a future government.

"Religious scholars should distance themselves from positions of administrative and executive responsibility," said Sistani, who wears a black turban that, among Shiites, denotes descent from the family of the prophet Muhammad.

L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, said today that he has offered to meet Sistani, who declined the invitation. Like other U.S. officials, he acknowledged the ayatollah`s importance. "I think his views will be valuable," he said on his return to Baghdad from a meeting of the World Economic Forum in Jordan.

Sistani, a slight man with a long white beard and thick black eyebrows who speaks Arabic with a Persian accent, is known as a marja al-taqlid, a title held by a handful of the most senior ayatollahs. To his followers, he has the right to interpret Islamic law in everyday life -- in unprecedented and original fashion -- giving him great sway. For them, his authority is traditionally unquestioned, and his modest office down a ramshackle alley in Najaf is besieged daily by followers seeking aid or answers to religious questions.

His statements about the U.S. occupation do not carry the weight of a fatwa, the only such edict that would be binding. But his remarks come at a time when some of his supporters in Najaf have complained about his reclusiveness, particularly as two other groups, with a distinctly more political agenda, are vying for the support of the country`s majority.

"We wish he would talk more forcefully, but he would never accept," said Kamal Abdullah Bahr Ulum, 62, a resident of Najaf and supporter of Sistani. "If he made a fatwa tomorrow to act, no one would remain in their home."

While Shiite clergy rarely speak positively about the U.S. occupation, most of the key actors are engaged with the American administration at some level.

Sistani`s representative in Karbala, another Shiite holy city, is credited with helping facilitate behind the scenes an effective local government that has worked closely with the U.S. military to restore services and keep law and order. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Hakim, has taken part -- with reservations -- in U.S.-led discussions on an interim authority. A group loyal to Moqtada Sadr, the son of a revered cleric assassinated in 1999 in Najaf, has long been seen as the most militant faction, but in recent weeks, it has markedly toned down its anti-U.S. pronouncements.

Beneath the surface, though, there remains great tumult, and competing factions are harsh in their denunciations of rivals as well as the United States. On April 10, two clerics were hacked to death by a mob in Najaf in circumstances still unclear.

At the shrine of Imam Ali, a son-in-law of the prophet Muhammad whom Shiites view as his heir, leaflets are posted on the walls from Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary general of Hezbollah, the Shiite Muslim guerrilla group based in Lebanon. In them, he says, "We are observing what the Americans do in Iraq, not what they say." In an edict from Ayatollah Kadhim Husseini Haeri, a senior Iraqi cleric based in Iran and the spiritual guide of Sadr`s movement, he denounced the U.S. administration "as occupiers, not liberators."

The edict gave fodder to a rumor sweeping Baghdad and other cities that, in essence, accuses Zionists of carrying out a campaign to buy property in an attempt to facilitate an occupation of Iraq.

"Spill the blood of any Jew who attempts from now on to own land or homes in Iraq," Haeri wrote.

Among the organized religious opposition, Sadr`s and Hakim`s groups the most prominent, a current of resentment exists over Bremer`s plans to appoint an advisory council of 25 or 30 Iraqis that will remain under his authority. Groups, including Hakim`s, a well-honed organization that competes with Sadr`s street-level popularity, fear the council is a way to circumvent their power. U.S. forces have carried out several raids against offices of Hakim`s group in Baghdad, most recently on Saturday.

"People say the Americans are behaving toward the Shiites as they would behave toward an enemy," Hakim said in a recent interview at his Najaf home, where a Mercedes and five late-model sports-utility vehicles were parked outside.

For others -- in an echo of Sistani`s warning -- the threat posed by a secular vision of Iraq endorsed by U.S. officials is the graver danger. As in other sermons Friday in Baghdad and Najaf, Sheik Kadhim Ebadi, a follower of Sadr, told thousands of worshipers at the Mohsin Mosque that Iraq was engaged in a "clash of civilizations."

"I want to ask if we are up to this challenge," he said.

Correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran contributed to this report.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Love for the Bug Runs Out
VW to Close Last Classic Beetle Assembly Line

By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, June 23, 2003; Page A01


PUEBLA, Mexico -- Goodbye, Herbie.

The iconic Volkswagen Beetle, the most popular car ever made, will cease production this summer, 69 years and more than 21 million sales after Adolf Hitler`s Third Reich first commissioned the durable, dome-shaped little "People`s Car."

Volkswagen officials said earlier this month that the last Beetle assembly line in the world, in VW`s massive plant here in central Mexico, will shut in the coming weeks. They said sales had fallen dramatically because the $6,800 workhorse could no longer compete with slick little imported Fords and Chevys that are priced nearly the same but offer four doors, air conditioning and engines that don`t sound like can openers in distress.

"My heart is sick," said Antonio Cholula Olvera, who has assembled Beetles for 40 of his 59 years, watching a line of unpainted Beetle bodies waiting for their chassis to be welded on. "It`s a beautiful car. Everybody loved it. Maybe I love it too much."

The bug-eyed Beetle has always been a powerful symbol. First mass-produced in Germany under Allied supervision in 1945, it represented the first flicker of the country`s postwar rebirth as an industrial power. In the United States in the 1960s, the Bug and its toaster-shaped cousin, the VW bus, became the anti-establishment transport of choice. Its iconoclastic "beep-beep" was the automotive equivalent of Woodstock, the perfect way to stick it to Daddy and his big square Detroit dullmobiles.

The 1969 goofball classic movie, "The Love Bug," about a Beetle named Herbie, spawned fan clubs and books and gave the world a reason to ponder Buddy Hackett. Beetle owners around the world still hold weekend meetings and road rallies -- there are 80 clubs in Mexico alone. A couple of days ago, there were 1,057 Beetle-related items available on eBay, from a mint condition 1979 Bug for $5,000 to an "awesome" Beetle cookie jar for $12.95.

No other model of car has been so enduring, said a spokesman for VW, Thomas Karig. He said Toyota Corollas and Volkswagen`s own Golf may have sold more over the years, but all have changed sizes, shapes and styles many times. Beetles rolling off the Puebla assembly line today are basically identical to the model designed by the legendary Ferdinand Porsche in the 1930s. Karig said the closest phenomenon to the Beetle was the Ford Model T, which sold more than 15 million cars.

Generations of people around the world learned how to drive following the gear pattern printed on the Beetle`s ashtray, had their first kiss in a Beetle or drove off to college in one. Alma Gutierrez had a baby in a vocho, as they are known in Mexico. Twenty years ago, the Mexico City housewife was rushing to the hospital in a Beetle taxi when her daughter arrived right there on the vinyl back seat.

"So how can I not love vochos?" said Gutierrez, who, like almost everyone interviewed here, brightened when asked for their favorite vocho story.

Volkswagen will continue to make the stylish New Beetle, which it introduced in 1997.

The company stopped producing the old Beetles in Germany in 1978 and in its second-biggest production line, in Brazil, in 1996. That left Puebla as the only plant in the world still making the classic car. Marcos Bureau, editor of Vochomania, a Mexican magazine that sells 35,000 copies every two weeks, said Mexicans have adopted Germany`s Beetle as a symbol of Mexico.

"It`s a beloved car here," said Bureau, adding that surveys have shown that at least 70 percent of Mexican families have owned a Beetle.

Bureau said the Beetle`s ruggedness and ability to squeeze into the tight spots on crowded streets made it the perfect car for Mexico, whose poorly maintained roads eat lesser cars for lunch. Bureau recalled a time when his father-in-law took off his sock and stuffed it into the leaking gas tank of the family Bug. "No other car is so easy to maintain," he said.

There is a joke in Mexico that Beetles are like bellybuttons: Everyone has one. And everyone has a story. Arcelia Rebollar Martinez swears that her uncle`s Bug floated one day. She said her family was on vacation when a massive downpour flooded a rutted Mexican back road. They drove into a waist-deep puddle. "I swear on my mother, the little vocho floated," Rebollar said. "The vocho is a battle car, and nothing can stop it."

Nadia Barceles, 25, a Mexico City architect, remembers 11 members of her family squeezing into their vocho for the half-day road trip to Acapulco. "It was a mess of arms and legs," she said. "We had to keep stopping to stretch."

While Bugs have become a rarer sight on the streets of the United States and Europe, they still dominate in Mexico. It is impossible to drive in Mexico City and not be surrounded by Beetles, especially the tens of thousands of bright-green ones that make up the heart of the city`s taxi fleet. Bugs here serve as everything from police cars to delivery wagons and are found everywhere from the heart of the capital to the jungles of Chiapas state.

"The Beetle motorized Mexico," said Karig, the VW spokesman, adding that 1.7 million vochos have been produced at the Puebla plant since 1964. He said that until the 1990s, the Beetle was the cheapest car available in Mexico, where half the population lives in poverty. So, he said, for decades it was the only practical choice: "It had no competition."

But as the Beetle stayed the same, the world kept changing -- a disastrous combination, Karig said.

"The Mexican auto industry has changed completely since the beginning of the `90s," Karig said, noting that before the 1990s Mexico`s market was largely closed to imports. As one of the very few foreign companies producing cars in Mexico, Volkswagen cornered the market with its cheap vochos.

But since then, Mexico has opened its economy to the world, first with the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement and later with trade pacts with Europe and South America. Mexican consumers are now flooded with all models of imported cars -- including subcompacts that are nearly as cheap as the vocho but much more modern. Karig said VW`s own Pointer, which is imported from Argentina, outsells the Beetle. He said it has more room and more power for just $700 more than a Beetle.

Volkswagen has produced 625,000 New Beetles since 1997 in Puebla, its only plant in the world making that model.

In the face of all those market forces, production of the old Beetle has fallen to just 23,000 last year, from its peak of more than 100,000 in 1993. Of the 10,000 workers making cars at the plant here, only 270 are still working on vochos. "So the time has come for the Beetle at last," Karig said. "This discussion has been going on for years. And the conclusion is that people want to buy a modern car."

Mexico City authorities also have started a program to eliminate vochos from the taxi fleet, saying that newer four-door taxis are safer and more efficient. Hundreds of the old cars have already been retired and destroyed as the city phases out a symbol of Mexico City that has been used in millions of posters, postcards, photos and advertisements.

"We know there`s going to be nostalgia because the vochos are disappearing," said Mario Alberto Medina, a spokesman for the city`s transportation department. "But we have to establish priorities."

On the assembly line here in Puebla, workers are preparing a special farewell edition of the Beetle, to be unveiled on July 10 with surprise colors and styling. Benjamin Perez Morales, who has been making vochos for 32 years, stood on the production floor where the vocho assembly line runs beneath a huge shrine to the Virgin of Guadalupe, Mexico`s patron saint.

"I`ll be relocated to another line," Perez said. "But the vocho has been my whole life. And it will always be my whole life."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Burma auch ein Land welches Demokratie braucht.

washingtonpost.com
How Best to Rid the World of Monsters


By Fred Hiatt

Monday, June 23, 2003; Page A21


Almost everyone who opposed the U.S.-led war in Iraq, both here and overseas, agreed that Saddam Hussein was a monster. "We`re glad the dictator is gone," they say now. "But war was the wrong way to unseat him."

Fair enough. But then, what is the right way? Aung San Suu Kyi might like to know.

In case you haven`t been following the news from the other side of the world, she is the leader of pro-democracy forces in Burma, a lush, predominantly Buddhist nation of Southeast Asia. At the moment she is thought to be in Insein Prison, the terror center outside Burma`s capital, where dog kennels have been converted to torture cells and prisoners are forced to beat each other bloody for the entertainment of guards.

If Saddam Hussein`s rule was monstrous, the regime of Burma`s junta is no less so. Ethnic cleansing, rape as an official tool of repression, heroin and HIV/AIDS as primary exports, a vast security apparatus spreading fear throughout society, slave labor -- Burma`s got it all.

But Burma has something that distinguishes it from most totalitarian systems, too. In Iraq, Hussein`s apologists could claim, up to the very last minute, that the Iraqi people loved him. You could scoff at the claim, but you couldn`t absolutely prove it false. In Burma, you can declare with mathematical certainty that the regime is illegitimate: It lost a 1990 election to the National League for Democracy, which won 82 percent of parliamentary seats even though its leader -- the same Aung San Suu Kyi -- was under house arrest at the time. Those elected were never permitted to take their seats. Quite a few, in fact, ended up in Insein.

Given all that, you might ask why regime change is not on the world`s agenda. Last week the United Nations General Assembly adopted a $2.17 billion budget for the coming year for peacekeeping operations. Why nothing for democracy-keeping?

It`s accepted, now, that the "international community," as we call it when no one wants to take responsibility, would have been justified if it had violated Rwanda`s sovereignty to prevent genocide there -- that is was morally remiss, in fact, in failing to do so. Many nations supported the violation of Serbia`s sovereignty to save the people of Kosovo from forcible eviction from their homes. The people of Burma have been suffering far longer. Yet somehow, as in North Korea, it is considered perfectly moral to stand aside and watch crimes against humanity that just unfold in slower motion than Rwanda`s. The Burmese generals are permitted to shield themselves behind a sovereignty that does not legitimately belong to them. Leaders around the world go on receiving their ambassadors and embracing their foreign ministers.

Is it fanciful to dream of a democracy-keeping force that would liberate the people of North Korea (where at least 2 million have died of officially induced starvation) or Burma? No doubt. Jacques Chirac would be upset, Kofi Annan would remind us of the absence of consensus, George Bush would see no issues of national security to justify the use of force. But then, what would they do?

Sen. Mitch McConnell has one suggestion, and he persuaded 96 other senators to go along: a ban on imports from Burma. Such economic punishments often have little effect, or end up hurting poor workers more than rich generals. U.S. business almost always opposes sanctions.

But for a couple of reasons, Burma might be different. The regime -- which calls itself the State Peace and Development Council -- controls most of the economy and so would be immediately affected. U.S. clothing and shoe importers, who account for most Burmese goods sold in this country, became so disgusted by the child labor and other coercive practices of the regime that, through their trade association, they actually endorsed an import ban before the Senate voted. Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and development expert, said Friday that sanctions "are more likely to be effective there than almost anywhere else I can imagine" -- provided other countries join in.

With which McConnell agrees. "Our actions will not be truly effective until our European allies and Burma`s neighbors also place pressure on the junta," he said last week.

And that brings us back to all those politicians who bowed to no one in their disdain for Saddam Hussein -- but who insisted war could never be the answer. They have a chance to show that another way might work. Aung San Suu Kyi is waiting.

e-mail: [e-mail]



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Who Is The Enemy?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By: Michael Hayduke - 06/20/03



According to the news:

"US forces are waging a `guerrilla war` in Iraq" -- Paul Wolfowitz

"...the American public was prepared to accept the mounting [US] death toll..." -- Donald Rumsfeld

"There`s a guerrilla war there but we can win it." -- Paul Wolfowitz

"...we continue to face an adaptive and determined enemy which...is intent on killing Americans and Iraqis" -- Paul Wolfowitz

Mr Wolfowitz...insisted the enemy did not have broad popular support...

Who decides who is the enemy?

The United States government invaded Iraq without provocation and killed hundreds of innocent civilians and thousands of Iraqi military, following ten years of ceaseless bombing resulting in the destruction of the civilian infrastructure. Millions have died, suffer from disease, and wither with degenerative birth defects. The entire social structure of Iraq has been disrupted and subverted. The United States military continues to illegally occupy this sovereign nation, subjugate its people and divert its economic resources to the gain of US and trans-national corporations.

There is a word for this: genocide. Genocide is illegal under international law. The leaders of those countries that engage in genocide can be charged in the World Court as war criminals. George W. Bush, his cabinet and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff are guilty of the most egregious international crimes, identical to those of leaders of Nazi Germany who were called before the Nuremberg Court to answer for their crimes.

Who decided that the actions of the United States military and the US Commander in Chief are acceptable to the people of the United States? I don`t recall anyone asking the question. Congress did not approve a Declaration of War against the people of Iraq. Under the Constitution of the United States, the un-elected, appointed President and his administration have violated the Constitution and international law, and have lied repeatedly in the face of contrary evidence to the people of the United States and the world.

Why are these people still in power and why are they not held responsible for the crimes before the world?

Who is the enemy?


"War is essentially an evil thing ... To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme
international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Nuremberg International Military Tribunal



Michael Hayduke is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.



Find more articles by Michael Hayduke in the Liberal Slant Archives
http://fp.enter.net/~haney/mh062003.htm

[Joerver]

More revisionist history

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally published June 20, 2003



HOWEVER JUDICIOUSLY President Bush may be trying to handle Iran, when it comes to global warming it seems as though his administration is pushing the same sort of fudged reality that it pursued with Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
According to The New York Times, an Environmental Protection Agency report due next week was cleansed by the White House of references to the many studies blaming smokestack and tail-pipe emissions for climate change. In place of that material, the White House sought to insert a study underwritten by the oil industry that questions the role of fossil fuels in global warming. But EPA officials balked, preferring to leave the topic unaddressed.

Mr. Bush is not the first president to allow political motives to color the information his government releases. But it`s hard to remember one who was bolder about seeking to deceive Americans in order to serve his political backers.

All the facts on Iraq are not yet in. But the Bush administration`s calculated manipulation of years of climate change research that his friends in the energy industry consider hostile to their economic interests gravely undermines his credibility in other areas.

Does he only play fast and loose with the truth where oil is involved, or is every subject fair game? If this sounds harsh, consider the pre-revised history.

Global warming, of course, was Al Gore`s issue. He wrote a book about climate change long before he ran against Mr. Bush for the White House. But many later studies supported Mr. Gore`s conclusion that man-made greenhouse gases trapped in the Earth`s atmosphere were a major contributor to the warming trend.

The EPA and the National Academy of Sciences both issued reports last year targeting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and vehicle exhausts as primary sources of these greenhouse gases.

But Mr. Bush, who as a presidential candidate called for limiting power plant emissions, now seems determined to forestall such costly consequences for the energy industry by raising doubts about whether it is truly at fault.

Last year, he simply dismissed the EPA report as a document "put out by the bureaucracy." This year, his political aides headed off EPA at the pass.

These tactics come straight out of a playbook put out by GOP pollster Frank Luntz to help Mr. Bush deal with environmental issues - his political Achilles` heel.

On global warming, Mr. Luntz urged opponents of regulatory controls to "make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate. ... Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly."

So the debate goes on, and the air gets dirtier and hotter and nothing is done - our own weapon of mass destruction.

But its first casualty is the value of Mr. Bush`s word.



Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun | Get home delivery
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/bal-ed.epa20jun20,0,4961…

[Joerver]

The Masters of Spin
Why the Bush administration is the most arrogant in memory


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


June 20 — The long, hot summer has begun in Iraq. American GIs are dying almost daily. So are Iraqis. But that hasn’t stopped President Bush from embarking on a fund-raising spree premised on his triumphal role as commander in chief. Who needs reality when you’ve got spin?
THE PRE-WAR spin was all about weapons of mass destruction and the price of U.S. inaction. Bush said we couldn’t afford to wait until there was a mushroom cloud. Critics who suspect the intelligence data about Saddam’s nuclear program was hyped are brushed aside like gnats on an elephant. Bush says they’re engaging in “revisionist history,” which is on a par with calling Watergate a third-rate burglary.
Bush wins the spin for now. The debate over weapons of mass destruction is an inside-the-Beltway story; it’s not resonating with the public. The bigger question is existential: do the gods punish hubris?
This is the most arrogant administration in memory. Every day brings another issue where a careful observer of the political scene cannot believe what’s happening. The latest outrage has the White House spinmeisters editing a report by the EPA on the status of the environment to omit mounting concern about climate change. The spinners have already stricken the phrase “global warming” in favor of the more benign “climate change.” The offending line declared, “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” In its place, the White House inserted a bunch of gobbledygook about how the “complexity of the Earth system” and various “interconnections” make it a challenge to render scientific judgments.
Howls from environmentalists go unanswered. The administration’s attitude is like the phone company before the breakup of AT&T when Lily Tomlin, the comedic actress, appeared on stage as a telephone operator telling irate customers, “We don’t care. We don’t have to. We’re the phone company.”
Karl Rove, the grand wizard of spin, is a smart man with a historical perspective. He is a student of the American consciousness, and he knows that the American public is disengaged from politics. That’s the reality that makes voters today uniquely susceptible to such deceptive spin. Apocalyptic assertions by Bush and other administration officials in the months leading up to the war created the impression of such an imminent threat that it’s not surprising Americans got confused. One third of those questioned in a poll taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland believe that U.S. forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the recent war.
Most Americans have no idea who the Democratic candidates are, and Bush’s fund-raising blitz is designed to envelop his re-election in an aura of inevitability. It’s summer in Washington even though the dreary, wet weather feels like April. If by Labor Day, U.S. inspection teams haven’t found WMD and Iraq is looking like a quagmire, then the public might wake up and credibility could become a serious issue for Bush. As insurance against that outcome, Bush is shifting the political conversation to a looming confrontation with Iran, which will keep war alive as an issue for 2004. An uninformed public disengaged from politics and an administration that knows no shame are the ideal conditions for Bush to win a second term.
Democrats once hoped that a return to domestic issues, where they hold an advantage, would be Bush’s undoing. But the White House spin machine succeeds here, as well. Republicans who ordinarily deplore big government are cheering the potential expansion of Medicare to provide a prescription-drug benefit to senior citizens. Never mind that the Rube Goldberg scheme under discussion in Congress won’t go into effect until 2006 or that millions of seniors would pay more for their drugs with the benefit than they currently do without it, Bush will strut like the greatest savior of seniors since FDR brought us Social Security.
The House just voted to repeal the estate tax permanently, a windfall for trust-fund kids that was sold on the false premise that it saves farm families from destitution at the hands of the IRS. Reporters in the farm belt failed to find a farmer with a hardship story that would illustrate the GOP’s argument. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation said it couldn’t cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The House votes tax breaks for millionaires while children of low-income families and military families get left behind.
One of the key strategies of the GOP is to portray Democratic critics as un-American. Remember the anonymous Bush strategist quoted some months ago suggesting Sen. John Kerry looks French. There will be two GOP campaigns: the flag-waving one on the surface that Bush is involved with, and then the sub-rosa campaign waged by surrogates that will be less gentlemanly. A very strong point in Bush’s favor is that there hasn’t been another attack on U.S. soil. He’s kept us safe, and he’s kept us fearful, a potent combination that Democrats haven’t yet figured how to crack.

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/929206.asp?0cv=KB20

[rv_2011]

"spinmeisters"?
Verweist jetzt nach der Times (#3387) auch Newsweek auf die deutschstämmige Herkunft dieser Klicke?

(In der Überschrift wird "Masters" benutzt, im Text sicher nicht ohne Absicht die deutsche Form.)

[Joerver]

Ich werde die seiten der demokratischen Kandidaten einstellen, damit derjenige, der interessiert ist sich ein Bild machen kann: John Kerry


John Kerry said Friday that he is prepared to block any Supreme Court nominee who would not uphold the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

``I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman`s right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties and on the laws protecting workers and the environment,`` Kerry said in remarks via satellite at a meeting of Democratic party officials in St. Paul, Minn. Click here to read the full text of the AP article


Cedar Rapids, IA -- Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry unveiled a plan on Friday to increase America`s national security by ending our dependence on foreign oil within 10 years.

Kerry unveiled his plan at VFW Post 788 in Cedar Rapids. "Our national security is at stake and we have to act today, not wait for decades while new crises threaten or strike," said Kerry. "Setting a national goal of ending our reliance on Middle East oil within this next decade is critical to the long-term national security of the United States. No foreign government can embargo clean, domestic, renewable sources of energy -- and no terrorist can seize control of them." Click here to read the campaign press release
http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer

[Joerver]

Rv
Das mit dem Meister ist zu erklären. Jedenfalls in Kalifornien wird Jägermeister gerne getrunken. Ich bin vor paar Jahren in Fort Bragg,CA in eine Clique Biker geraten. Die haben sich auch dem Genuß dieses köstlichen Getränkes gewidmet. War mir nächsten Tag schlecht.
Auch in einer SFZeitung wurde schon mal der Hangover nach einem Jägermeister ausführlich beschrieben. Und meine neugierigen Recherchen in SF Lokalen haben immer zum Erfolg geführt.
Mit der einem Ausnahme liegt der Genuß von Jägermeister bei mir schon Jahrzehnte zurück.
J.

[rv_2011]

Ach, auf Jägermeister wäre ich nie gekommen.

Vielleicht sollten die mal die alte Anzeigenserie wieder aufnehmen.

Wie wär´s mit Bush:
"Ich trinke Jägermeister, weil ich Massenvernichtungswaffen liebe..."

Mir fällt dabei eher Celan ein: "Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland..."

[Joerver]

Hier etwas über den rechtesten Hardliner von Fox, O`Reilly.
Zusätzlich ein Streigespräch zwischen O`Reilly und Franken(Satiriker). Nach ~20 Minuten geht es los. Gesamtzeit über eine Stunde.Bei der amerikanischen Buchmesse in L.A. Real Player.

http://www.broadbandc-span.org/video/300k_btv053103_panel2.r…

washingtonpost.com
O`Reilly`s Online Spanking


By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 20, 2003; 9:30 AM


Bill O`Reilly suddenly finds himself at war with the Internet.

And it isn`t pretty.

In fact, the Fox commentator and radio host is being slapped around by some online folks who ordinarily would agree with his conservative philosophy. But when it comes to dissing the Net, them`s fightin` words!

He seems to blame much of society`s ills on the strange, dark world of the Net while ignoring the positive side of instant communications and blathering bloggers.

O`Reilly loves to stir up trouble, of course, but many of his targets don`t have a megaphone to shout back. That`s hardly the case online, where almost anyone can crank up the volume.

The O-Man started the contretemps with an "O`Reilly Factor" commentary, complaining that some Web sites had picked up a San Francisco Chronicle article about a local station dropping his radio show -- which was wrong, he said, because the show was merely moving to another Bay Area station. Then he really let loose:

"All over the country, we have people posting the most vile stuff imaginable, hiding behind high tech capabilities. Sometimes the violators are punished, but most are not. We have now have teenagers ruining the reputations of their peers in schools on the Internet. Ideologues accusing public officials of the worst things imaginable. And creeps gossiping about celebrities in the crudest of ways.

"The Internet has become a sewer of slander and libel, an unpatrolled polluted waterway, where just about anything goes. For example, the guy who raped and murdered a 10-year old in Massachusetts says he got the idea from the NAMBLA Web site that he accessed from the Boston public library. The ACLU`s defending NAMBLA in that civil lawsuit."

The reaction, chronicled on InstaPundit and other Web sites, was swift.

Blogger Cam Edwards: "Do you think Bill would accuse me of telling lies if I said he`s a big ol` weenie? Because in my book, whining and making excuses about your radio show being dropped is a weenie thing to do."

James Lileks: "O`Reilly was fun for a while, because it was the antithesis of the Sunday morning shows, and it wasn`t a panel of shouters. It was one guy mixing it up with guests who one did not usually see mixed. But the schtick grew weary for me fast, too, and beneath it all you could hear the rattling chains of Mort Downy Jr. -- half of O`Reilly`s browbeating blusterfests could be edited down to `pabulum puking liberals.` . . .

"People who do not work for major media outlets are writing things without corporate or governmental restraints. This, of course, is dangerous. It`s what the Internet is becoming. Also, Iran."

Eugene Volokh, the California law professor, says that "talking about what a horrible thing `the Internet` is because it`s sometimes abused is as unsound as making the same complaints about books, newspaper, or for that matter human language itself: . . .

"Ideologues accusing public officials of the worst things imaginable dates back in America, to my knowledge, to at least the late 1700s."

Salon`s Scott Rosenberg reproduced O`Reilly`s commentary and interspersed his own remarks:

"The reason these net people get away with all kinds of stuff is that they work for no one.(They`re ignorant slobs without jobs. How dare they think they have a right to speak out?) They put stuff up with no restraints.(Unlike the guests on my show, who I can drown out or tell to shut up if they cross me.) This, of course, is dangerous, but it symbolizes what the Internet is becoming. (Freedom of speech -- how un-American can you get?)"

American Prowler`s Jeremy Lott also weighs in:

"It had been some time since I last checked in on O`Reilly, so this was a bit of a letdown. He at least used to be an interesting crank. For people who actually take the time to gain a working knowledge of the Internet, these charges are so easily rebutted that I fear bloggers and other tech savvy types won`t realize how many people who listened to this screed were nodding their heads in agreement."

Back in the real world, John Ashcroft is claiming a victory in the war on terrorism. Here`s the Los Angeles Times report:

"An Ohio truck driver has pleaded guilty to conspiracy in connection with helping the Al Qaeda network scout targets for a possible second wave of terrorist attacks on New York and Washington after Sept. 11, federal prosecutors said yesterday.

"The plot, including plans to sever the suspension cables of the Brooklyn Bridge, failed because the conspirators ultimately realized they couldn`t pull it off, the government said."

Ah, so it wasn`t quite as dramatic as it sounded on TV.

"But the Justice Department described the arrest and conviction of Iyman Faris, 34, a Kashmiri-born naturalized American citizen, as a significant advance in its anti-terrorism war."

Remember all those stories about how Saddam was in the bunker that U.S. bombs smashed to smithereens? Never mind:

"American intelligence analysts now believe that Saddam Hussein is much more likely to be alive than dead," says the New York Times, "a view that has been strengthened in recent weeks by intercepted communications among fugitive members of the Saddam Fedayeen and the Iraqi intelligence service, according to United States government officials.

"The officials said the recently obtained intelligence had re-intensified the search for Mr. Hussein along with his sons, Uday and Qusay. The search is being led by Task Force 20, a secret military organization that includes members of the Army`s highly specialized Delta Force and of the Navy`s elite counterterrorism squads, with support from the Central Intelligence Agency.

"The intercepted communications between some of Mr. Hussein`s supporters have included credible discussions indicating that the former Iraqi president is alive and must be protected, two Defense Department officials said. Military officials indicated tonight that new operations in the hunt for him were under way."

What do antiwar groups do when the war is over? The Boston Globe finds out:

"Not even military victory could silence the antiwar movement.

"More than two months since the Pentagon declared major combat operations in Iraq complete, the activist groups that preemptively mobilized to oppose the war continue to fight a rear-guard action to win the peace. Their latest focus: Whether President Bush, in the run-up to the war, misled the country by asserting that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"The Win Without War coalition and MoveOn.org, two of the biggest antiwar groups, kicked off their new campaign yesterday with a full-page ad in the New York Times that labeled Bush a `misleader` and demanded an independent commission to determine the truth about U.S. intelligence on Iraq. "It would be a tragedy if young men and women were sent to die for a lie,` the ad concluded."

Andrew Sullivan doesn`t much like John Kerry`s latest charge that Bush misled the country on WMD:

"The one thing that knowledgeable people have told me about John Kerry is that he doesn`t know when to stop. He has no controlling mechanism when he goes on the attack. To accuse this president of deliberately lying to get this country into war is therefore a typical piece of Kerry excess. I think Kerry will pay dearly for it in the long run -- and maybe even sooner. Yesterday, for example, we received news that the fourth most wanted Saddam apparatchik had been captured. Does Kerry honestly believe that we have all the information about WMDs or Saddam already? . . .

"My bet is that we soon have a breakthrough in WMD evidence in Iraq -- and that we are getting closer by the day to discovering Saddam himself. Bush and Blair will be vindicated more clearly than before; and this president will -- once again -- out-fox his mewling critics on the war. I have a feeling Kerry has just inflicted on himself a massive unforced error. [Dick] Gephardt looks more promising by the day."

Of course, Kerry`s stance could be popular in a Democratic primary.

Salon`s Michelle Goldberg wonders where the outrage is:

"At some point we will know just how wrong President Bush and his advisors were about the threat that Iraq posed to America; we will learn whether our leaders were lying or mistaken, well-intentioned or duplicitous. Whatever their motives, though, it increasingly looks like Bush spurred America to war with falsehoods, that much of the information the administration offered the public as a justification for a war that has so far killed more than 100 Americans, 30 Britons and several thousand Iraqis was not true.

"Americans, though, don`t seem to care.

"Polls taken recently indicate that most Americans are either unconcerned at the apparent collapse of the rationale behind a war that`s still killing their compatriots, or ignorant of the whole situation. Before the Iraq war, a Knight Ridder poll showed that nearly half of Americans surveyed believed, erroneously, that there were Iraqis among the Sept. 11 hijackers. During the war, a Los Angeles Times poll showed that 59 percent of respondents were convinced, despite all available evidence, that Saddam was either partly or mostly responsible for Sept. 11. Now that America`s failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is becoming an increasingly contentious political issue, a third of respondents in a University of Maryland poll believed that the weapons already have been uncovered. A fifth of those polled think Iraq actually used such weapons in the war."

Michael Barone, in the Wall Street Journal, says a Hillary presidential bid could be bad news for her side:

"Does the Democratic Party want to tie its fortunes to Sen. Clinton? Polling suggests she is in a strong position to win the Democratic nomination. When she is included in polls for 2004, she routinely wins between 40% and 45% of the votes, far ahead of any of the declared candidates. Most likely those numbers will be about the same at this stage in the 2008 cycle.

"Democrats in recent years have been eager to ditch defeated nominees . . . and a defeated 2004 nominee is unlikely to get a second chance. But Democrats have been stubbornly faithful to the Clintons. In 2008, some lesser-known candidate could come out of nowhere in the caucuses and primaries and overtake her. But it doesn`t seem very likely.

"As a general-election candidate, she is less than a sure thing. In an ABC News poll 53% said they did not want her to run for president. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed her trailing George W. Bush 53% to 40%. Her enthusiasts might dismiss this as due to Mr. Bush`s current strength, but the fact is that 100% know her and 60% are not supporting her. She ran 5% behind Al Gore in New York in 2000; if she ran 5% behind him nationally, she would win 43% of the vote--not enough to win absent a second Perot candidacy.

" She remains one of the most polarizing figures ever in American politics. In 14 Gallup polls taken between December 1999 and June 2003, the percentage expressing negative feelings about her has ranged between 39% and 53% and averages 45%--very high negatives, far higher than any Republican nominee is likely to have going into the race. This makes it hard for her to maximize the Democratic vote in a year when the Democrats will not be, as they were in 1996 and 2000, the incumbent party in a time of apparent peace and apparent prosperity."

Howard Dean is on his way to winning the David Yepsen primary -- Yepsen being the hugely influential columnist for the Des Moines Register, who now likens Ho-Ho to Jimmy Carter:

"Like Carter, Dean has worked himself into a position where he could actually win the Iowa caucuses.

"A Dean win? An upset of front-runners Richard Gephardt and John Kerry? It could happen. Early polling in Iowa shows Dean in third place and closing in on those leading rivals. No other candidate shows his kind of forward motion. Polls show Dean has come farther in Iowa than any of his rivals. . . .

"He is presidential. He has passed a subtle but very real test caucus-goers apply to presidential candidates who show up here. It`s a private gut check that has nothing to do with positions on issues and everything do to with stature, decisiveness, charisma and gravitas. . . .

"Dean is a good cultural fit. Campaigning in small Vermont town meetings is no different from campaigning with 12 people at City Hall here. And `we`re both rural states,` Dean told his audience. `You`re just a little more spread out than we are.` Carter, a peanut farmer, plucked similar rural chords.

"Dean`s message is resonating. Just as Carter capitalized on the anti-Washington feelings of the post-Watergate era, Dean is capitalizing on the anti-politician feelings of today. Unlike the Gephardts and the Kerrys of the race, Dean`s not a career politician. He`s a doctor who got into politics. This week, he became the first candidate to start airing television commercials in Iowa this year as he tries to keep that message resonating through the summertime lull."

Not bad for a guy who was seen as an asterisk six months ago.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-heat23ju…
THE WORLD



As Summer Arrives, U.S. Troops in Iraq Are Boiling but Unbowed
The heat hasn`t undone the military effort. But it makes life harsher and provokes friction.
By Héctor Tobar
Times Staff Writer

June 23, 2003

BAGHDAD — The heat will chase away the Americans. That was one of the last hopes of Saddam Hussein`s loyalists. Come June, July and August — when the temperature here routinely soars to Death Valley levels of 110 degrees or higher — the American soldiers will wilt and run away.

Now the U.S. Army is in Baghdad, its soldiers patrolling dozens of street corners and staffing posts at most government buildings. They bake inside layers of protective clothing and equipment that only a madman would wear in such unrelenting sun. They sweat, but they do not faint. And they are not leaving anytime soon.

Instead, the overdressed American soldiers are becoming part of the summer landscape in this city of 5 million people. It is a summer season like few others in Iraq`s turbulent history, as all the frustrations of postwar chaos and shortages — and foreign occupation — are cooked to boiling by the unrelenting Mesopotamian sun.

"Why can`t America, the superpower, get our electricity back to normal?" asked Thamer al Kubaisi, the owner of an ice factory here. The repeated power outages have forced him to cut back production and raise his prices, he said.

"The Americans can take whatever oil they want," he added. "Just give us reconstruction and security."

For most Iraqis, the heat only exacerbates the difficulties of everyday life in a still-broken city. Even when the power is on, much of the city`s infrastructure barely functions. Phone service is spotty at best. Driving across the busiest intersections can be an ordeal, with angry commuters stewing in their cars and choking on the dusty Baghdad air, thanks to the absence of traffic signals and traffic police.

Crime is out of control, with carjackings routine. Perhaps as much as half the workforce is unemployed. Untold numbers of former soldiers and government employees — many of whom have gone unpaid — stand out in the sun and work as street vendors.

"Yes, it is hot, but I will stay here even if it gets hotter," Khalaf Zgair says with a frown outside a Baghdad hospital. "What can I do? I served the country for 20 years. Now I sell cigarettes because I have no salary."

Inside the hospital, administrator Walid Majid said he had grown tired of his staff`s complaints about power outages and overheated emergency and surgery rooms. "We are suffering for a long time," he said.

At night, some residents sleep on their roofs. Outside a hotel frequented by foreign journalists, a man placed a cot on the roof of a neighboring apartment building one night, and slept there to escape the heat. He crawled out of bed at 6 in the morning when two American helicopters passed overhead.

On Saturday, the first day of summer, an estimated 2,000 Shiite Muslims gathered outside the U.S. military and political headquarters here, demanding a role in the creation of an Iraqi government. Throughout Iraqi history, summer has often been a time of convulsion, with many of the major coups and revolts of the last century occurring during July and August.

In July 1920, Iraqis rose up against the British colonial government. A coup overthrew the Hashemite monarchy in August 1958, and the Baath Party seized power in a July 1968 coup.

For Ayad Ibrahim, standing guard with a sunburned face and a Kalashnikov rifle at the Kathum mosque the day last week when the temperature hit 116 degrees week was no big deal.

"No, the heat does not bother us," he said. "We are used to it."

What did bother him, however, was the continued presence of so many American troops in the city. "We want a Muslim government to provide security for us," he said.

A few moments earlier, a woman in a chador had asked for help: She had just been robbed, not far from the entrance to the mosque. Ibrahim opened his arms wide and explained there was nothing he could do.

Across the city, near the tourism and culture ministries, Mohammed Bakr was also lamenting the crime wave, which was keeping shoppers away from his shop in droves. Despite the heat, hardly anyone was buying his reed hats, a favorite form of sun protection here.

Bakr`s store had been looted in the aftermath of Hussein`s fall. His neighbor`s shop was shuttered, with an empty frame testimony to an air conditioner that had been stolen.

Kubaisi, the ice factory owner, was also frustrated with the Americans, even though they are his biggest customers. He is a native of the city of Fallouja, where U.S. troops killed about 20 protesters in April.

"There were American soldiers drinking in front of a mosque," he said. "I saw this with my own eyes. This was a provocation." Still, Kubaisi has no problem selling ice to the Americans, to help them "get used to our weather."

"They use it for their iceboxes," he said. "They don`t put it in their water because they think it will make them sick. But Iraqis put it in their drinks."

A few hours later, a young man with a cart delivered a rectangular block of ice to a group of American military police guarding a police station in the Bayaa neighborhood. Spc. Marcus Arvelo, a military policeman from Brooklyn, N.Y., gladly allowed the young ice seller past the gate and into the guarded compound. All that body armor was, in fact, making Arvelo feel like he was being roasted alive.

"This adds 10 to 20 degrees," he said, placing his palms on his bulletproof vest. "It`s steel. When you sweat, it makes you hotter. They tell us to have some extra T-shirts around because if you don`t change and let the sweat stay in there, it can start to boil and burn you."



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chidems…
THE NATION

Democratic Candidates Skewer Bush in Appeal to Black Voters
Differences between liberals and centrists take back seat to calls for change at Rainbow / PUSH Coalition event.
By Eric Slater
Times Staff Writer

June 23, 2003

CHICAGO — Democratic presidential hopefuls seeking the support of black voters largely put aside their differences at a forum here Sunday and united around the theme that the Bush administration has been a nightmare for minorities, the poor and the working class.

Speaking at the annual gathering of Jesse Jackson`s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Democrats received great applause when lambasting President Bush on nearly every front — from his opposition to affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan to his "go-it-alone" foreign policy style to the thus far fruitless search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

With a Supreme Court decision on the affirmative action case expected this week, several of the office-seekers praised the university`s policy. A fiery Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio led the way by pledging that as president, he would pen executive orders to "enshrine" affirmative action — not only in higher education but in housing and other areas as well.

"We deserve a president of the United States who doesn`t call fairness to minorities a special preference," added Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry.

Kucinich helped set the anti-Bush tone for the afternoon by blending together his many criticisms of the current administration.

"There weren`t any weapons of mass destruction. We knew and we know the war was a fraud," he said. "I`ve been a mayor [of Cleveland] and I understand where the weapons are, Mr. Bush. You come to urban America — we`ll show you weapons of mass destruction. Poverty is a weapon of mass destruction. Homelessness is a weapon of mass destruction And lying to the American people is a weapon of mass destruction."

Of Bush`s handling of North Korea and its nuclear program, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri said, "This is breathtaking ineptitude."

*

Divisions Within Party

A fissure in the party has deepened in recent months between Clinton-style Democrats who insist that centrism is the way to the White House in 2004, and those who contend that moderates have cost the party support from its traditional liberal bases — including labor unions, minorities and the working class.

During most of the gathering before an overwhelmingly African American audience of 400, the divide all but vanished.

Although Jackson has seen his influence within the Democratic Party diminish in recent years, he arguably is still the nation`s preeminent African American leader. And the seven candidates at the forum — including the moderates — all delivered messages tailored to the left-leaning audience.

Said presidential hopeful and former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun: "We`re united in a single goal — to get rid of George W. Bush."

Sens. Bob Graham of Florida and John Edwards of North Carolina cited scheduling conflicts and did not attend the Sunday event, which began with two-minute opening statements from the candidates, followed by questions from a panel of journalists and closing remarks.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who has led the call for the party to return to its roots, was one of several to criticize Bush on the foundering economy, the nation`s deficit and on Bush`s $1.7 trillion in tax cuts, which he and Gephardt have promised to repeal in their entirety if elected.

"What people are going to say is, `I`ll take the jobs, education and health care because I didn`t get the president`s tax cut` " anyway, Dean said.

*

`War on People`

Several candidates lamented the fact that there are more black men in America in prison (about 900,000) than in college (about 600,000), and they criticized the long-running war on drugs as a failure that has devastated minority communities.

"This isn`t a war on drugs, it`s a war on people," said Moseley Braun, adding that she would seek to allow felons who had served their sentences to regain some rights, such as the right to vote.

The differences between the moderates and the liberals did surface occasionally throughout the afternoon, first in a comment by Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who referred to his failed run as vice president with Al Gore in 2000 and the contentious Florida recount and Supreme Court decisions that went against them.

"We`ve got to defeat George Bush," the centrist lawmaker said. "I know I can do it. Why? Because Al Gore and I already did it."

The Rev. Al Sharpton raised the issue once more, saying that he respected Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson but was not a Jeffersonian or Jacksonian Democrat, hinting that this was because of their views on blacks.

"I`m a Jesse Jackson Democrat," Sharpton said. "I`m a Martin Luther King Democrat. There are a lot of kinds of Democrats here. We need to define what Democrats we are."

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

RV hier: Walpurgisnacht.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-peretz2…
COMMENTARY


Traveling With Bad Companions
Western supporters of the Palestinian cause are morally blind.
By Martin Peretz

June 23, 2003

Every failed revolution in modern times has had its fellow travelers, a phenomenon hard to define but easy to recognize. Picasso was one; Jean-Paul Sartre, another; FDR`s vice president, Henry Wallace, a third. Two, three decades later, Susan Sontag would also put her words to work for the brutal engineers of soul and society.

There were literally tens of thousands of these influentials in the United States and elsewhere in the West. And the revolutions of the left did not have a monopoly on fellow-traveling. In the 1930s, there were lots of fellow travelers of Nazism, too: Charles Lindbergh, Ezra Pound, the duke of Windsor and many others.

Many fellow travelers went exuberantly from one decaying communism to another, seriatim, from the Soviet Union to the People`s Republic of China to Castroite Cuba and Vietnam and then to Sandinista Nicaragua, never quite realizing they would soon feel the need to move on again.

But move on they would, armed as always — as author David Caute put it — with their usual arsenal of "bifocal lenses, double standards, a myopic romanticism."

Of course, there is now no world revolution into which these deluded folk can vest their ardors, as yesteryear`s fellow travelers did when extolling the nonexistent — but exemplary — democratic virtues of Stalin`s Russia or of some other transformatory idyll. Only certified kooks are in the business these days of changing the nature of man.

So the present-day romantics, who at home typically despise the idea of the nation-state and the realities of national interest, are left with often contrived and almost always murderous nationalisms to adore. The nationalism du jour is Palestinian nationalism.

It was the British political historian David Pryce-Jones who, I think, first made the analogy between the old fellow travelers and the new, between those who romanticized the Soviets and those who now romanticize Palestinian (and Islamic) terrorism.

Not that all Palestinians are terrorists, not at all, although polls show an overwhelming proportion of them to be supporters of terrorism. But terrorism happens to be the defining paradigm of the Palestinian cause. Thus it is terrorism that is being supported by the American and British university professors who demand that their institutions divest from companies invested in Israel. And it is terrorism that is being supported by scientists and other academics who propose institutional and personal boycotts of Israeli intellectuals.

In any case, the political pilgrims from abroad drawn to the Palestinian cause seem, almost unfailingly, to be lured to those whose very vocation is terror.

Take, for example, the International Solidarity Movement, a nongovernmental organization ensconced in Gaza. The two British Muslims recruited by Hamas who blew up Mike`s Place, a blues pub in Tel Aviv, moved in and out of Israel from the territories with remarkable ease, aided by ISM activists.

On its own Web site, the ISM admits to supporting the Palestinian right to "legitimate armed struggle." This did not keep much of the press from calling the organization "pacifist." Not surprisingly, Linda Gradstein, Jerusalem correspondent for NPR (now widely known as National Palestine Radio), is one of these. On "All Things Considered," she blithely characterized ISM as "committed to nonviolent resistance." Well, it cannot, after all, be committed to both. And it isn`t. Its activities are dovetailed with the needs of Hamas. It stages media events for the murder militias, and sometimes its own volunteers get hurt — or even killed, as one American was by an Israeli bulldozer. The best you can say of them is that they are gulled. But this is not bravery; it is stupidity.

Unlike the deluded men who fought in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War and thought they were putting their lives on the line against Hitlerism while they were actually risking their lives for Stalinism, there are no such daydreams available to the partisans of Palestine.

Let us concede, as I do, that the Palestinians need a state. But let us also concede that, had not the Palestinians started a bloody insurrection in the midst of negotiations with Israel during the fall of 2000 and turned that into a Walpurgisnacht of unrelenting terror, they would already have a state and be on their way to as robust an independence as they could manage — contingent only on the peacefulness of their borders.

But why should the cause of independent Palestine resonate with idealists and international moralists? After all, there are dozens of historic nations and peoples, some more numerous than the Palestinians, who are stateless and powerless in the world. There are, living among the Arabs themselves, the Berbers and the Kurds, who have no established political power. Even in Europe, where the nation-state was born, there are nations deprived of independence. Do they and the more numerous stateless peoples of Asia and Africa not merit solidarity and support for independence? What is so special about the Palestinians?

Actually, nothing. Except that their neighbors are the Jews. There is certainly no reason to believe that independent Palestine will be an ethical advance over the other long-independent and, at best, autocratic states in the Arab world, some of them barbarisms.

The truth is that no one who has had a real hearing among the Palestinians has ever articulated a vision of Palestine that is premised on an idea of social justice, a new relationship between the classes, among the clans and tribes, between the sexes. Believe me, Palestine will not be a democratic state because Palestine is not a democratic or tolerant society. This is in devastating contrast to the Zionist enterprise that had true ideals about how human beings and political difference were to be treated, ideals that were turned to realities.

The contrast is not an abstraction. We`ve had nearly a decade of Palestinian rule in the West Bank and Gaza and, between 1976 and 1982, six years of Palestinian rule over southern Lebanon to judge this empirically. There is no mystery about how its courts are run and how its press is manipulated and terrorized. No one actually imagines an independent judiciary or a truly free and competitive press in Palestine. Even though Palestinians work enormously hard, there is no animating dream of what a productive and fair economy would look like. What one sees way in the future is a corrupt corporatism engineered by those who hold political power.

Palestine will soon have its political expression in statehood. On the night it happens, gunshots will echo throughout the Arab street — to the rest of the world, a peculiar way of celebrating. Still, it will be a celebration. And on the long morrow, there won`t be much disenchantment because nothing truly fundamental will have ever been promised or even envisioned.

Dictatorship will settle its rule onto independent Palestine, as it had during the long struggle. Civil strife will follow, and likely another dictatorship will replace the first.

And the borders of Palestine will not be still.

But, by then, the fellow travelers of the Palestinian revolution will be gone, some of them on to other causes, most of them (like the veterans of the 1960s) nursing their heady memories for retelling to their children. Heady memories and lies.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Peretz is editor in chief of the New Republic.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mehlman…
COMMENTARY

Fences -- and a Few Nukes -- Make Good Neighbors
Move over, Saddam. Santa Monica has its own imminent threat.
By Peter Mehlman

June 23, 2003

I am writing to officially put America and the world on notice that I have nuclear weapons in my house. Any and all inspectors who know what nuclear weapons look like are welcome to come over to see them. My housekeeper was here yesterday but I`m pretty sure my weapons of mass destruction are either in the den or the guest bedroom.

Surely, these announcements are getting tired of late, but this one is different. First of all, my threat isn`t one you would react to by saying, "Oh great, another country heard from." I`m actually in town — Santa Monica. And second, I don`t rule a nation, just 2,300 square feet in a shady, overpriced canyon bordering Pacific Palisades.

My need for going nuclear crystallized after a border skirmish with my neighbor, a middle-aged woman named Edie Amin. Overhanging branches of an ill-behaved sycamore tree touched off a violent eruption of shpilkes. Then, a call for repairs on a retaining wall, now referred to as the "38th Parallelogram," ignited a severing of all diplomatic ties.

In short, things in Santa Monica are very tense.

Achieving nuclear capacity — obtaining the weapons-grade plutonium, titanium detonators and a wick — was surprisingly easy. One globally warmed morning, I called the prop guy on my latest failed sit-com pilot and that was that. My assistant picked up the weaponry and, because she had Dodgers tickets that night, left it for me at the front desk of my health club.

Since procuring my nukes, not only has my neighbor`s rhetoric became less shrill, but a strange feeling of merriment has come over me. And while being the happiest person in Los Angeles doesn`t preclude one from being utterly miserable, I think I`m on the right track.

Which leads me to the nuclear blackmail part of this announcement. Oh, please. If this were all about Edie, the whole exercise would be childish. I have demands.

I know what you`re thinking but no, this isn`t about money. Hollywood pays so well, when I go to New York I can`t believe my money`s good there. And no, this isn`t about infrastructure. If the Marines were sent in to replace my retaining wall, it would be viewed as a measure of good faith — no more, no less.

The truth is, I`m not sure what this is about. I`ve had WMDs six weeks now, and it could be months before I get another shot to blackmail the Earth. I have a seat at the table; it`s irresponsible not to make demands now. Just let me think of some

OK. I want NBA players to stop giving high-fives to a guy who misses a free throw. (I mean, what`s the incentive to make the shot?) I want people to stop excusing celebrity shoplifters by saying "it was an obvious cry for help." (Why do they have to steal? Why not just cry for help?) I want to outlaw thank-you notes. Everything being in alphabetical order is getting on my nerves. And, let`s see I also don`t like the passage of time. Can`t time just stand still a while? One year with no births, no deaths, no marriages, no divorces, no progress, no wars.

And for all or some of that, I`ll de-weaponize. My agent is listed. You have 24 hours to respond.

Oh, I left out one piece of nuclear boilerplate: I`m crazy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Mehlman was a writer for "Seinfeld."



Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

www.sfgate.com
Aftermath of War
Not exactly an eye for an eye
Robert Higgs
Monday, June 23, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/23/ED3…


In the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists killed more than 3, 000 people, some 90 percent of them at the World Trade Center, the rest on the hijacked airliners and at the Pentagon. The taking of life shocked many people the world over, not the least of them the president of the United States. Regardless of one`s ethical, religious or political beliefs, no one could condone the murder of thousands of innocent people.

In the "war on terrorism" that ensued, President Bush sought, or so he claimed, to "bring to justice" the responsible parties. The first difficulty, of course, was that the 19 people most directly responsible for the crimes were already dead. Bush looked past them, however, in his quest to "root out" all those who might have harbored or otherwise aided the perpetrators. This project made some moral sense: We all understand the concept of "accomplice to murder."

At this juncture, however, the president`s moral vision must have grown murky. The hijackers` main abettors were identified as members of a shadowy radical Islamic organization known as al Qaeda, whose principal training sites lay in Afghanistan. When the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan refused to hand over al Qaeda`s leader, Osama bin Laden, in accordance with a U.S. ultimatum, the president loosed a military assault on Afghanistan, the major component of which consisted of heavy aerial bombardments in support of local anti-Taliban groups momentarily allied with the United States.

Although the Taliban was chased from power and dispersed into hiding places in the mountains and elsewhere, the U.S. bombardment took a substantial toll of innocent civilians. Estimates vary widely, and by the very nature of the situation they cannot be made very reliable or precise. Nonetheless, reports by a number of U.S. and foreign journalists and other observers on the ground indicate that during the first two months of the campaign -- a campaign that continues today -- at least 1,000 and perhaps as many as 4,000 civilians were killed. Since then the toll has mounted, as U.S. forces have continued to expend bombs, rockets and other munitions on an assortment of targets ranging from mountain caves to inhabited villages to isolated automobiles. Professor Marc Herold of the University of New Hampshire calls his estimate of nearly 3, 800 Afghan civilians killed between Oct. 7 and Dec. 7, 2001, "very, very conservative,` although others regard his estimate as too large."

Thus, the president, setting out to "bring to justice" those who had aided or harbored the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks, has succeeded in adding the deaths of thousands of innocent Afghans to the toll of those killed by the hijackers in 2001. U.S. officials have consistently shrugged off these deaths; when they admit causing them at all, they designate them unintended "collateral damage" and therefore of no great significance. A morally clear- eyed view must regard them as gross injustices that only augment the initial crimes the president ostensibly sought to avenge.

The killings of innocent Afghans, however, now pale in comparison with the number of innocent people killed in the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country whose leaders were never shown to have had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks. On June 11, the Associated Press announced the results of its own survey, which is based on the records of 60 of Iraq`s 124 hospitals as well as interviews with hospital officials. It covers the period from March 20 to April 20, the time of the heaviest fighting.

Besides not surveying all of the country`s hospitals, the AP found that death records were far from complete, in part because many of those killed were never taken to hospitals and were buried quickly by their families, and in part because some victims were buried under debris or obliterated by explosions. Still, the surveyors confirmed the deaths of at least 3,240 civilians. Other investigators have arrived at much greater figures. Douglas W.

Cassel Jr., in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin of May 29, reports that "human rights and humanitarian groups suggest a civilian death toll of somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000." Again, the range is plausible; no one will ever know the exact number.

If we take as reasonable lower-bound estimates 2,000 Afghan and 4,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, then we can conclude that the U.S. forces already have inflicted at least two undeserved deaths for every death the terrorists caused in the Sept. 11 attacks. Many of the dead in Afghanistan and Iraq are women and children. Moreover, many of the thousands of Iraqi army personnel killed in the invasion arguably ought to be regarded as essentially innocent, because as conscripts they were fighting only under duress (and only in defense of their homeland). Thus, in a grotesque mockery of justice, the Bush administration has taken several innocent lives for each innocent life lost at the hands of the terrorists.

One might say -- as many do -- that the two killing sprees are not comparable, because the terrorists set out to kill the innocent, whereas the U. S. forces killed the innocent "by accident." I greatly doubt, however, that this argument can hold water. When U.S. forces employ aerial and artillery bombardment -- with huge high-explosive bombs, large rockets and shells, including cluster munitions -- as their principal technique of waging war, especially in densely inhabited areas, they know with absolute certainty that many innocent people will be killed. To proceed with such bombardment, therefore, is to choose to inflict those deaths.

If you or I settled our scores in our neighborhoods in such a fashion, neither moral authorities nor the legal system would countenance our slaughter of innocent bystanders as excusable. Nobody can gain moral absolution merely by labeling his killing spree a "war." It`s not a morally valid way out for you and me, and it`s not a morally valid way out for George W. Bush, either.

Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Independent Institute (www.independent.org) in Oakland, is author of "Crisis and Leviathan" (Oxford University Press, 1987) and editor of "Arms, Politics and The Economy" (Holmes and Meier, 1990).

[Joerver]

Der zweite Kandidat: Howard Dean



Stand Up and be Counted with Howard Dean
Sunday June 15, 2003

Join the National Declaration Celebration on June 23


At 1 pm EDT on June 23rd, in a speech to be given in Burlington, Vermont and broadcast across the Internet, Howard Dean will define what is at stake in the 2004 election and will lay out his vision for America. In nearly every state in the country, thousands of supporters are holding Declaration Celebration parties--ranging from major rallies in a few cities, to small gatherings of a few friends in smaller towns-- to show their support for Dean`s candidacy and watch his speech (which will be available for viewing-on-demand through the internet by 6 pm ET).

We want this day to demonstrate the netroots and grassroots support across the nation. This is not just about Governor Dean and the people who attend in Burlington, Vermont, it is about you. It is about the thousands who attend Meetups, engage their friends, table and leaflet and organize everyday to take our country back. The only way to demonstrate to the press and others in a way that they will understand, is for everyone to make sure they are counted--please sign up now.

It does not matter if you are attending one of the bigger events that day, or watching the the Declaration Celebration on your laptop or television with a few friends at home (or, for that matter, watching the stream at home by yourself), it`s important that you sign-up and attend and make sure you are counted among those who celebrate with us on the 23rd. If there is no event in your area, create one by clicking here. We would like to hold events in 50 states across the country. For the first time in history, supporters all across the country will take part in a national presidential announcement.

This is your chance to stand up with Dean. Sign up below!

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer

[Joerver]

June 23, 2003

What Did Eisenhower Mean When He Warned of a Military Industrial Complex? Take a Look at the Carlyle Group.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

With Dan Briody, Author of "The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group"

They are at the epicenter of the military-industrial-complex-Bush-Cheney-crony-capitalism administration. The Carlyle Group is the model example of the nearly seamless connection between the Bush administration, self-enrichment and companies who receive big government defense contracts.

The roster of Carlyle “consultants” reads like a who’s who guide to government officials of the 1980s, starting with former president George Bush, former secretary of state James Baker, and former defense secretary Frank Carlucci.

The most chilling aspect of Briody’s book is that the political connections and lobbying activities he unmasks are not illegal.

It is a testament to the brain dead mainstream media that the relationship between the Carlyle group and the Bush-Cheney cartel is not a national scandal.

Brady is an award winning journalist who has written for Forbes, Wired, Red Herring and the Industry Standard.

You can purchase his book as a BuzzFlash premium at: "The Iron Triangle:Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group."

* * *

BUZZFLASH: If we were looking at the Carlyle Group -- aside from its controversial nature and the political world of who runs it and the consultants affiliated with it -- what business model does it represent?

BRIODY: It’s what’s known as a private equity firm. And that’s a very vague term to describe a whole umbrella of different types of companies. What Carlyle specializes in is buyouts, which means that they operate very similar to a mutual fund. Only instead of buying and selling stock, they buy and sell private companies. And they also do venture capital and real estate. So they’re in a variety of different kind of financial transactions-based businesses. But their bread and butter is buyouts. And within that area, they focus heavily on government-regulated industries – anything that depends very heavily on policymaking and legislation coming out of Washington, D.C. As such, they hire a number of ex-politicians to help them in that regard.

BUZZFLASH: In terms of companies that they buy out, most notably in terms of their political-business crossover, they’re probably most known for their relationship to the defense industry, even though that’s not by any means exclusively what they do.

BRIODY: They got their start in the defense buyout business. They struggled for the first couple of years before they hired Frank Carlucci, who was the outgoing Secretary of Defense from the Reagan administration. And Carlucci brought them in the direction of defense buyouts in the late ‘80s, early ‘90s, in between the Cold War and the Gulf War, when defense properties were undervalued. And the company struck gold a couple times in that business and was able to build a very healthy buyout practice on the back of these defense LBOs, or leveraged buyouts.

From there, they have diversified over the ensuing 10-12 years, into everything from healthcare to telecommunications, to aerospace and others. But defense is still the cornerstone of their practice. And when people think of the Carlyle Group, the first thing they think of is defense.

BUZZFLASH: On the cover jacket of your book, it says that the book will provide witness to how the Carlyle Group profited from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and continues to profit from the ongoing war on terrorism. What evidence do you provide for that?

BRIODY: There are a number of transactions that the company profited from directly following the Sept. 11 attacks. The most important one was the fact that they were able to take United Defense, their crown jewel of defense holdings public shortly after the attacks. In fact, in the prospectus that they circulated, before that IPO, they cited the Sept. 11 attacks as one of the reasons why they were able to sell public stock in this company at this time. So that was all on the back of the defense build-up following Sept. 11.

There are also a number of other holdings of theirs -- like at that time, they owned a company called the IT Group, which is a company that cleans up hazardous materials and won a very lucrative contract to clean up the Hart Senate Building in Washington, D.C., which had been tainted by anthrax.

They also own a company called U.S. Investigative Services, USIS, which is a company that does background checks and provides varying levels of security clearance for different government employees, airline employees – things like that. Obviously their contracts went through the roof after Sept. 11.

In addition to that, they own companies that do all kinds of security, different aerospace companies. So whenever there’s a big defense buildup, those companies profit. So there are a number of ways that they’ve profited very handsomely from Sept. 11.

* * *

BUZZFLASH: I recall that reading in the British papers that Tony Blair was considering privatizing a portion of the intelligence apparatus in Britain, and that the Carlyle Group was going to be subcontracted to do some of that.

DAN BRIODY: He did, in fact. The new company is called Qinetiq. It’s spelled Q-I-N-E-T-I-Q. It’s the research arm of the ministry of defense in the U.K., which is essentially equivalent to DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] here in the U.S. And the Carlyle Group was part of that transaction, so they own part of Qinetiq. It was a very controversial transaction in the U.K., obviously. I mean, if you could try to imagine a foreign company coming in and buying DARPA from the United States. It’s unimaginable. And particularly a company that’s so stockpiled with very powerful former politicians.

BUZZFLASH: So Tony Blair essentially condoned the privatization of a large section of the British defense intelligence apparatus to the Carlyle Group. It would be comparable for us to subcontract that to a foreign company.

BRIODY: Yes, which I don’t think would ever happen.

BUZZFLASH: You mentioned in another interview that we heard – I believe it was on NPR, Terry Gross – that your book doesn’t detail illegal activity of the Carlyle Group. And whether that exists or not, you don’t know. But it details the legal activity, which is, to you, probably the more worrisome issue – that all of this is legal. By that, do you mean the seamless relationship between the private military sector and the governmental military sector?

BRIODY: That’s exactly what I mean. The book opens up with a mention of Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech, in which he warned the country against the formation of this military-industrial complex. And I think that that is exactly what we’re seeing today. We’re seeing a very tight-knit group of companies and private military contractors that are virtually indistinguishable from various administrations and the political infrastructure of Washington, D.C. – so much so that it’s not clear whose interests we’re acting on when we go to war.

BUZZFLASH: And now we see the extension in the case of Britain, to the British defense intelligence industry.

BRIODY: Right. And we’re also seeing Carlyle expand into Italy. They just bought part of Fiat’s aerospace division, which was a state-controlled Italian military agency. And they are also in the running to buy out DaimlerChrysler’s aerospace division in Germany. So we’re seeing a real broadening of the military activity around the Carlyle Group, so much so that’s becoming more than just a domestic concern here – it’s becoming an international concern.

BUZZFLASH: Now Carlyle is – correct me if I’m wrong – a holding company. Is it publicly traded?

BRIODY: It is not publicly traded.

BUZZFLASH: So it’s a limited partnership?

BRIODY: Yes. It’s a limited partnership. And as such, it’s under no obligation to release any of its financial data. So it’s very difficult for the average citizen to find out what the holdings of this company are and where the conflicts of interest might be. You may have noticed that they "opened up" their website recently because they were receiving a lot of criticism for being secretive and closed up. But they’re still controlling what information they’re putting on that website, so it’s not like we’re getting a look under the hood, so to speak, of this company. And they’ll never go public. They would never do that.

BUZZFLASH: Now probably the most controversial relationship is the relationship of former President Bush to the company. As you point out, so many of the members of the cast of characters in the Carlyle Group have been associated with past administrations, particularly Reagan and Bush’s. Former President Bush has probably the highest profile relationship. What is his relationship to the Carlyle Group, and what has he been used for?

BRIODY: George Bush Sr. is a senior advisor to the company -- again, an ambiguous term -- but essentially his role is to travel abroad and meet with foreign business leaders and foreign heads of state, give speeches on behalf of the Carlyle Group, and pack the house full of wealthy investors who will contribute to Carlyle’s buyout fund. And also he has had his hand in a number of deals for Carlyle. He has worked closely with business leaders in South Korea and in Saudi Arabia. He’s very close with the bin Laden family. He’s close with the royal family in Saudi Arabia. So he’s been very, very involved and a very effective business partner for the Carlyle Group for a number of years now.

BUZZFLASH: Is there cause to be concerned? Some people who cover Carlyle also mention that one shouldn’t solely focus on him, because he sort of jumps in and out. It’s more the day-to-day people who cross back and forth between their relationships with government officials and the private industry – the military-industrial complex, if you will, as Eisenhower called it. But former President Bush is the most visible symbol. Do you have any speculation on how that might impact foreign policy, since he’s the father of the current president?

BRIODY: There have been numerous reports that have been widely circulated, and not disputed, by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, of how the father of the president is advising his son on foreign policy. Certainly in the first year, he was very active in advising his son on policy toward Korea and toward Saudi Arabia. And in both cases, he stepped in and placed phone calls himself to the leaders of those nations to try to smooth things over for his son, who was struggling a little bit in the early going, in dealing with some of those more sensitive areas. So I think that the impact of the father on the son in foreign policy has been very significant and very inappropriate, given the investments of George Bush Sr.’s company in both regions – in both the Korean peninsula and in Saudi Arabia.

BUZZFLASH: On pages 144 to 146, you discuss a little bit of the relationship between Carlyle and the bin Laden family. Can you just mention that in passing, and what that relationship was and perhaps is now?

BRIODY: The Carlyle Group started working in Saudi Arabia in the early ‘90s through a Saudi prince, who is one of the biggest foreign investors here in the United States. And through that relationship, they started expanding their business in Saudi Arabia very significantly. One of the most important investors that they found in the kingdom was the bin Laden family, which, of course, owns the Saudi Binladin Group. It`s about a $5 billion construction company -- extremely wealthy family, extremely successful company, and who officially disavowed Osama bin Laden back in the early ‘90s.

So they had been doing business with the bin Laden family for, give or take, five or six years, when Sept. 11 happened. And suddenly, Osama bin Laden became public enemy number one. He was on the cover of all the newspapers. And it came to light that this company that was employing George Bush Sr. counted the bin Laden family among their investors. And they had to divest themselves from that relationship because of the criticism.

BUZZFLASH: And although you don’t mention it, there are those, including author Greg Palast, who have claimed that the Bush administration ferreted out members of the bin Laden family on special planes after Sept. 11. But again, that’s not a part of what’s in your book, but we’re just pointing that out.

Let’s look at United Defense as one example of the relationship between the private industry, the defense industry, and, in this case, it’s a publicly held company owned by the privately held Carlyle Group. Is that correct?

BRIODY: That’s right. And they own 50% of it.

BUZZFLASH: And what is United Defense? Maybe you can give us as a case study of the interrelationship between a company that has an umbilical cord to the U.S. government, about how a company like that is never a loser.

BRIODY: United Defense is a classic military contractor. They make guns and gun systems, large Howitzer-type, mobile Howitzers. They make the Bradley fighting vehicles and the Paladin gun systems that we’ve seen a lot of on TV, especially during the Iraqi war. They are one of the largest defense contractors to the Army in the nation. And the Carlyle Group has owned this company since 1997.

When they bought the company, there was a gun program that was the future of United Defense. It was a gun called the Crusader. It was essentially a next-generation Paladin gun system – a very large, mobile Howitzer. It looks like tank, but it’s essentially an enormous gun. And the Crusader was heavily criticized by a national defense panel that was put together to assess the military requirements going forward. It was called too heavy, too slow – a Cold War relic. And it was on the chopping block for years after that. But the Carlyle Group was able to mount a very successful campaign by using strategically placed lobbyists, by extending their personal relationships with folks in the Pentagon and in Washington, and by waging essentially a public relations campaign for the gun, and they kept it alive through successive rounds of defense budget cuts – miraculously.

No one could believe that this gun had survived as long as it did. And then finally after Sept. 11, when all ships were sort of, you know, rising on the tide of defense spending, they were able to take United Defense public, make hundreds of millions of dollars off of that IPO, only to then finally have the Crusader program cancelled in a very public fashion by Donald Rumsfeld in an announcement. But of course, behind the scenes, what the public didn’t see was that United Defense was awarded a brand-new contract for a brand-new gun that very same day that the Crusader program was cancelled. In fact, the press release that United Defense put out about it had the announcement of the new contract in it as well.

BUZZFLASH: So they were essentially held harmless.

BRIODY: Yes, exactly.

BUZZFLASH: Perhaps this is more of a comment, but we found it not-so-curious that after the controversial visit of Bush to the U.S.S. Abraham in the flight suit, that he returned to California from 30 miles offshore and gave a speech at, of all places, the United Defense plant. Do you have any thoughts there about the fact the President of the United States is speaking at a plant that is 50% owned by a company that his father is a consultant with?

BRIODY: I think it’s brazen, and I think it’s shameless. And I think that that will go down as a hallmark of this administration. We have seen an absolute affinity for mixing business and politics, and throw in a war and you’ve got the Bush administration. And that scene of him giving that speech at United Defense’s plant in Santa Clara summed up perfectly what this administration is all about.

BUZZFLASH: So all the interconnections were right there -- he was boosting the war effort, talking about keeping the country secure, which meant, in this case, he was praising the employees of United Defense, who, in essence, are employees, in part, of the Carlyle Group, with which his father is affiliated.

BRIODY: He was doing it all. He was pitching a tax cut for the very wealthy while doing an advertisement for his father’s company, and professing the war to be over, and kicking off his reelection campaign, all in one fell swoop. It was an amazing achievement.

BUZZFLASH: And yet for all these connections, I did not see any of them in the press. I only made them because of your book, and knowing about the Carlyle Group, and just going back and confirming that United Defense was, in essence, a company that the Carlyle Group had ownership of.

BRIODY: It was missed by most of the mainstream media, and that was very disappointing. But The Nation picked up on it, thank God.

BUZZFLASH: Going in another direction, you detail how the firm, when it was opened in 1987, picked the name, “the Carlyle Group.”

BRIODY: Well, the co-founders, David Rubenstein and Stephen Norris, were, at the time, meeting frequently at this hotel on the Upper East Side of New York called the Carlyle Hotel. And the Carlyle was very, very, very opulent and it’s a very swanky establishment. It’s a beautiful hotel. And these guys were looking for a name that gave them a sense of legitimacy and credibility in the industry. They wanted something that was a little blue-blood, or, as Steve Norris put it, gave them a silk-stocking air. And so they thought that the Carlyle Group was the right way to go. And certainly it does have that blue-blood, old money kind of feel to it, even though it’s only 15 years old.

BUZZFLASH: Your book about the Carlyle Group, subtitled Inside the Secret World of Carlyle Group, is called The Iron Triangle. Why did you choose that title?

BRIODY: Well, “the iron triangle” is the euphemism that is employed in a number of different areas. But among the areas that it’s employed is this confluence of business and politics that Eisenhower was talking about when he referred to the military-industrial complex. This is a combination of power and influence that is very dangerous and can result in foreign policy decisions that are based solely on monetary concerns of very few people. And that’s what I think we’ve found here today.

BUZZFLASH: Recently we’ve read that the Carlyle Group is starting to dabble into media acquisition. Is that right? And if so, should we be worried about that?

BRIODY: Yes, they have picked up a couple media companies. They, for a while now, have owned a very popular publication called Le Figaro in France, and they have been expanding their media acquisitions. And I definitely think this is something that we should be concerned about. I mean, anytime you see a company that has this much political clout -- and obviously has a political agenda -- picking up media properties, you’ve got to be concerned, especially with the action that the FCC has taken so far this year. We’re looking at the potential for having a real controlling influence in the media. And I personally would not like to see Carlyle Group controlling the information that I receive on a daily basis.

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

* * *

Get a Copy of: "The Iron Triangle: Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group"

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/23_briody.html

[Joerver]

What You Can Do About Bush
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, June 23, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fgate%2Farc…



From our 1776 Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ..."

And, also from the Declaration of Independence:

"... when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [the people] under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

And, finally:

"The History of the present King of Great Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States."

Take out "King of Great Britain" in the last paragraph above and substitute "President George W. Bush," and you have a perfect beginning for a modern American Declaration of Independence.

Folks, Bush has gone too far, too many times. He is a one-man wrecking crew, destroying, bit by bit, what decent men and women have created and improved upon for 227 years.

We have to stop him. We have to do it soon. If we don`t, we won`t have an America to protect.

Perhaps some of you can`t see the forest for the trees. Perhaps you`re too close to the picture to see it clearly. But, I assure you, the rest of the world knows what`s going on in America. The rest of the world is aghast. "What is happening to America?" they ask. "Why don`t the Americans do something about Bush?"

Last week I got an unbelievably heavy surge of e-mail from readers. And roughly 80 percent had the same question: "What can I do?"

What can I do? What can anybody do? Does it help to write to members of Congress? Should I write letters to the editor? Please, please, tell me, what can I do?

My answer last week was, "I don`t know." But I`ve been thinking about it, and I`ve come up with a few ideas that might actually work, if we`re lucky.

And if we`re good.

First, let me tell you what won`t work: violence. Any violent attempts to correct our national problems will do nothing but make them worse.

A new American revolution at this point would be counterproductive. It would just divide us and lead us into civil war. And any thought of assassination is idiotic.

We need nonviolent solutions.

Our first step, I believe, is to hold public rallies and protest demonstrations. I know, I know, I opposed the recent anti-war demonstrators, but there`s a difference. The anti-war demonstrators had no chance of succeeding.

Anti-fascist demonstrators might have better luck.

"Fascism" is an incendiary term when applied to America, but consider its dictionary definition: "A political ... regime ... that exalts nation ... above the individual and that stands for a central, autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of opposition."

With the exception of economic regimentation, the Bush administration seems to fit the "fascist" definition rather neatly.

Bush is not a dictator, but is he "dictatorial"? I`d say he is. My dictionary says "dictatorial" "stresses autocratic, high-handed methods and a domineering manner." That fits George W. Bush`s style to a T. In fact, he even once said, on his first trip to Washington after being elected, that his job would be easier if he were a dictator.

In any event, it`s time to start demonstrating against this man and what he represents. It`s time to declare our independence from this man. We need to create a small army of modern Thomas Paines.

Bush`s war against Iraq has become the disaster many of us feared it would become. Our troops are being killed on a daily basis. So are Iraqi citizens. We`ve virtually destroyed Iraq`s major cities.

We`ve accomplished our stated goals -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his ethereal weapons of mass destruction -- so what are we doing there? It`s time to pull out and leave the Iraqi oil behind.

There is no shortage of administration sins upon which to focus and demonstrate against. We could have massive demonstrations in every American city every day of every week.

Take the FCC decision of a fortnight ago. The only people who favored it were the three commissioners who voted for it, the Bushies who led them and the communication companies that stand to increase their fortunes from it. The remainder of America was against it, yet it slithered its way into law.

We should be protesting anti-American stuff like that. We should make our voices heard.

Just last week the Bushies edited out data about climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report. Bush made it clear early in his administration that he has no interest in environmental protections that might cost industry money, so he and his cronies are pretending global warming can`t possibly exist.

We should be protesting stuff like that. The air we breathe and the water we drink are far more important than any company`s profits.

But we must not divert our energies. To be successful, we must focus. Our job is to protect ourselves from Bush. We should let other social ills pass for the moment. Saving our nation is more important than saving the whales.

To be successful, our movement can`t be limited only to Bush`s political opponents -- Democrats, liberals and professional rabble-rousers. We need good conservatives who are tired of playing follow the leader as they watch our liberties go down the drain.

The salvation of our nation is not a partisan issue.

In Congress, we need more John McCains -- senators and representatives who think for themselves and refuse to slavishly follow the party line. We need conservative citizens who will do the same. We need brave Democrats in office (if they exist!) and even braver Republicans, like Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who risked all to save his nation.

We need the help of rich people who love their country, people like George Soros or Bill Gates Sr. or Bill Gates Jr.

We need to get out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq. For all our bluster over there, we control perhaps one neighborhood of Kabul. The rest of the country is controlled by warlords and drug lords. The opium-poppy crop is leaving Afghanistan by the ton -- so where is our sanctimonious "war on drugs"?

Folks, Bush and his gang have angered our enemies and inspired them to try harder. Thus, our foes are doing exactly what we would be doing if we were in their shoes: planning bigger and better attacks. We treat them as if they are one criminal organization run by Osama bin Laden, but in fact they`re a hydra-headed monster that can`t be defeated. Chop off one head and another appears. Our only hope is to learn to get along with them, and the Bush people are doing just the opposite.

We should be protesting such a stupid foreign policy, not just in the streets but in letters to the editors, calls to talk shows and discussions with our friends and neighbors.

We need courageous foreign-service officers who will tell it like it is. We need civil servants who will risk their jobs to serve their country. We need rival political parties, like the Greens and Libertarians, to back off their dreams -- for now -- and join the fight to save our nation.

We need corporate CEOs to draw the line and quit paying the bribes demanded by both parties. "But, Harley," the CEOs will argue, "if we don`t pay, we lose out, our profits drop and we lose our jobs." That may be true, but the health of our nation is more important than any company`s profits, any man`s job. If we lose this good thing we have going here, this wonderful United States of America, we may never get it back.

And we need character in our press. The much-chronicled sins of one cheating New York Times reporter pale compared with the propaganda that comes out of Fox News or MSNBC on a daily basis.

I know that sucking up to the lowest common denominator builds ratings, and high ratings translate into bigger paychecks, but our nation is at stake and it`s time to stop pandering. We need a responsible press. You and I should demand a responsible press.

So, organize. Do what you can as an individual. We have to fight back. I`ve made a few suggestions, but I know from experience that people who read this column can come up with a thousand better ones. Do that. And spread the word.

Will all our efforts drive Bush from office? No. But we can distract him, and slow down his attempts to rebuild America in his own image. In 17 months we can vote him out of office. If our movement is powerful enough, we`ll have a choice then between a good Democrat and a good Republican not named Bush.

"...Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

(Late-breaking news: I just heard VoterMarch is sponsoring a permitted protest from 5 pm to 7 pm today in Manhattan, where Bush will be staging a $2,000-a-plate reelection-campaign fund-raiser at the Sheraton New York Hotel. I`ve also heard a rumor that an anti-Bush march is planned for July 4 in Philadelphia. So the movement is already under way!)



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

[Joerver]

Bush is a Coward


By: Jack Balkwill - 06/21/03


"I rode a tank in the generals` rank when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank" - Mick Jagger, "Sympathy for the Devil"



Bush is a coward. I am the one who took his place in Vietnam, so I should know.

Corporate media have convinced the masses of a fictitious warrior Bush, who is a hero. This has been effective, as a neighbor recently told me that “If Gore had been elected, he wouldn’t have had the guts to attack Iraq.” My heart sank when I heard that, as I cannot fathom how it “takes guts” to order bombs to be dropped on children. Only cowards can do such things. Cowards who desert from war themselves while insisting that the working class bleed and die for the excesses of their national security state.

I have marched for peace many times with friends who are war veterans, and others who are long veterans of the peace movement. I opposed all of the Bush wars-- the invasion of Panama, Afghanistan, the various Iraqi Wars. I opposed Daddy Bush’s arming Saddam and protecting him politically for so long. Daddy Bush was the pilot who bailed out on his crew, leaving them to crash and die in WW2. Cowardice runs deep in the Bush family.

During the Vietnam War, when Bush deserted from the Texas National Guard, the National Security State found itself to be one short on cannon fodder, so they sent me. A member of the peasant class, I was expendable. Bush loved the war up to the point of actually risking his own “investment class” ass, to employ a favorite term of his father. He supported the war mind you-- has always enjoyed killing, setting the all-time execution record for governors, though brother Jeb has competed well in Florida.

I was at Fort Meade, Maryland for three months prior to being sent to Vietnam. My military bosses assured me they had friends in the Pentagon who could keep me from going to war. A lieutenant was dispatched to the Pentagon with a full-time job of wandering the halls in pursuit of this. The friends proved to be less powerful than believed, and I became an advisor to combat units for US Army Vietnam and Military Assistance Command, traveling all over the country to daily witness the hatred, greed and delusion of war, the lowest activity of my species.

I was an ignorant kid who knew nothing about what was happening. Nothing in my life had prepared me for understanding. My working class father voted Republican, because Eisenhower was a Republican and like him, a World War Two vet. I didn’t even know there was a peace movement, as I was sent before it surged, in 1966. The Stars and Stripes newspaper in Vietnam was so full of propaganda that by comparison the Wall Street Journal is objective on national security matters. I didn’t know that the South Vietnam government was a corrupt cesspool hated by its people and forced down their throats by old fashioned imperialism. Most of us went in order to avoid prison (we also had the choice of suicide, taken by more than 60,000 vets of that war since).

My heroes are those who oppose war, which is the only sane approach to it. Those who stand up to the warmongers have suffered greatly, often beaten and jailed, and sometimes murdered for that position. Martin Luther King, Jr. appeared to know where it would get him when he said “I may not get there with you.” He had called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” not long before the bullet tore into his flesh. But the cowardly Bush can’t get enough of war.

I have been under fire for days at a time, with such fear beyond fear that it really requires a new word. Those who order wars never see the bleeding or hear the screams. I have seen rivers of blood and have given thanks for the insane roar of battle when it hid the screams of my comrades, to keep me from going entirely mad. But Bush can order a war casually, just before his golf game.

In a nightmare I faced Bush and said “You cowardly son of a bitch, I took your place in Vietnam.” I could see in his glazed, alcoholic eyes the denial which kept him from understanding. His handlers convinced him that if he put on a flight jacket and flew to an aircraft carrier, he must be a hero (even if it cost $800,000 as it underscored the hypocrisy of his “fiscal conservative” claim, habitually unnoticed by corporate media as the national debt soars).

On 9/11, when the nation needed leadership, Bush hid at an Air Force Base. The most protected person on the planet went into hiding, not because he was in danger, but because he is a coward. I cannot imagine another president who would have hid like that. Even the spineless Nixon would have seen it is the job of a president to go to the White House and assure the masses that everything is under control.

The Democrats seem unable to locate an issue with which to oppose Bush, most having voted for everything he’s requested to date. May I suggest the truth? The single image Bush has promoted is flag-waving hero of the Republic. The evidence proves he is a coward.



Jack Balkwill, a contributing writer for Liberal Slant,is a Vietnam veteran who has won national writing awards for poetry, fiction and nonfiction. Mr. Balkwill owns the web site Liberty Underground of Virginia (LUV) at http://luvsite.org/ Mr. Balkwill encourages your comments and can be reached at [e-mail]

[URL://www.liberalslant.com/jb062103.htm[/URL

[Joerver]

Slaughtergate
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 23 June 2003

His name was Paul Nakamura, and he was from Santa Fe Springs, California. Nakamura was an American soldier, part of an ambulance crew in Iraq transporting an injured soldier for medical attention on June 19 when the ambulance was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Nakamura was killed in this attack. He was 21 years old.

His name was Michael Deuel, and he was from Nemo, South Dakota. Deuel was an American soldier ordered to guard a propane distribution center in Iraq. He was shot on June 18 while performing this guard duty and died of his wounds. He was 21 years old.

His name was William Latham, and he was from Kingman, Arizona. Latham was an American soldier who participated in a raid at a suspected arms market in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, on May 19. He was hit with shrapnel. Latham was evacuated back to the United States where he died of his wounds in Walter Reed Army Medical Center on June 18. He was 29 years old.

His name was Robert Frantz, and he was from San Antonio, Texas. Frantz was an American soldier on guard duty in Iraq when someone threw a hand grenade over a wall at him. Frantz died of his injuries on June 17. He was 19 years old.

His name was Shawn Pahnke, and he was from Shelbyville, Indiana. Pahnke was an American soldier on patrol in Iraq when he was fatally shot on June 16. He was 25 years old.

His name was Gavin Neighbor, and he was from Somerset, Ohio. Neighbor was an American soldier who was resting in a bus after guard duty in Iraq when an attacker fired a rocket-propelled grenade at him from a nearby house. Neighbor died of his wounds on June 10. He was 20 years old.

His name was Michael Dooley, and he was from Pulaski, Virginia. Dooley was an American soldier who was manning a traffic control point in Iraq when he was ambushed by two individuals who drove up requesting medical assistance. They shot him to death on June 8. He was 23 years old.

His name was Jesse Halling, and he was from Indianapolis, Indiana. Halling was an American soldier at a military police station in Iraq which came under fire from rifle-propelled grenades and small arms fire. Halling was fatally shot in this exchange on June 7. He was 19 years old.

His name was Doyle Bollinger, Jr., and he was from Poteau, Oklahoma. Bollinger was an American soldier on a work detail in Iraq when a piece of unexploded ordnance detonated and killed him on June 6. Bollinger was 21 years old.

His name was Branden Oberleitner, and he was from Worthington, Ohio. Oberleitner was an American soldier returning from a patrol in Iraq when he was fired upon by a rifle-propelled grenade. Oberleitner died of his wounds on June 5. He was 20 years old.

His name was Antanacio Haromarin, and he was from Baldwin Park, California. Haromarin was an American soldier manning a checkpoint in Iraq. His unit came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. Haromarin was killed in this exchange on June 3. He was 27 years old.

These are the American combat casualties in Iraq from June 1 to June 20. Added to this list for the month of June are Michael Tosto (age 24), Andrew Pokorny (age 30), Joseph Suell (age 24), John Klinesmith, Jr. (age 25), Ryan Cox (age 19), Travis Burkhardt (age 26) and Jonathan Lambert (age 28), who were killed in Iraq by non-combat related mishaps like car wrecks and accidental weapons discharges.

There is still a week left to the month of June, and these are the names already inscribed onto our collective wall of memory. They represent a small portion of the dead and the lost in this second Iraq war. According to Reuters, some 91 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the `Fall of Baghdad` on April 9. That averages out to 1.21 soldiers killed per day. 102 American soldiers were killed during the fighting that took place between March 20 and April 9. The total, as of June 20, is 193 dead.

If the casualty rate of 1.21 per day continues, we can expect 228 more dead American soldiers by Christmas.

Why?

Donald Rumsfeld was asked this question on a March 24 edition of the CBS news program `Face the Nation.` He said, "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they`re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established."

That is a profoundly specified statement. Not only did Rumsfeld claim that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, not only were those weapons in place to be used on the battlefield, not only were those poisons weaponized for maximum lethal effect. Rumsfeld stated bluntly that he knew of one case where permission to use these weapons against American troops had already been given.

This was nothing new. For seven months to that point, Rumsfeld had been in good company making claims of this nature. Every day since September of 2002, we heard from Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleischer, Rice, Powell, and several times from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, that Iraq`s weapons program represented an immediate and severe danger to the American people. The shadow of September 11 loomed long and dark over these statements, and the approval ratings for combat indicated that Americans were willing to believe these Bush administration claims rather than accept even the most remote possibility that Iraqi weapons could be used on the home front.

It has become agonizingly clear that the Bush administration deliberately trumped up dire stories of Iraq`s weapons capabilities in order to galvanize the American people behind war. They lied every day for months. Worse, the Bush administration deliberately used the horror of September 11 to justify war against a nation that posed no threat to American security.

On June 15, former NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark appeared on `Meet the Press` with Tim Russert. A wretchedly revealing exchange came from the interview:

GEN. CLARK: I think there was a certain amount of hype in the intelligence, and I think the information that`s come out thus far does indicate that there was a sort of selective reading of the intelligence in the sense of sort of building a case.

MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I...

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of Defense, who?

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after 9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror. Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in this, there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein." I said, "But-I`m willing to say it but what`s your evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never personally saw the evidence and didn`t talk to anybody who had the evidence to make that connection.

Mr. Russert, predictably, did not follow up on this astounding claim during the interview. The import of these statements, however, is clear. General Clark was asked by the White House, and by those working for and with the White House, to connect Saddam Hussein and Iraq to the attacks of September 11. He was asked to do so on that terrible day, while people were still dying and while the buildings were still burning.

The tactic was effective. A poll by CBS and the New York Times taken just before the war began showed that 45% of the American people believed Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the attacks of September 11. A previous poll taken by Princeton Survey Research Associates showed that 50% of the American people believed that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis.

In a country with a news media that can provide data in an unrelenting stream 24 hours a day, millions of Americans believed in a connection that was completely and totally wrong. How can such a gap in comprehension be explained? Simply put, the Bush administration put forth a staggering array of lies and exaggerations, and the American media chose to repeat them ad nauseam instead of verifying the veracity of the claims. These poll numbers must be factored into those taken during and after the war which appeared to show American support for the attack.

It has been 80 days since Baghdad fell to American forces. The United States military has invested virtually every corner of Iraq in that time. No evidence of chemical or biological weapons has been found. No evidence that these weapons had been dispersed for combat usage has been found. Nothing weaponized has been found. No evidence that command and control orders were given has been found. No connection between Iraq, Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists has been even minutely established.

Along with the Americans who died at the altar of these terrible lies were thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians. The Associated Press attempted to do an accounting of the civilian dead after the war, and came up with 3,240 killed. This number, however, only represents casualties that took place between March 20 and April 20, and depends upon records from hospitals that were badly overwhelmed by the carnage. A variety of groups from around the world that are also evaluating the data put the casualty numbers closer to 7,000 killed, and some estimate that the number of dead is actually in the neighborhood of 10,000.

His name was Brandon Sloan, and he was from Cleveland, Ohio. Sloan was an American soldier who was killed March 23 after his convoy came under attack in Iraq. He was 19 years old. He was not the first to die, and he was not the last. When a man or woman puts on the uniform of the United States military and swears the oath of service, they are taking a leap of faith that their lives will not be used and disposed of by those who would lie and deceive them into combat.

George W. Bush and his administration owe an explanation to the family of Brandon Sloan, and to the families of all the other troops who have fallen and will fall in this war. They owe an explanation to the American people and to the world for the carnage they caused with their lies and exaggerations. There must be a reckoning.

--------
William Rivers Pitt [e-mail] is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at www.SilenceIsSedition.com. The term `Slaughtergate` was originally coined by the excellent columnist and political cartoonist Ted Rall.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/062303A.shtml

[Joerver]

Bush`s Vietnam

by John Pilger; New Statesman; June 22, 2003

America`s two "great victories" since 11 September 2001 are unravelling. In Afghanistan, the regime of Hamid Karzai has virtually no authority and no money, and would collapse without American guns. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are re-emerging. Regardless of showcase improvements, the situation of women and children remains desperate. The token woman in Karzai`s cabinet, the courageous physician Sima Samar, has been forced out of government and is now in constant fear of her life, with an armed guard outside her office door and another at her gate. Murder, rape and child abuse are committed with impunity by the private armies of America`s "friends", the warlords whom Washington has bribed with millions of dollars, cash in hand, to give the pretence of stability.

"We are in a combat zone the moment we leave this base," an American colonel told me at Bagram airbase, near Kabul. "We are shot at every day, several times a day." When I said that surely he had come to liberate and protect the people, he belly-laughed.

American troops are rarely seen in Afghanistan`s towns. They escort US officials at high speed in armoured vans with blackened windows and military vehicles, mounted with machine-guns, in front and behind. Even the vast Bagram base was considered too insecure for the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during his recent, fleeting visit. So nervous are the Americans that a few weeks ago they "accidentally" shot dead four government soldiers in the centre of Kabul, igniting the second major street protest against their presence in a week.

On the day I left Kabul, a car bomb exploded on the road to the airport, killing four German soldiers, members of the international security force Isaf. The Germans` bus was lifted into the air; human flesh lay on the roadside. When British soldiers arrived to "seal off" the area, they were watched by a silent crowd, squinting into the heat and dust, across a divide as wide as that which separated British troops from Afghans in the 19th century, and the French from Algerians and Americans from Vietnamese.

In Iraq, scene of the second "great victory", there are two open secrets. The first is that the "terrorists" now besieging the American occupation force represent an armed resistance that is almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis who, contrary to pre-war propaganda, opposed their enforced "liberation" (see Jonathan Steele`s investigation, 19 March 2003, www.guardian.co.uk). The second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the true scale of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the bloodbath Bush and Blair have always denied.

Comparisons with Vietnam have been made so often over the years that I hesitate to draw another. However, the similarities are striking: for example, the return of expressions such as "sucked into a quagmire". This suggests, once again, that the Americans are victims, not invaders: the approved Hollywood version when a rapacious adventure goes wrong. Since Saddam Hussein`s statue was toppled almost three months ago, more Americans have been killed than during the war. Ten have been killed and 25 wounded in classic guerrilla attacks on roadblocks and checkpoints which may number as many as a dozen a day.

The Americans call the guerrillas "Saddam loyalists" and "Ba`athist fighters", in the same way they used to dismiss the Vietnamese as "communists". Recently, in Falluja, in the Sunni heartland of Iraq, it was clearly not the presence of Ba`athists or Saddamists, but the brutal behaviour of the occupiers, who fired point-blank at a crowd, that inspired the resistance. The American tanks gunning down a family of shepherds is reminiscent of the gunning down of a shepherd, his family and sheep by "coalition" aircraft in a "no-fly zone" four years ago, whose aftermath I filmed and which evoked, for me, the murderous games American aircraft used to play in Vietnam, gunning down farmers in their fields, children on their buffaloes.

On 12 June, a large American force attacked a "terrorist base" north of Baghdad and left more than 100 dead, according to a US spokesman. The term "terrorist" is important, because it implies that the likes of al-Qaeda are attacking the liberators, and so the connection between Iraq and 11 September is made, which in pre-war propaganda was never made.

More than 400 prisoners were taken in this operation. The majority have reportedly joined thousands of Iraqis in a "holding facility" at Baghdad airport: a concentration camp along the lines of Bagram, from where people are shipped to Guantanamo Bay. In Afghanistan, the Americans pick up taxi drivers and send them into oblivion, via Bagram. Like Pinochet`s boys in Chile, they are making their perceived enemies "disappear".

"Search and destroy", the scorched-earth tactic from Vietnam, is back. In the arid south-eastern plains of Afghanistan, the village of Niazi Qala no longer stands. American airborne troops swept down before dawn on 30 December 2001 and slaughtered, among others, a wedding party. Villagers said that women and children ran towards a dried pond, seeking protection from the gunfire, and were shot as they ran. After two hours, the aircraft and the attackers left. According to a United Nations investigation, 52 people were killed, including 25 children. "We identified it as a military target," says the Pentagon, echoing its initial response to the My Lai massacre 35 years ago.

The targeting of civilians has long been a journalistic taboo in the west. Accredited monsters did that, never "us". The civilian death toll of the 1991 Gulf war was wildly underestimated. Almost a year later, a comprehensive study by the Medical Education Trust in London estimated that more than 200,000 Iraqis had died during and immediately after the war, as a direct or indirect consequence of attacks on civilian infrastructure. The report was all but ignored. This month, Iraq Body Count, a group of American and British academics and researchers, estimated that up to 10,000 civilians may have been killed in Iraq, including 2,356 civilians in the attack on Baghdad alone. And this is likely to be an extremely conservative figure.

In Afghanistan, there has been similar carnage. In May last year, Jonathan Steele extrapolated all the available field evidence of the human cost of the US bombing and concluded that as many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the bombing, many of them drought victims denied relief.

This "hidden" effect is hardly new. A recent study at Columbia University in New York has found that the spraying of Agent Orange and other herbicides on Vietnam was up to four times as great as previously estimated. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the deadliest poisons known. In what they first called Operation Hades, then changed to the friendlier Operation Ranch Hand, the Americans in Vietnam destroyed, in some 10,000 "missions" to spray Agent Orange, almost half the forests of southern Vietnam, and countless human lives. It was the most insidious and perhaps the most devastating use of a chemical weapon of mass destruction ever. Today, Vietnamese children continue to be born with a range of deformities, or they are stillborn, or the foetuses are aborted.

The use of uranium-tipped munitions evokes the catastrophe of Agent Orange. In the first Gulf war in 1991, the Americans and British used 350 tonnes of depleted uranium. According to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, quoting an international study, 50 tonnes of DU, if inhaled or ingested, would cause 500,000 deaths. Most of the victims are civilians in southern Iraq. It is estimated that 2,000 tonnes were used during the latest attack.

In a remarkable series of reports for the Christian Science Monitor, the investigative reporter Scott Peterson has described radiated bullets in the streets of Baghdad and radiation-contaminated tanks, where children play without warning. Belatedly, a few signs in Arabic have appeared: "Danger - Get away from this area". At the same time, in Afghanistan, the Uranium Medical Research Centre, based in Canada, has made two field studies, with the results described as "shocking". "Without exception," it reported, "at every bomb site investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium."

An official map distributed to non-government agencies in Iraq shows that the American and British military have plastered urban areas with cluster bombs, many of which will have failed to detonate on impact. These usually lie unnoticed until children pick them up, then they explode.

In the centre of Kabul, I found two ragged notices warning people that the rubble of their homes, and streets, contained unexploded cluster bombs "made in USA". Who reads them? Small children? The day I watched children skipping through what might have been an urban minefield, I saw Tony Blair on CNN in the lobby of my hotel. He was in Iraq, in Basra, lifting a child into his arms, in a school that had been painted for his visit, and where lunch had been prepared in his honour, in a city where basic services such as education, food and water remain a shambles under the British occupation.

It was in Basra three years ago that I filmed hundreds of children ill and dying because they had been denied cancer treatment equipment and drugs under an embargo enforced with enthusiasm by Tony Blair. Now here he was - shirt open, with that fixed grin, a man of the troops if not of the people - lifting a toddler into his arms for the cameras.

When I returned to London, I read "After Lunch", by Harold Pinter, from a new collection of his called War (Faber & Faber).

And after noon the well-dressed creatures come To sniff among the dead And have their lunch

And all the many well-dressed creatures pluck The swollen avocados from the dust And stir the minestrone with stray bones

And after lunch They loll and lounge about Decanting claret in convenient skulls

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3812&se…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Iranisches Atomprogramm

Teheran lässt die Muskeln spielen

Iran will sich im Streit um sein Atomprogramm nicht von den USA einschüchtern lassen. Wenn es zu einem Angriff komme, sei Teheran zur Verteidigung bereit.

Teheran - Die Drohungen von US-Staatssekretär John Bolton lassen Teherans Außenamtssprecher Hamid-Resa Assefi kalt. In einem BBC-Interview hatte Bolton gesagt, militärische Schritte seien beim Streit um das iranische Atomprogramm "eine Option". "Iran ist bereit, sich gegen einen möglichen militärischen Angriff zu verteidigen", konterte Assefi. Die "Drohungen" aus Washington seien "abenteuerlich" und diplomatisch "unannehmbar" und entstammten der amerikanischen "Feindseligkeit" gegenüber Iran. Washington solle erst einmal seine Vorwürfe gegen den Irak beweisen.

US-Präsident George W. Bush hatte die iranische Regierung in der vergangenen Woche erstmals mit scharfen Worten vor der Entwicklung von Atomwaffen gewarnt. Die Weltgemeinschaft müsse es gegenüber Teheran ganz klar machen, dass "wir den Bau einer Atomwaffe in Iran nicht tolerieren". Teheran hat die Vorwürfe bislang zurückgewiesen und wiederholt die friedliche Ausrichtung seines Atomprogramms betont.

Vor dem Hintergrund des Streits hatte die Internationale Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) Teheran vor kurzem zur "lückenlosen Zusammenarbeit mit der Atombehörde" aufgefordert. Die IAEO forderte Iran gleichzeitig zur Unterzeichnung eines Zusatzprotokolls zum Atomwaffensperrvertrag auf, das umfassende und unangemeldete Kontrollen der iranischen Atomanlagen erlauben würde.

In Teheran bestätigte das Bildungsministerium nach Angaben der studentischen Nachrichtenagentur ISNA die Festnahme von 25 Studenten. Den Angaben nach seien bereits vier der Festgenommenen wieder freigelassen worden. Familienangehörige hatten am Samstag einen Sitzstreik in der Teheraner Universität begonnen, um die Freilassung der Studenten zu erreichen.

Im Zusammenhang mit den jüngsten Unruhen hatte die Regierung zuvor angegeben, unter den 520 Festgenommenen hätten sich nur zehn Studenten befunden. Bei tagelagen Protesten in Teheran und anderen Orten in der islamischen Republik hatten Demonstranten in der vergangenen Woche unter anderem den Rücktritt von Präsident Mohammed Chatami gefordert.



© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

UNPROVEN:
The Controversy over Justifying War in Iraqi
by David Cortright, Alistair Millar, George A. Lopez, and Linda Gerber

June 2003

http://www.fourthfreedom.org/php/t-d-index.php?hinc=Unproven…

The failure of U.S. and British forces in Iraq to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction has sparked controversy on both sides of the Atlantic and in the wider international community. Two contending explanations have been offered for why the Bush administration made apparently questionable claims about weapons of mass destruction. The first alleges an intelligence failure. The best analysts in the CIA simply had no foolproof way of discerning what Saddam had. They gave the administration a wide-ranging set of estimates, from benign to worst-case, and, given the way bureaucracies behave, the president`s advisors adopted the worse case scenario. The second claim, more odious in form and substance, is that the administration inflated and manipulated uncertain data, possibly even requesting that material sent to it be redone to fit preconceived notions. The Bush administration has gone to great pains to reassert that it stands by its previous pronouncements that prohibited weapons will be located in due time.

Testing the merits of these explanations and sorting through the various issues involved are important matters. But there is another question that needs to be asked. Why was so much publicly available information on Iraq`s weapons programs systematically ignored in the months preceding the war? Part of the answer may lie in the determination of Washington and London to confirm the image, drawn mostly from the late 1980s and early 1990s, of a regime armed to the teeth. As a result intelligence analysts and especially members of the administration consistently failed to consider three important factors in analyzing the scope of Iraqi weapons holdings.

The first was an unwillingness or inability to calculate accurately the combined effects of the first Gulf War and twelve years of punishing sanctions. Secondly, the administration had no interest in calculating into its estimates of Iraq`s holdings the successful destruction of weapons and materials under the previous UN inspections regime, UNSCOM, from 1991 to 1998. Finally, the administration worked to undermine the findings and experience of the new UN inspections program, UNMOVIC, that began monitoring efforts in December 2002. As a result of either stubbornness or short-sightedness, or both, the administration failed to see the full picture of how successful prior efforts had been in dismantling many aspects of Iraqi weapons program. In fact, the efficacy of UN disarmament efforts was dismissed summarily.

In this report we present the publicly available data that U.S. and UK leaders chose to ignore in the pre-war debate. It provides a clear picture of what could have-and should have-been known and what should have been balanced against other more secretly obtained data on Iraq. This exercise is not revisionist history as administration officials have claimed but a careful attempt to present publicly available information evaluating the administration`s justifications for war. The reason those now searching for weapons are finding only traces, remnants, and precursors is that previous policies of sanctions and UN weapons inspection and destruction actually worked.

As officials investigate the controversies surrounding missing evidence in Iraq, it may be useful to analyze the assertions that were made about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist connections in Iraq, and the information that was available to refute those claims. This report is drawn largely from studies published prior to the war by the Fourth Freedom Forum and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame.

A. Weapons of Mass Destruction
1. Inspections worked

UN weapons inspections achieved significant progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction and guarding against their renewed development.

As a result of the destruction caused by the first Gulf War and the extensive weapons monitoring and dismantlement efforts of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), much of Iraq`s capacity for developing and using weapons of mass destruction was eliminated during the 1990s. Despite active Iraqi interference and obstruction, UN inspectors successfully eliminated most of Iraq`s prohibited weapons. 1

An independent panel of experts established by the Security Council in 1999 concluded:

In spite of well-known difficult circumstances UNSCOM and [the] IAEA have been effective in uncovering and destroying many elements of Iraq`s proscribed weapons programmes. . . . The bulk of Iraq`s proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated.2

According to Blix, "More weapons of mass destruction were destroyed under [the disarmament process] than were destroyed during the [first] Gulf War."3

Rolf Ekéus, former UNSCOM chair, wrote: "Thanks to the work of the UN inspectors, not much was left of Iraq`s once massive weapons program when inspections halted" in 1998.4

2. Sanctions restrained Iraq`s weapons development program

In his State of the Union address President Bush claimed that "nothing to date has restrained him [Saddam Hussein] from his pursuit of these weapons-not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities."5

In reality, sanctions were successful in blocking specific Iraqi attempts to import specialized materials and goods that could be used for developing prohibited weapons. A number of the weapons-related goods mentioned in the Powell presentation were intercepted before entering Iraq. Many of Saddam Hussein`s attempts to acquire prohibited technologies were blocked by international sanctions.

Iraq failed in repeated attempts to import specialized aluminum tubes. Iraq also failed in attempts to purchase vacuum tubes, a magnet production line, a large filament winding machine, fluorine gas and other goods that could have potential nuclear weapons-related applications.6 According to the September 2002 British report, "UN sanctions on Iraq were hindering the import of crucial goods for the production of fissile material." As long as sanctions remained effective, according to the report, "Iraq would not be able to produce a nuclear weapon."7

With the imposition of UN sanctions, Iraqi military spending plummeted. According to estimates from the U.S. Department of State, Iraqi military expenditures dropped from $22.5 billion in 1990 to an average of approximately $1.2 billion per year in the late 1990s.8 As a result, the huge volume of military goods that flowed into Iraq in the 1980s slowed to a trickle.

The combined results of war, more than a decade of stringent sanctions, and the previous weapons dismantlement efforts of UNSCOM significantly diminished the Iraqi military threat.



3. Iraq cooperated with the inspectors

In the months prior to war Iraqi officials provided substantial cooperation to renewed UN inspections. The monitors had unfettered access to all sites and complete freedom of movement. Even Saddam Hussein`s palaces, previously off limits to UN officials, were opened to inspection.

According to Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect."9 Blix reported that "prompt access . . . has been given to inspection teams." This "open doors policy," as Blix described it, was "an indispensable element of transparency and a process that aims at securing disarmament by peaceful means."10

IAEA director ElBaradei reported that "Iraqi authorities have consistently provided access without conditions and without delay."11 ElBaradei reported on 27 January that "all inspection activities have been carried out without prior notification to Iraq, except where notification was needed to ensure the availability of required support."12

4. No weapons found

In his January 2003 State of the Union address President Bush referred to tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin and hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas, and VX nerve agent. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted in his February presentation to the UN Security Council that Iraq was concealing efforts to redevelop weapons of mass destruction. In more than 700 inspections prior to the U.S.-led invasion, UN investigators found no evidence of these alleged weapons of mass destruction.

Dr. Hans Blix, head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) told the Security Council on 14 February, "So far, UNMOVIC has not found any [proscribed] weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions. . . ."13

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that "no prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during these inspections."14 In his update to the Security Council on 14 February ElBaradei reiterated, "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." 15

Blix noted in his 27 January update to the Security Council that previous UN reports on Iraqi weapons "do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq." The reports showed inconsistencies and question marks but provided no hard evidence that weapons of mass destruction actually existed. "UNMOVIC, for its part, is not presuming that there are proscribed items and activities in Iraq, but nor is it . . . presuming the opposite." 16

5. No evidence of Iraqi nuclear weapons activity

In his State of the Union address President Bush stated that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." A December 2002 State Department "fact sheet" alleged Iraqi "efforts to procure uranium from Niger."

Investigations into these charges by the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed that the supposed documents upon which the claim was based were crude forgeries. The signatures on the documents were fakes, and the letterhead belonged to a military government that no longer existed. CIA officials expressed skepticism about the assertion, but the president and senior White House officials nonetheless repeated the claim in their public remarks.17 Intelligence officials in the United Kingdom agreed subsequently that the documents were fabricated. 18

The Bush administration alleged that seized shipments of aluminum tubes proved that Iraq was actively developing nuclear weapons. In his State of the Union address the president described these tubes as "suitable for nuclear weapons production." The Powell presentation repeated the U.S. assertion that these tubes were for uranium enrichment purposes.

According to the assessment of UN inspectors, these aluminum tubes were intended for the reverse engineering of 81-millimeter rockets. IAEA director ElBaradei said on 27 January that the aluminum tubes were "not suitable for manufacturing [uranium] centrifuges."19

President Bush said in Cincinnati on 7 October that aerial photos of the former Tuwaitha nuclear weapons complex "reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past."

UN inspectors visited Tuwaitha numerous times December 2002 through March 2003 and "found no signs of nuclear activity at any of these sites."20

6. No evidence of an active chemical and biological weapons program

In his State of the Union address the president cited the large volumes of chemical and biological agents produced by Saddam Hussein and repeatedly declared: "He has not accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it."

In fact, substantial amounts of the chemical and biological agents produced by Iraq were accounted for and destroyed by Iraq and UN inspectors during the 1990s.21

UNSCOM reported in 1997 that "considerable quantities of chemical weapons, their components and chemical weapons-related equipment have been destroyed by Iraq and UNSCOM."22

During the 1990s UN inspectors destroyed 480,000 tons of live chemical agent. They also destroyed more than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals.23 UNSCOM found that 3,915 tons of precursors existed in 1991; it accounted directly for 2,850 tons and confirmed Iraq`s claim that 823 tons were destroyed during the Gulf War. 24

In the 1990s UN inspectors supervised Iraq`s destruction of 12,792 of the 13,000 155mm artillery shells filled with mustard gas Baghdad had declared as remaining after the Gulf War ended. UNSCOM inspectors also accounted for or destroyed 337 bombs and 6,454 rockets containing sarin.25

The UN reported in 1999 that "UNSCOM ordered and supervised the destruction of Iraq`s main declared BW [biological weapons] production and development facility, Al Hakam. Some 60 pieces of equipment from three other facilities involved in proscribed BW activities as well as some 22 tonnes of growth media for BW production collected from four other facilities were also destroyed. As a result, the declared facilities of Iraq`s BW programme have been destroyed and rendered harmless."26

UN inspectors destroyed all of Iraq`s known chemical and biological weapons production facilities. In the months prior to the war UN monitors conducted hundreds of inspections of possible chemical, biological, and missile sites in Iraq and found no evidence or documentation confirming the existence of the alleged chemical and biological stockpiles.

Sites that the U.S. and Britain alleged were involved in the production of biological or chemical weapons were repeatedly inspected by UNMOVIC. These included Falluja II, at which inspectors found a chlorine plant not even in operation, and al-Dawra Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility, which appeared to journalists as having not been reconstructed since its destruction in the mid-1990s. The inspectors reported no evidence of the production of proscribed agents at these sites.27

According to an investigative report in U.S. News and World Report, the Defense Intelligence Agency issued a classified assessment in September 2002 stating "There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." 28

7. No evidence of mobile biological weapons labs
Secretary of State Powell claimed that Iraq developed mobile biological weapons laboratories. Powell said that the United States had "firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails." He cited Iraqi defectors associated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) as sources for these charges. He offered no physical or documentary evidence, however, providing only an animation to depict such facilities.29

After the war U.S. investigators discovered two trailers that it claimed were mobile weapons labs, but no biological or chemical agents were actually detected in the vehicles and independent experts cast doubt on the claim.30

UN inspectors searched extensively for mobile laboratories during the 1990s but found no evidence confirming their existence.

Hans Blix told reporters on 4 February that UN monitors inspected two alleged mobile labs and found nothing. "Two food-testing trucks have been inspected and nothing has been found."31

Dr. Blix told the New York Times on 5 February: "We have had reports for a long time about these mobile units. . . . We have never found one. We have not seen any signs of things being moved around, whether tracks in the sand or in the ground."32

In his 7 March report to the Security Council Dr. Blix stated that, "several inspections have taken place at declared and undeclared sites in relation to mobile production facilities. Food-testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed-processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found."33

"We know from UNSCOM that Iraq was pursuing mobile fermentation," said a senior U.S. Defense Department official on 13 September 2002, "but the inspections never found them."34

Former UNSCOM chairman Ekéus expressed skepticism about mobile labs at a 3 February 2003 press briefing:

UNSCOM never found any mobile labs. . . . There is . . . the question of how to transport a bio lab by road. On their roads it will shake around in transportation. It is a tremendous high-risk operation if a truck runs into another truck . . . for a bio lab you need electricity, a ventilation system, such as HEPA filters, a system that is highly sophisticated and complex.35

Former UN weapons inspector and microbiologist Raymond Zilinskas told the Washington Post that Powell`s descriptions of the alleged mobile labs did not ring true. A fermentation cycle would normally take thirty-six to forty-eight hours, not the twenty-four hours suggested by Powell. He also noted that such facilities would generate large quantities of highly toxic waste. "This strikes me as a bit far-fetched," he observed. 36

A former senior UNSCOM inspector told a reporter for the Los Angeles Times in September 2002 that his inspection teams searched for such mobile labs from 1993 to 1998 without success. "I launched raid after raid," he said. "We intercepted their radio traffic. We ran roadblocks. We never found anything. It was just speculation."37

8. Working from flawed data: Unreliable defectors and coerced testimony

A significant portion of the intelligence used to make the case for war on Iraq came from Iraqi defectors, including former weapons program scientists, engineers, and intelligence officials. Many left Iraq with assistance of the INC, which lobbied vigorously for war against Saddam Hussein and was paid by the U.S. government to assist with a congressionally mandated regime change policy.

American intelligence officials have long had cause to be skeptical of defector reports.

One official told the New York Times that many defectors "embellish what they actually did and what they know in order to try to get safe haven in the United States and other countries."38

One of the authors asked former UNSCOM chairman Ekéus about the reliability of defector information: "Maybe they are better now. . . . Normally [they] defected to get a good safe nice life outside Iraq and in return they coughed up very low quality intelligence, I must say."39

Many CIA officials mistrusted the information provided by INC defectors, according to a report in Aero Tech News. A senior U.S. intelligence official said, "some [defectors] . . . had their talking points sharpened before they met with U.S. officials. . . . For some defectors . . . their stories get more and more colorful as time goes on." Said a former intelligence official, "to take them for a source of anything except a fantasy trip would be a real stretch."40

"There is tremendous pressure on [the CIA] to come up with information to support policies that have already been adopted," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert. "The [INC`s] intelligence isn`t reliable at all," said Cannistraro. "Much of it is propaganda. Much of it is telling the Defense Department what they want to hear. . . . They`re willing to twist information in order to serve that interest." 41

Even the most famous Iraqi defector, Saddam Hussein`s son-in-law Hussein Kamel Hassan, was of only limited value to the UN disarmament effort. In his October 2002 speech before the UN General Assembly, President Bush attributed the successful uncovering of Iraq`s bioweapons program to the defection of Kamel in August 1995.

Former UN inspections chief Ekéus wrote at the time: "The president does not appear to have been well briefed. In fact, in April 1995, four months before the Iraqi official defected, UN inspectors disclosed to the Security Council that Iraq had a major biological weapons program . . . The defection of the Iraqi weapons official . . . provided some additional confirmation . . . but the inspectors learned few new details." 42

A transcript detailing the 1995 debriefing of Kamel by officials from the IAEA and UNSCOM was leaked to Newsweek and reprinted in early March 2003.43 Kamel told the inspectors eight years ago that he had overseen the destruction of Iraq`s chemical and biological weapons programs. The claim was corroborated by a military aide who defected with Kamel. Newsweek reported that the CIA and its British equivalent MI6 were subsequently informed of the debriefing.44

B. Links to International Terrorism
1. Coerced testimony

Much of the information in Secretary Powell`s presentation came from detainees. The interrogation of suspects was conducted under what the New York Times described as "unspecified circumstances of psychological pressure." 45

The Washington Post reported on 26 December that Al Qaeda detainees in Afghanistan were subjected to "stress and duress" methods of interrogation. The use of such methods violates the 1949 Geneva Convention and is a war crime. Human Rights Watch wrote a letter to the Bush administration seeking assurances against the use of such methods.

Claims about links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein came from captured fighters of the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group which operated in a corner of Iraq beyond the control of the Baghdad government. According to the International Crisis Group, "Their statements should be received with a good deal of skepticism since they were made in custody and in the presence of PUK guards. . . . No independent sources have ever been presented to corroborate the link between Ansar and al-Qaeda."46

2. No proof linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and September 11

The Powell presentation attempted to link the Iraqi government to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Powell claimed that "Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden." He asserted that the network was training its operatives in the use of deadly toxins, and that Iraq provided "active support" for these efforts.

President Bush tried to connect Iraq to September 11. In his State of the Union address the president asserted that Saddam Hussein "could provide one of his hidden weapons" to Al Qaeda or other terrorists. The president evoked the grim specter of Iraq supplying deadly weapons to terrorists: "Imagine those 19 hijackers . . . armed by Saddam Hussein . . . to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

No credible evidence has ever been presented linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks. Powell`s claims about an Al Qaeda cell in Iraq were never substantiated.

The State Department, the CIA, and other U.S. agencies reported no link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and stated that Iraq did not engage in terrorist attacks against the United States:

The U.S. State Department`s Patterns of Global Terrorism report of April 2001 stated that "the [Iraqi] regime has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since . . . 1993."47

In October, CIA director George Tenet wrote to the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW [chemical, biological weapons] against the United States." 48

In an issue brief to Congress Kenneth Katzman reported "FBI Director Robert Mueller said in early May 2002 that, after an exhaustive FBI and CIA investigation, no direct link has been found between Iraq and any of the September 11 hijackers." 49

Veteran CIA analyst Melvin Goodman summarized what many in the intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic believe. "I`ve talked to my sources at the CIA," he said, "and all of them are saying the evidence [of a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam] is simply not there."50

The former chief of Pakistan`s spy agency declared, "Ideologically and logically, they [Iraq and al-Qaeda] cannot work together. . . . Bin Laden and his men considered Saddam the killer of hundreds of Islamic militants."51

Powell did not explain why an authoritarian tyrant and hated dictator like Saddam Hussein would turn over weapons of mass destruction to others, or entrust his fate to groups that declared his secularist regime to be an enemy. The claim that Saddam Hussein would give his most precious military assets to a hostile terrorist network beyond his control was never credible.

The Central Intelligence Agency declassified testimony from a closed congressional hearing on 2 October in which Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) asked an unnamed intelligence official whether it "is likely that [Saddam] would initiate an attack using weapons of mass destruction?" The official answered: ". . . in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low."

3. Abu Musaab Zarqawi not an Al Qaeda kingpin

Powell claimed that Zarqawi was a collaborator of bin Laden, created a terrorist training camp in Iraq, and ran a terrorist cell in Baghdad. But Zarqawi was not listed on the FBI`s roster of "most wanted terrorists."52

Newsweek magazine reported on 3 February that neither the CIA nor British MI6 put much stock in Zarqawi`s alleged Iraqi visits, stressing that such reports were "unconfirmed."

The Wall Street Journal reported on 7 February that German investigators found no evidence that Zarqawi worked with Baghdad. Counterterrorism experts conducted an 18-month investigation and compiled hundreds of pages of information on Zarqawi and his organization, Al Tawhid. According to Minister of Interior Otto Schily, they found no evidence that Zarqawi operated in areas of Iraq controlled by Baghdad. German security officers rounded up a dozen members of Al Tawhid last year. Its members acknowledged that Zarqawi was their leader, but said their focus was the Palestinian cause. Members of the cell said that Iraq never figured in the picture, and that Zarqawi was not a core operative of Al Qaeda.53

The New York Times reported on 10 February that German officials investigating Zarqawi were surprised by Powell`s assertion of a Baghdad connection. "We have been investigating Mr. Zarqawi for some time," said a senior German intelligence official. . . . "as of yet we have seen no indication of a direct link between Zarqawi and Baghdad."54

Powell displayed a diagram linking Zarqawi to two Islamic militants previously arrested in Paris. French intelligence sources said that their interrogations of the suspects did not establish a link between the two men and Zarqawi. "Al-Zarqawi`s name never once appeared in our different investigations," the sources reported.55

A U.S. intelligence analyst interviewed by the Washington Post stated that "Zarqawi is outside bin Laden`s circle" and not under Al Qaeda control. Senior U.S. officials said that the Iraqi government did not control or sponsor Zarqawi`s network. U.S. officials and law enforcement sources in London reported that the Zarqawi connection "is still being investigated." 56

4. U.S. and UK intelligence officials disputed Powell`s claim of an Al Qaeda-Baghdad connection

A British Ministry of Defense intelligence report written in January 2003 and leaked to the BBC concluded: "While there have been contacts between Al-Qaida and the [Baghdad] regime in the past, it is assessed that any fledgling relationship foundered due to mistrust and incompatible ideology."57

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw conceded during questioning in parliament on 5 February that he had seen no intelligence that Saddam Hussein was harboring Al Qaeda operatives.58

The London Observer noted on 9 February that "For months British intelligence officers-like their counterparts in the U.S.-have been insisting that there is no hard evidence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, while at every turn their political masters have been insisting the opposite."59

Intelligence sources told the BBC on 5 February that there was growing disquiet at the way in which the work of the intelligence community was being politicized to make the case for war in Iraq.60

Conclusion
The apparent failure of intelligence assessment and the potential political interpretation of such data raise serious doubts about the strategy and decision-making process that led to the recent war. The immediate question is not whether the war was justified but what this episode portends for the future of U.S. foreign policy. If intelligence agencies were wrong in their assessments of the Iraqi threat, what checks are there `in the system` to prevent these agencies from being wrong about weapons programs in other nations, for example in Iran?

Moreover, if the intelligence provided to the administration was more correct than wrong, but was adjusted and altered to fit the administration`s pre-ordained policy decision, this raises questions fundamental to the functioning of foreign policy in a democratic society.

Such uncertainties may especially call into question the new U.S. strategy of military preemption. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, unveiled in September 2002, is unambiguous in asserting a U.S. right to strike first against perceived enemies:

. . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country.61

A strategy of preventive attack depends fundamentally on accurate intelligence and the proper use of that intelligence. Before using military force to strike against another nation or a terrorist network, decision makers must have solid information regarding the exact nature of the threat. But if political leaders and elected officials cannot know reliably whether an alleged threat is legitimate, how are they to decide when a preemptive attack is justified?

If the problem in Iraq was not intelligence but the way information was selectively interpreted and misrepresented, this raises doubts about the integrity of political decision making. If U.S. and UK leaders presented false or misleading information to their legislatures and world opinion, this threatens the very foundations of democracy. Government deceit is always a matter of concern, but it is especially troubling when it involves the most vital issues of national security and becomes the basis for a decision to go to war. It is vital that investigators get to the bottom of these issues as they probe the unproven case for war.

Notes

i
The authors are grateful to Dr. Glen Rangwala of Cambridge University, Cambridge, England, for his comments on the initial draft of this document and for the valuable information he compiled on his detailed study, "Claims and Evaluations of Iraq`s Proscribed Weapons," Available online at Middle East Reference.org http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/iraqweapons.html (19 June 2003). Return to Text

1
United Nations, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection. Return to Text

2
United Nations Security Council, Letters Dated 27 and 30 March 1999, Respectively, from the Chairman of the Panels Established Pursuant to the Note by the President of the Security Council of 30 January 1999, S/1999/100, Addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/1999/356, New York, 30 March 1999, 25. Return to Text

3
United Nations, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection. Return to Text

4
Rolf Ekéus, "Yes, Let`s Go into Iraq . . . With an Army of Inspectors," Washington Post, 15 September 2002, B01. Return to Text

5
U.S. Government, President George W. Bush, "President Delivers `State of the Union,`" 28 January 2003. Available online at the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2003/01/print/20030128-19.html (4 February 2003). Return to Text

6
British Government, Iraq`s Weapons of Mass Destruction, 26. Return to Text

7
British Government, Iraq`s Weapons of Mass Destruction, 26. Return to Text

8
U.S. Department of State, World Military Expenditure and Arms Transfers 1998 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 2000). Return to Text

9
United Nations, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection. Return to Text

10
Blix, Notes for Briefing, 1-2. Return to Text

11
International Atomic Energy Agency, Status of the Agency`s Verification Activities, para. 5. Return to Text

12
International Atomic Energy Agency, The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq. Return to Text

13
Dr. Hans Blix, United Nations, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Briefing of the Security Council, 14 February 2003 Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix as delivered, 14 February 2003. Available online at the United Nations http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ (4 June 2003). Return to Text

14
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq, Statement to the United Nations Security Council, 27 January 2003. Available online at the International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n003.shtml (27 January 2003). Return to Text

15
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq, An Update, 14 February 2003. Available online at the International Atomic Energy Agency, http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Press/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml (7 March 2003). Return to Text

16
Dr. Hans Blix, United Nations, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, The Security Council, 27 January 2003: An Update on Inspection, 27 January 2003. Available online at the United Nations, http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm (27 January 2003). Return to Text

17
Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung, "CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore," Washington Post, 22 March 2002, A30. Return to Text

18
Gary Younge, et al., "Iraq: After the War: Blix Attacks Shaky Intelligence on Weapons," The Guardian (London), 23 April 2003, 13. Return to Text

19
International Atomic Energy Agency, The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq. Return to Text

20
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA Update, Report for the Security Council. Return to Text

21
United Nations, Report of the Executive Chairman on the Activities of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9(b)(i) of resolution 687 (1991), S/1998/332, New York, 16 April 1998. Return to Text

21
United Nations, Letter dated 22 November 1997 from the Executive Chairman of the Special Commission established by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 9(b)(i) of Security Council resolution 687 (1991) addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/1997/922, New York, 24 November 1997, para. 12. Return to Text

23
United Nations, Report of the Executive Chairman on the Activities of the Special Commission, S/1998/332, and British Foreign Office, "Foreign Office Paper on Iraqi Threat and Work of UNSCOM," London, 4 February 1998. Return to Text

24
United Nations Security Council, Letter dated 27 January 1999 from the Permanent Representatives of The Netherlands and Slovenia to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/1999/94, New York, 29 January 1999. Return to Text

25
United Nations, Letter dated 27 January 1999, S/1999/94. Return to Text

26
United Nations, Letters dated 27 and 30 March 1999, S/1999/356. Return to Text

27
Originally printed in Glen Rangwala, Nathaniel Hurd, and Alistair Millar, "A Case for Concern, Not a Case for War," Middle East Report Online, 28 January 2003. Available online at MERIP http://www.merip.org/mero/mero012803.html (4 June 2003). Return to Text

28
Bruce B. Auster, Mark Mazzetti, and Edward T. Pound, "Truth and Consequences," U.S. News and World Report, 9 June 2003, 17. Return to Text

29
Animated slides can be found at the U. S. Department of State, "Biological Weapons," Slides 20-22, 5 February 2003. Available online at the Department of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/pix/events/secretary/2003/17314… 6 February 2003). Return to Text

30
William J. Broad, "After the War: Biological Warfare; U.S., in Assessment, Terms Trailers Germ Laboratories," New York Times, 29 May 2003, A5. Return to Text

31
Dan Plesch, "U.S. Claim Dismissed by Blix," The Guardian, 5 February 2003. Return to Text

32
Julia Preston with Steven R. Weisman, "Powell to charge Iraq is shifting its illegal arms to foil inspectors," New York Times, 5 February 2003, A1. Return to Text

33
Dr. Hans Blix, United Nations, United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Security Council 7 March 2003 Oral introduction of the 12th quarterly report of UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Dr. Hans Blix, 7 March 2003. Available online at the United Nations http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/ (4 June 2003). Return to Text

34
U.S. Government, Department of Defense, "Background briefing on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction," 13 September 2002. Available online at DefenseLINK http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/t09132002_t0913wmd.h… (3 February 2003). Return to Text

35
Rolf Ekéus, "Briefing on Iraq." Return to Text

36
Joby Warrick, "Despite Defectors` Accounts, Evidence Remains Anecdotal," Washington Post, 6 February 2003, A28. Return to Text

37
Bob Drogin and Maggie Farley, "Inspectors Face Iraq`s `Dark Years`," Los Angeles Times, 9 Sept 2002. Return to Text

38
Judith Miller, "Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites for Chemical and Nuclear Arms," New York Times, 20 December 2001, A1. Return to Text

39
Rolf Ekéus, "Briefing on Iraq." Return to Text

40
Leona C. Bull, "Rivalry between Defense Department, CIA reportedly growing," Journal of Aerospace and Defense Industry News, 1 November 2002. Available online at AeroTech News http://www.aerotechnews.com/starc/2002/110102/DOD_CIA.html (3 February 2003). Return to Text

41
Robert Dreyfuss, "The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA: Devising bad intelligence to promote bad policy," The American Prospect 13 no. 22, 16 December 2002. Available online at The American Prospect http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/22/dreyfuss-r.html (3 February 2003). Return to Text

42
Rolf Ekéus, "Yes, Let`s Go into Iraq." Return to Text

43
John Barry, "Exclusive: The Defector`s Secrets," Newsweek, 3 March 2003, 6. Return to Text

44
Originally appeared in Alistair Millar, "Dual-Use Material and the Weapons Search in Iraq," Middle East Report Online, 2 May 2003. Available online at MERIP http://www.merip.org/mero/mero050203.html(3 June 2003). Return to Text

45
Patrick E. Tyler, "Intelligence Break Led U.S. to Tie Envoy Killing to Iraq Qaeda Cell," New York Times, 6 February 2003, A1. Return to Text

46
International Crisis Group, "Radical Islam in Iraqi Kurdistan," 7. Return to Text

47
U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000, 30 April 2001. Available online at The State Department http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm (9 October 2002). Return to Text

48
Letter from George J. Tenet to Senator Bob Graham, 7 October 2002; published in the New York Times, 9 October 2002, A12. Return to Text

49
Kenneth Katzman, "Iraq: Weapons Threat, Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy," Issue Brief for Congress, Updated 24 December 2002, CRS-8. Available online at the Federation of American Scientists http://www.fas.org/man/crs/IB92117.pdf (3 February 2003). Return to Text

50
Ed Vulliamy, Martin Bright, and Nick Pelham, "False trails that lead to the al-Qaeda `links`," The (London) Observer, 2 February 2003. Return to Text

51
Paul Haven, "Saddam, al-Qaida would be unusual allies," Associated Press Online, 29 January 2003. Return to Text

52
Mark Hosenball, "Periscope," Newsweek, 3 February 2003, 4. Return to Text

53
"German Interior Minister, Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism Officers, Question Colin Powell`s Evidence of Iraq-Al-Qaeda Links," Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2003, A6. Return to Text

54
Don Van Natta Jr. with David Johnston, "A Terror Lieutenant With a Deadly Past," New York Times, 10 February 2003, A1. Return to Text

55
Patrick Filleux, "No Link Between al-Qaeda Suspect Zarqawi and Iraq: French Sources," Agence France Presse, 7 February 2003. Return to Text

56
Walter Pincus, "Alleged Al Qaeda Ties Questioned," Washington Post, 7 February 2003, A21. Return to Text

57
Andrew Buncombe and Cahal Milmo, "Iraq Crisis: Terrorism Links: Powell Claims European Terror Network is Run by Al-Qa`ida Team Based in Iraq," The Independent (London), 6 February 2003, 3. Return to Text

58
"Powell to Present Case Against Iraq," 5 February 2003. Available at Yahoo! News http://www.uk.news.yahoo.com/030205/143/drt2t.html (10 February 2003). Return to Text

59
Gaby Hinsliff, et al., "First Casualties in the Propaganda Firefight," The (London) Observer, 9 February 2003. Available at online Guardian Unlimited http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,891940,00.html (10 February 2003). Return to Text

60
"Leaked Report Rejects Iraqi al-Qaeda Link," BBC News, 5 February 2003. Available online at the BBC http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2727471.stm (10 February 2003). Return to Text

61
George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002. Available online at the White House http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf (5 June 2003). Return to Text

[Joerver]

The War In Iraq: New Yorker`s Complete Coverage Of The Conflict (Archives) , NewYorker Alle Artikel aus dem Archiv


http://newyorker.com/archive/previous/?030630frprsp_previous…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Rumsfeld ein neues Flash Movie

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/rumsfeld.htm

.

[rv_2011]

http://www.fr-aktuell.de/startseite/startseite/?cnt=237016" target="_blank" rel="nofollow ugc noopener">http://www.fr-aktuell.de/startseite/startseite/?cnt=237016

Die Schnüffelmaschinen

George Orwell hätte gestaunt, was sich das Pentagon einfallen lässt, um das Privatleben der Bürger zu bespitzeln

Von Andrea Neitzel

1984? Das ist Paranoia von gestern, fast 20 Jahre her. Wir schreiben das Jahr 2003, und folgerichtig entwickelt die US-Regierung ein Überwachungssystem, das George Orwell fast fantasielos wirken lässt. Die Forschungsabteilung des US-Verteidigungsministeriums, Darpa (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency), arbeitet an einem Schnüffelprogramm, das jedes Detail des Privatlebens von Bürgern erfassen und speichern soll. Die ein oder andere Anregung bei Orwell holte sich das Team von Ex-Admiral John Poindexter aber offensichtlich, darunter die Erkenntnis, wie wichtig eine freundliche Namensgebung, bei Orwell das "Miniwahr", ist. Nachdem der US-Kongress den Gesetzesentwurf für das Projekt "Total Information Awareness", zu Deutsch etwa: Totales Informationsbewusstsein oder auch Totalüberwachung, nach massiven Protesten von Bürgerrechtlern im Februar gestoppt hatte, startete die Regierung Bush nun einen zweiten Anlauf - unter der neuen Bezeichnung "Terrorist Information Awareness" (TIA), ergo Terroristenüberwachung.

Der frühere Name habe bei manchen den Eindruck erweckt, "dass ein System zur Erstellung von Dossiers über US-Bürger entwickelt werden sollte", heißt es auf der Homepage der Darpa (www.darpa.mil). Dabei sei doch das Ziel, US-Bürger vor fremden terroristischen Angriffen zu schützen. Für das Projekt hat das Pentagon für dieses Jahr 9,2 Millionen Dollar bereitgestellt, nach Informationen des IT-Nachrichtendienstes internet.com soll diese Summe kommendes Jahr auf 20 Millionen und im Jahr 2005 auf knapp 25 Millionen Dollar steigen.

An der Bespitzelungsmaschinerie selbst ändert sich trotz neuer Etikettierung kaum etwas, wie der jetzt vorgelegte Bericht der Darpa an den US-Kongress zeigt. Zwar erklärten sich die Pentagon-Planer bereit, Stichproben aus ihren erfassten Datenmengen zur Kontrolle bereit zu stellen und technische Vorrichtungen gegen Missbrauch einzubauen, doch ansonsten gehen die neuen Überwachungspläne noch weiter als die alten. Den Kern des Systems bildet eine Datenbank, die sich einem gigantischen Informationsstaubsauger gleich alle elektronischen Daten einverleibt, derer sie habhaft werden kann: Kreditkartenabrechnungen, Kontoauszüge, Hotelbuchungen, Arzneirezepte, angeklickte Seiten im Internet, gebuchte Reisen, ausgeliehene Bücher. Erfasst und ausgewertet werden sollen zugleich Aufnahmen, die von Überwachungskameras stammen, die an öffentlichen Plätzen - vor allem auf Flughäfen, aber auch in großen Stadien - installiert werden. Dabei sollen Personen über größere Entfernungen (150 Meter) anhand biometrischer Merkmale wie der Gesichtsform oder der Art wie sie gehen identifiziert werden. Ziel des "Terrorist Information Awareness"-Programms sei es, "Menschen eindeutig (und nicht zwingend anhand ihres Namens) zu identifizieren - aus Entfernung, bei jeder Tageszeit, bei jedem Wetter, auch wenn sie möglicherweise verkleidet sind und egal, ob sie allein oder in Gruppen unterwegs sind", heißt es in dem Darpa-Bericht.

Dafür finanziert das Pentagon laut Washington Post zwei Institute, die Video-Software entwickeln, um Leute an ihrem Gang erkennen zu können. Die Trefferquote liegt angeblich bei 90 Prozent - mit kleinen Schönheitsfehlern, wie Gene Greneker vom Georgia Institute of Technology einräumen musste. Zwar sei es noch kein Problem für den Computer, wenn eine Frau von flachen Schuhen zu hohen Absätzen wechsele: "Aber wenn sie Kampfstiefel anzieht, wird es schwierig." Manche Kommentatoren sehen denn schon einen neuen Volkssport nahen, wenn Passanten wie einst Monty Pythons Truppe vom "Ministry of Silly Walks" durch die Gegend stelzen, auf den Fußkanten laufen, von einem Bein aufs andere hüpfen oder permanent über ihre eigenen Füße stolpern, um das System auszutricksen. "Was aber passiert, wenn ich durch eine Verletzung beim Baseball plötzlich so gehe wie ein gesuchter irakischer Biochemiker?", spottete einer.

Weniger zum Lachen finden Bürgerrechtsgruppen wie die American Civil Liberties Union oder Steven Aftergood von der Federation of American Scientists die Big-Brother-Initiative des Pentagon. Sie stehen der Beteuerung, die machtvolle Informations-Waffe diene nur der Erkennung terroristischer Verhaltensmuster, äußerst skeptisch gegenüber. Schon gar, seit die Darpa ein weiteres Forschungsprojekt gestartet hat mit dem Namen "Lifelog", übersetzt etwa Lebensaufzeichnung. Auch wenn die Forschungsabteilung des Pentagon versichert, Lifelog sei nicht Bestandteil des TIA-Programms, sind die Bürgerrechtler alarmiert. Denn Lifelog soll alles über einen Menschen aufzeichnen, was sich überhaupt aufzeichnen lässt: Ein Gerät soll alle physikalischen Daten erfassen und übertragen, die die Benutzer wahrnemen, Sensoren zeichnen also auf, was diese Menschen sehen, hören und fühlen. Aber die Überwachung findet nicht nur äußerlich statt, Sensoren sollen auch die körperlichen Zustände registrieren. Hinzu kommt die Speicherung verschiedener Aktionen und Informationen von Menschen, deren Leben geloggt wird: welche E-Mails sie schreiben oder lesen, welche Internet-Seiten sie ansehen, welche Musik sie hören, was sie im Fernsehen interessiert oder wann sie telefonieren - Telefonnummer des Gesprächspartners inklusive.

Bei Darpa heißt es, Lifelog könne etwa als automatisches Multimedia-Tagebuch fungieren. Als elektronisches Gedächtnis, bei dem der Benutzer mit einer Suchmaschine "leicht" etwas finden kann.

Bürgerrechtler vermuten hingegen, dass Lifelog sehr wohl etwas mit dem Überwachungssystem TIA zu tun hat. Denn letztlich ist technische Erinnerung nichts anderes als eine totale Überwachung. Und die Verlagerung des Gedächtnisses in einen digitalen Speicher macht es möglich, dass Fremde in die bislang private Welt eintreten.

[Joerver]

Die Demokratie ist in Gefahr

Ronda Hauben 24.06.2003
Die US-Regierung hat die Begründung für den Irak-Krieg auf Fälschungen und Lügen basiert

In den vergangenen Wochen wurden in den USA und in den Medien der ganzen Welt viele Frage laut, ob George Bush wissentlich gefälschte Beweise über die Existenz von Atomwaffen im Irak verwendet hat. Auf der Grundlage solcher Massenvernichtungswaffen wurde gesagt, dass der Irak eine Gefahr für die USA darstellt. Dies war die der Öffentlichkeit gegenüber gegebene Rechtsfertigung der US-Regierung für ihren Krieg.

Im Augenblick finden Untersuchungen der britischen, amerikanischen und australischen Parlamente über die Verwendung einer solchen Fälschung zur Rechtfertigung des Krieges statt. Eine der größten Widerlegungen in der öffentlichen Diskussion über die Massenvernichtungswaffen ist der Hinweis von Bush auf einen angeblichen Versuch des Irak, 500 Tonnen Uranoxid von Niger zu kaufen. In seiner Rede an die Nation vom 28. Januar 2003 erklärte Bush: "Die britische Regierung hat erfahren, dass Saddam Hussein kürzlich erhebliche Mengen von Uran aus Afrika zu erhalten versucht hat."

Ähnliche Behauptungen wurden von der CIA in ihrem Bericht an den Kongress am 24. September 2002 gemacht. Der Nachweis für das Nuklearwaffenprogramm des Irak basierte auf Dokumenten, von denen man aber schon im März 2002 wusste, dass sie gefälscht waren. Doch die Behauptungen wurden von Bush, der CIA und anderen Regierungsangehörigen weiter als zentrales Argument in ihrer Begründung für den Irak-Krieg verwendet.

Nach verschiedenen Berichten hatte die CIA 2001 von den Behauptungen gehört, dass der Irak versucht hatte, Uranoxid von Niger zu kaufen. Vizepräsident Cheneys Büro erhob im Februar 2002 Zweifel daran. Die CIA schickte einen früheren, in Afrika angesehenen US-Botschafter in den Niger, um dort mit Regierungsangehörigen zu sprechen. Er erfuhr, dass die Datierungen und Unterschriften auf den Dokumenten, die die Behauptung belegten, gefälscht waren und gab seine Kenntnisse an die CIA weiter. Ein Artikel der Washington Post weist darauf hin, dass das Weiße Haus von der CIA einen Bericht über die gefälschten Dokumente im März 2002 erhalten habe. Sechs Monate später, im September 2002, sprach jedoch der CIA-Direktor weiterhin von einem angeblichen Atomwaffenprogramm im Irak. Dabei bezog er sich angeblich auf die Informationen aus dem Niger, ohne das Ergebnis der Nachforschungen des ehemaligen Botschafters zu erwähnen. Einige Kongressmitglieder sagen jetzt, dass sie auf der Grundlage der Behauptung der Regierung für den Krieg im Irak stimmten, dass der Irak ein Atomwaffenprogramm habe. Die Vertreter der Demokratischen Partei fordern nun eine Abschrift des offiziellen CIA-Berichts für die Kongress-Anhörung im September 2002. Sie wollen feststellen, ob der CIA-Bericht erwähnte, dass die Dokumente aus Niger gefälscht sind.

Die CIA oder das Außenministerium legitimierten den Krieg gegen den Irak jedoch weiterhin durch dieselben Gründe. Als Reaktion auf das irakische Waffendossier, das der UN am 7. Dezember 2002 übergeben wurde ( Weltpolitik als Farce), trat Außenminister Colin Powell beispielsweise am 19. Dezember 2002 vor den Sicherheitsrat. Er überreichte dem Sicherheitsrat ein einseitiges Informationsblatt mit der Feststellung: "Die Erklärung unterschlägt die Bemühungen, Uran aus dem Niger zu erhalten. Warum verbirgt das Irak-Regime ihre Uran-Suche?"

Nach der Rede an die Nation von Bush verlangte die Internationale Atomaufsichtsbehörde (IAEA), dass die US-Regierung Beweise für die Versuche des Irak vorlegt, Uranoxid aus Afrika zu erhalten. Am 7. März 2003, einen Tag, nachdem die Dokumente schließlich der IAEA überreicht wurden, gab Mohamed ElBaradei, der Leiter der UN-Behörde, bekannt, dass es sich um Fälschungen handelt.

Am 17. März 2003 schrieb der Henry Waxman, ein demokratischer Kongressabgeordnete aus Kalifornien und der Leiter der Minderheit im Government Reform Committee des Repräsentantenhauses, einen Brief an das Büro von Bush, in dem er um eine Erklärung bat, wie die Begründung für die Existenz des irakischen Atomwaffenprogramms auf der Grundlage von gefälschten Dokumenten gemacht werden konnte. Eine Antwort erhielt er am 29. März von Paul Kelly vom Rechtsbüro des Außenministeriums:

Ende 2001 erhielten die USA Informationen aus verschiedenen Kanälen von den Geheimdiensten und öffentlichen Quellen, dass der Irak versucht hatte, sich aus Afrika Uran zu beschaffen. Überdies informierten uns zwei europäische Alliierte über ähnliche Berichte von ihren eigenen Geheimdiensten. Wie Sie wissen, veröffentlichte Großbritannien im September 2002 diese Informationen in seinem Dossier "Iraq`s Weapons of Mass Destruction". Der andere europäische Verbündete vertraute uns die Informationen privat an und sagte, er glaube zwar nicht, dass bereits Uran in den Irak gebracht worden ist, aber er glaube, dass der Irak versucht habe, Uran von Niger zu kaufen. Wir haben mehrmals versucht, die Grundlage für die letzte Bewertung festzustellen, und ob diese auf unabhängige Beweise gründete, die die USA nicht haben. Wir erfuhren nicht vor dem 4. März, dass die zweite europäische Regierung ihre Bewertung tatsächlich auf Beweise gründete, von denen die USA bereits in der Folge wusste, dass sie nicht glaubwürdig sind.

Die US-Regierung hatte die Behauptung über Iraks Atomwaffenprogramm für Powells Präsentation am 19. Dezember 2002 vor dem Sicherheitsrat und für die Rede an die Nation des Präsidenten am 28. Januar 2003 verwendet, auch als sie bereits wusste, dass die Grundlage für diese Behauptung gefälschte Dokumente waren. Kelly tut so, als ginge es in Ordnung, an der Behauptung auf der Grundlage von mündlichen Informationen irgend eines Landes solange weiter fest zu halten, bis sie hörten, dass sich auch die andere westeuropäische Regierung auf gefälschte Dokumente stützte. Solche Überlegungen setzen die Täuschung fort. Die Verpflichtung von Regierungsangehörigen auf redliche Ausführung ihres Amtes wird nicht gewahrt. Wenn gefälschte Dokumente einmal erkannt sind - und Kelly gesteht die Kenntnis der Fälschung ein -, dann gibt es keine Grundlage mehr, den Vorwurf weiter zu führen. Es gibt vielmehr die Verpflichtung, auch alle anderen Dokumente zu überprüfen, die ähnliche Vorwürfe enthalten.

Obgleich eine solche Entschuldigung für die Einbeziehung von unglaubwürdigen Informationen in eine solch wichtige Rede wie die Rede an die Nation des Präsidenten bestenfalls ziemlich dünn erscheint, wurde von der Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleezza Rice eine weitere Erklärung gegeben, als sie am 8. Juni 2003 im Fernsehen bei Talkshows auftrat. Sie sagte, das Büro des Präsidenten habe nicht gewusst, dass die Niger-Story nach Ansicht der CIA auf gefälschten Dokumenten beruhe. In einem Brief vom 10. Juni an Rice zitiert er sie:


... Ich sage Ihnen, dass zu dem Zeitpunkt, als dieses Thema in den Geheimdiensten aufkam .... diese nicht wussten oder in dem Maße, wie dies zu uns gelangt ist, dass es ernsthafte Fragen zu diesem Bericht gibt.

Im Zuge der Infragestellung der Behauptung von Rice, dass das Außenministerium von den Fälschungen keine Kenntnis hatte, beschreibt Greg Thielmann, wie sein Büro diese Information dem Außenministerium vor der Rede an die Nation zukommen ließ. Als Direktor des Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) des Außenministeriums bis zum Herbst 2002 erklärt er, dass die Niger-Dokumente von seinem Büro als "Müll" bezeichnet wurden. Er berichtet, dass diese Beurteilung zu dieser Zeit dem Büro des Außenministers Colin Powell weiter gegeben wurde. Thielemann wurde in Zeitungen und Zeitschriften zitiert und bestritt auch in Fernsehinterviews, dass das Außenministerium nichts von den Fälschungen wusste.

Gleichgültig, ob die Bush-Regierung vor der ersten Woche im März 2003 wusste, dass die Niger-Dokumente gefälscht waren und dass der irakische Besitz von Nuklearwaffen eine Täuschung war, so befreit sie das nicht von der Verpflichtung, die Diskrepanz zwischen ihrer Kriegsbegründung und den Beweisen zu beachten, die sie dafür geliefert haben. Kelly gesteht zu, dass die Fälschung seit 4. März 2002 bekannt war. Es gab also noch genügend Zeit für George Bush, die Entscheidung, gegen den Irak in den Krieg zu ziehen, zurück zu nehmen. Das tat er nicht. Und es wurde auch kein anderer Beweis zu dieser Zeit für irgendwelche irakischen Atomwaffen gegeben. Am 19. März erklärte jedoch George Bush den Beginn des Kriegs gegen den Irak und behauptet, das Ziel des Kriegs sei, "den Irak zu entwaffnen und ... die Welt vor einer großen Gefahr zu schützen".

Eine Schlussfolgerung, die sich ziehen lässt, ist, dass es George Bush egal war, ob die der Öffentlichkeit gegebenen Gründe für den Krieg gegen den Irak auf gefälschten Beweisen basierten. Ob die Öffentlichkeit hinter dem Kriegskurs von Bush stand oder nicht, war für ihn nicht wichtig. Er konnte es nicht wissen, bis der Öffentlichkeit eine ehrliche Begründung gegeben wurde.

Welche Konsequenzen hat es, dass dem US-Kongress, der US-Öffentlichkeit, dem Sicherheitsrat der UN und der Welt gefälschte Begründungen für den Krieg gegen den Irak gegeben wurden? John W. Dean, ein früherer Berater von Präsident Nixon, erinnerte unlängst die Öffentlichkeit daran, dass ein Missbrauch der Regierungsaufgaben durch den Präsidenten und andere Regierungsbehörden ein Vergehen der schwersten Art sei. Auch wenn Dean die Fälschungen nicht erwähnt, auf denen die Regierungsbehauptungen über Iraks Atomwaffenprogramm beruhten, so erklärt er, dass die Lügen von Regierungsangehörigen über die Massenvernichtungswaffen ein Problem für die Aufrichtigkeit der US-Regierung darstellen.

Einen Krieg gegen eine souveräne Nation aufgrund gefälschter Behauptungen und verfälschter Darstellungen zu beginnen, wie sie hinsichtlich der Existenz von Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak vorgebracht wurden, stellt den demokratischen Prozess in Frage. Wie können die Menschen überprüfen, was ihre Regierungsangestellten machen, wenn diese sie offen anlügen? Wie kann der Anschein eines Handelns nach der Verfassung, in der die Souveränität der Menschen aufbewahrt ist, aufrecht erhalten werden, wenn diese nicht wissen dürfen, was die Regierungsangehörigen machen? Dies ist ein großes Problem für das Wesen und die Zukunft von Recht und Regierung. Ob dieses Problem gelöst werden kann, ist eine wichtige Frage für unsere Zeit.
http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/irak/15061/1.html

[Joerver]

Poll shows Blair is hurting Labour
Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair`s personal unpopularity is seriously damaging Labour`s poll rating for the first time, according to the results of this month`s Guardian/ICM opinion poll.

The June ICM survey shows that the prime minister`s popularity has fallen again, and Labour`s lead over the Conservatives has plunged from 12 points last month to only four points now - its lowest level since the petrol crisis two and a half years ago.

Last fortnight`s fudged euro decision, the botched reshuffle and the row over taxes have hit Labour. It share of the vote is down by three percentage points on the month, to 38%, while the Tories are up by five points, at 34%. The government`s four-point lead is its smallest on the Guardian/ICM poll since 2000.

The poll also shows that the government`s "not yet" statement on the single currency has proved disastrous for the pro-euro camp, and support for joining the eurozone has fallen to its lowest level since March 2001. According to the monthly ICM/Goldman Sachs tracker poll, support for the euro fell by nine percentage points to only 21%, after the statement by Mr Blair and the chancellor, Gordon Brown.

The five-point boost in Tory fortunes in the ICM`s monthly voting intentions will fuel the feeling that the Conservatives are on a roll. But the ICM six monthly rolling averages for January to June this year suggest that it is instead the Liberal Democrats who are squeezing Labour.

The 34% share of the vote recorded this month by the Tories is only one point more than their performance at the last general election.

The six monthly figures give Labour an average 40% share of the vote this year - its worst showing since 1993. The Conservatives are on 31% - unchanged from last year - and the Lib Dems on 22%, their best showing since 1993.

There are many more Tory/Liberal Democrat marginal seats than Lib Dem/Labour ones, so it is not necessarily good news for the Tories.

The public`s verdict on the performance of the party leaders underlines this point. Mr Blair`s overall popularity has fallen again in the past month from a net rating of minus eight points in May to minus 13 points now. Even more are unhappy with the job he is doing now than those that are happy.

The voters also mark down his domestic record - at minus 27 - compared with his performance on international and European issues, where he has a rating of minus 15.

Mr Blair does, however, retain a strong loyal following among Labour voters, who still give him a plus 51 rating.

The same cannot be said of Iain Duncan Smith. Despite the Tories` five point bounce in the ICM poll this month, his personal rating has continued to deteriorate and, at minus 20, is worse than Mr Blair`s. He does not even have the confidence of Tory voters, who give him a minus two rating.

Charles Kennedy remains the only leader with a positive approval rating of plus 18.

The poll shows that 48% of people believe the Iraq war was justified, compared with 40% who say it should not have happened. Among Labour voters, 61% believe the war was justified.

The voters are far less exercised about Mr Blair`s decision to replace the office of the lord chancellor with a department of constitutional affairs. A total of 65% of voters said they had no opinion on the matter.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,001 adults by telephone between June 20 and 22. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results weighted to the profile of all adults.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Tories back in business
Ed Vaizey
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

All the signs are that a turning point has been reached in the Conservatives` electoral fortunes - and Labour is doing all it can to help us. After a botched reshuffle, confusion over huge constitutional changes at home and in Europe, and internal division on tuition fees and foundation hospitals, comes Haingate.

The importance of the debate on income tax should not be underestimated. It is the return of old Labour, filling the vacuum created by the absence of any ideological anchor for New Labour. Ministers and ex-ministers such as Charles Clarke, Peter Mandelson and Stephen Byers now find themselves in the old Labour camp, again looking seriously at tax rises. It is the return of the same Kinnock-Smith agenda that failed to convince voters in the 1980s and 1990s.

This is the real agenda of the left. It is so bereft of ideas about how to solve the country`s ongoing problems with schools and hospitals, and incapable of hard thinking or creative solutions, that it returns to tax and spend.

It is all the more astonishing, considering that Gordon Brown`s last throw of the socialist dice - a massive increase in public expenditure unaccompanied by meaningful reform - has not worked. A 50% increase in investment has been swallowed up in bureaucracy. Output in the health service has barely risen, unlike local and national taxation levels which are at their highest for a generation. In April central government "lost" £500m that was destined for schools. How can increased spending on education lead to the sacking of teachers and the closing of schools unless something is fundamentally wrong with the system?

No amount of blustering by the prime minister in his recent Fabian lecture can could hide the fact that the right is winning the intellectual war. It is the hegemony of Conservative ideas in every area of policy that now matters. The Tory ideas and reforms of the 1980s and 1990s are now back in favour and seen for what they are: the right solution to a multitude of woes. The third way has had its day.

It is sad for the government that some of its brightest ministers had seen the way forward. Alan Milburn talked of the NHS as a regulator, with diverse provision and funding, abiding by the principle of free delivery at the point of need, but not embedded in an antiquated system. He was forced to look back in order to move forward, and he has now gone.

Labour has been in power long enough to have created its own internal opposition. This coalition of ex-ministers - the Dobsons, Cooks and Shorts - does not create a viable alternative. But the phenomenon has started the process whereby the govern- ment will become increasingly divided and fractious.

This, then, is the Conservative opportunity. Spirited centre-right thinktanks such as Policy Exchange, with its emphasis on accountability for local services, and Reform, providing hard-headed analysis of the need for radical change in the public sector, are now making the ideological weather. The Conservatives can present the case for change, based on a unity of purpose, if not personalities. While some in Labour have seen the future, this government will always face the need for compromise, be it "earned autonomy" for hospitals or "lines in the sand" on private involvement in the public services. The battle is now for change in the public services that removes the artificial barriers between providers and consumers.

That is a battle which the Conservatives are equipped to fight. They outsmarted the government on tuition fees, with a credible policy based on stopping the increased expansion of the state. They have put forward a radical policy on health reform, which for the first time puts the patient, and the right for the patient to choose, at the centre. If the reform is enacted, we will create a service that adapts to the needs of the patient.

There is now quiet on the Tory leadership front, with no sign of the eruptions that caused such concern last year. And Conservatives are beginning to realise that, person for person, their shadow cabinet stacks up nicely against the rather routine ministers that fill the chairs every Thursday at No 10.

A clear choice is emerging for the electorate. Will it want a government that is committed to raising taxes to solve its problems? One that is concerned only in how it can exert ever more control from the centre? Or will it consider the alternative: a party which does not think that tax and spend is the answer, but is instead committed to looking at radical ideas to change decades-old structures that are no longer suitable for the 21st century.

· Ed Vaizey is the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate for Wantage.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wrong about trade
Our aim should not be to abolish the World Trade Organisation, but to transform it

George Monbiot
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

A few years ago I would have raised at least two cheers. The US government, to judge by the aggressive noises now being made by its trade negotiators, seems determined to wreck one of the most intrusive and destructive of the instruments of global governance: the World Trade Organisation. A few years ago, I would have been wrong.

The only thing worse than a world with the wrong international trade rules is a world with no trade rules at all. George Bush seems to be preparing to destroy the WTO at the next world trade talks in September not because its rules are unjust, but because they are not unjust enough. He is seeking to negotiate individually with weaker countries so that he can force even harsher terms of trade upon them. He wants to replace a multilateral trading system with an imperial one. And this puts the global justice movement in a difficult position.

Our problem arises from the fact that, being a diverse movement, we have hesitated to describe precisely what we want. We have called for fair trade, but have failed, as a body, to specify how free that trade should be, and how it should be regulated. As a result, in the rich world at least, we have permitted the few who do possess a clearly formulated policy to speak on our behalf. Those people are the adherents of a doctrine called "localisation". I once supported it myself. I now accept that I was wrong.

Localisation insists that everything which can be produced locally should be produced locally. All nations should protect their economies by means of trade taxes and legal barriers. The purpose of the policy is to grant nations both economic and political autonomy, to protect cultural distinctiveness and to prevent the damage done to the environment by long-distance transport. Yet, when you examine the implications, you soon discover that it is as coercive, destructive and unjust as any of the schemes George Bush is cooking up.

My conversion came on the day I heard a speaker demand a cessation of most forms of international trade and then, in answering a question from the audience, condemn the economic sanctions on Iraq. If we can accept that preventing trade with Iraq or, for that matter, imposing a trade embargo on Cuba, impoverishes and in many cases threatens the lives of the people of those nations, we must also accept that a global cessation of most kinds of trade would have the same effect, but on a greater scale.

Trade, at present, is an improbable means of distributing wealth between nations. It is characterised by coercive relationships between corporations and workers, rich nations and poor. But it is the only possible means. The money the poor world needs has to come from somewhere, and if our movement rejects trade as the answer it is surely duty-bound to find another.

The localisers don`t rule out all international transactions. As Colin Hines, who wrote their manifesto and helped to draft the Green party`s policy, accepts, "Some long-distance trade will still occur for those sectors providing goods and services to other regions of the world that can`t provide such items from within their own borders, eg certain minerals or cash crops". To earn foreign exchange from the rich world, in other words, the poor world must export raw materials. This, of course, is precisely the position from which the poor nations are seeking to escape.

Raw materials will always be worth less than manufactured products. Their production also tends to reward only those who own the primary resource. As the workers are unskilled, wages remain low. Every worker is replaceable by any other, so they have no power in the marketplace. The poor world, under this system, remains trapped in both the extractive economy and - as a result - in its subordinate relationship to the rich world.

Interestingly, Hines`s prescription also damages precisely those interests he seeks to protect. To earn sufficient foreign exchange to import the goods they cannot produce themselves, the poor nations would need to export more, not less, of their natural wealth, thus increasing their contribution to climate change, soil erosion and the loss of biodiversity. His policy also wipes out small farmers, who would be displaced from their land by mechanised cash-cropping.

A still greater contradiction is this: that economic localisation relies entirely upon enhanced political globalisation. Colin Hines`s model invents a whole new series of global bodies to impose localisation on nation states, whether they like it or not. States would be forbidden, for example, to "pass laws that diminish local control of industry and services". Hines, in other words, prohibits precisely the kind of political autonomy he claims to promote.

But above all, this doctrine is entirely unnecessary. There is a far better means of protecting the environment while permitting the poor nations to develop, and this is to demand global trade rules which introduce two kinds of fairness.

The first is to permit poor nations, if they so wish, to follow the routes to development taken by the rich. The founding myth of the dominant nations is that they built their wealth through free trade. In truth, almost every nation which acquired its wealth independently did so (apart from by plunder and piracy) either by protecting its new industries from competition until they were big enough to fend for themselves, or by stealing other countries` intellectual property. They discovered the virtues of free trade and global patents regimes only once they had acquired their economic dominance. Having done so, they now insist on world trade rules that explicitly forbid other nations from following their own route to development. Fair trade rules would force the rich nations to open their borders, but not, until they have achieved a certain level of economic development, the poor ones.

The second kind of fairness would involve extending the rules currently applied by the voluntary fair trade movement to all the companies trading between nations. To acquire a licence to trade internationally, a corporation would have to demonstrate that its contractors were not employing slaves, using banned pesticides or exposing their workers to asbestos. It would also have to pay the full environmental cost of the fossil fuel it used. This would ensure that low-value, high-volume goods, such as fruit and vegetables, would no longer be flown around the world. But it would also ensure that the poor nations which currently export raw materials would instantly become the most favoured locations for manufacturing: it takes a lot less fuel to ship a consignment of aluminium saucepans than it does to transport the bauxite from which they were made.

So let us campaign not to scrap the World Trade Organisation, but to transform it into a Fair Trade Organisation, whose purpose is to restrain the rich while emancipating the poor. And let us ensure that when George Bush tries to sabotage themultilateral system in September, we know precisely which side we are on.

· George Monbiot`s book The Age of Consent: a Manifesto for a New World Order is published by Flamingo. www.monbiot.com


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

US soldiers risk own goal in football challenge to Iraq
Ewen MacAskill and Michael Howard in Baghdad
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

In the present state of lawlessness in Baghdad, Iraqi fans are as capable of firing rocket-propelled grenades during a football match as they are of lobbing a few toilet rolls. But the US army insisted that tonight`s game is going ahead anyway.

A US team, made up of soldiers from the 1st Armoured Division, is scheduled to take on the Iraq national side at the Olympic Stadium in Baghdad. With the war barely over and many Baghdad residents becoming angrier by the day about US occupation, it is a risky undertaking.

The British army has a tradition of trying to win over local populations through football - it took on Afghans in Kabul and Royal Marines played a Basra side in April - but it is a departure for the normally soccer-shy Americans.

Having failed catastrophically to win Iraqi hearts and minds since the war ended, the US is turning in desperation to football, an Iraqi national obsession.

The US army described the match as a "symbolic gesture" to celebrate "Iraqi athleticism returning to normality". But it also offers the Iraqis an opportunity to vent their feelings in a public arena.

US Sergeant Myra O`Neill, based at the US headquarters near the Rashid Hotel, in Baghdad, played down physical dangers. "No worries about security," she said. "There will be lots of security."

She could not say whether the stadium will be open to the public, or restricted to some residents or an invited audience of youths. But there is a risk of humiliation for the US players. The soldiers should be no match for Iraqi professionals, especially playing in high temperatures: it was 45C in Baghdad yesterday.

The match is being held in conjunction with another initiative organised by the US Soccer Foundation, which is sending 60,000 balls "to help more Americans show their compassion for Iraqi youth".

Few Baghdad residents appeared to be even aware of tonight`s match. "Is that all the Americans can offer us?" asked Seleem Mehdi Mohammed, 45, a cafe owner. "We don`t want football, we want security and stability, electricity and water."

His views were echoed by Mohammed Hassan Allawi, 26, a civil servant who has not been paid since before the war. He "wanted to know about my future and not the result of soccer games".

Mohammed Subhi, 46, was an Iraq player in the 80s, though he says he escaped the torture sometimes inflicted on his fellow players by Saddam`s son, Uday Hussein. "This game is good for relations between Iraqis and Americans," he said. "We have so many problems that I believe it is a good time to show we can just be friends."


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Justice for Saddam
Assassination is wrong, even for tyrants

Leader
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein has now been killed three times by US forces in Iraq - unless they missed him and he is still alive. That seems to be the situation after the latest "strike" last week on a convoy of vehicles somewhere near the Syrian border. As always, it is a confused story. The Pentagon will not say whether the attack was the result of intelligence or was just launched on a hunch. It is not confirmed whether Syrian border guards were killed or wounded during the action. The convoy may or may not have included a party of smugglers. What is clear is that the US feels entitled to launch a Hellfire missile whenever it sees some unidentified vehicles heading for Syria. The message is that Ba`athists, smugglers or ordinary travellers should all beware.

What seems lost in Washington`s post-strike inquiry is any scruple as to whether the US is justified in behaving this way. It is not just that, once more, innocent Iraqis may lose their lives because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time, or that the desert is not a free-fire zone. The aim of the war, Mr Bush reiterated time and again in the run-up, was to "bring to justice" the Iraqi leader and his associates. Many Iraqi civilians in recent weeks have also raised their own demand that their former rulers should be brought to account. Of course there may be reasons why the US would find it inexpedient to put Saddam on trial - for a start he might say something about the support he enjoyed from Washington in the Iraq-Iran war. But to obliterate him with an anti-tank weapon is a policy of vengeance, not of justice.

Accepting for the sake of argument Washington`s claim that the war was not illegal, the earlier "strikes" on Saddam of March 19 and April 7 could perhaps be regarded as part of the military action. That is not a reasonable claim today when the US, as an "occupying force" under the Hague and Geneva conventions, must accept much stricter constraints. (Washington rejects the definition: we prefer the judgment of Kofi Annan.)

Military resistance to the US is continuing, but this does not entitle the Pentagon - which denies that the Iraqi opposition is under central control - to kill indiscriminately. Washington`s shift to the offensive against Saddam`s remnants has an air of desperation, as public opinion begins to chafe at mounting casualties. Yet whether it is Saddam or smugglers, the US does not have the right to blast them from the air.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

How two students built an A-bomb
It`s one of the burning questions of the moment: how easy would it be for a country with no nuclear expertise to build an A-bomb? Forty years ago in a top-secret project, the US military set about finding out. Oliver Burkeman talks to the men who solved the nuclear puzzle in just 30 months

Oliver Burkeman
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

Dave Dobson`s past is not a secret. Not technically, anyway - not since the relevant US government intelligence documents were declassified and placed in the vaults of the National Security Archive, in Washington DC. But Dobson, now 65, is a modest man, and once he had discovered his vocation - teaching physics at Beloit College, in Wisconsin - he felt no need to drop dark hints about his earlier life. You could have taken any number of classes at Beloit with Professor Dobson, until his recent retirement, without having any reason to know that in his mid-20s, working entirely as an amateur and equipped with little more than a notebook and a library card, he designed a nuclear bomb.

Today his experiences in 1964 - the year he was enlisted into a covert Pentagon operation known as the Nth Country Project - suddenly seem as terrifyingly relevant as ever. The question the project was designed to answer was a simple one: could a couple of non-experts, with brains but no access to classified research, crack the "nuclear secret"? In the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, panic had seeped into the arms debate. Only Britain, America, France and the Soviet Union had the bomb; the US military desperately hoped that if the instructions for building it could be kept secret, proliferation - to a fifth country, a sixth country, an "Nth country", hence the project`s name - could be averted. Today, the fear is back: with al-Qaida resurgent, North Korea out of control, and nuclear rumours emanating from any number of "rogue states", we cling, at least, to the belief that not just anyone could figure out how to make an atom bomb. The trouble is that, 40 years ago, anyone did.

The quest to discover whether an amateur was up to the task presented the US Army with the profoundly bizarre challenge of trying to find people with exactly the right lack of qualifications, recalls Bob Selden, who eventually became the other half of the two-man project. (Another early participant, David Pipkorn, soon left.) Both men had physics PhDs - the hypothetical Nth country would have access to those, it was assumed - but they had no nuclear expertise, let alone access to secret research.

"It`s a very strange story," says Selden, then a lowly 28-year-old soldier drafted into the army and wondering how to put his talents to use, when he received a message that Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb and the grumpy commanding figure in the US atomic programme, wanted to see him. "I went to DC and we spent an evening together. But he began to question me in great detail about the physics of making a nuclear weapon, and I didn`t know anything. As the evening wore on, I knew less and less. I went away very, very discouraged. Two days later a call comes through: they want you to come to Livermore."

Livermore was the Livermore Radiation Laboratory, a fabled army facility in California, and the place where Dave Dobson, in a similarly surreal fashion, was initiated into the project. The institution`s head offered him a job. The work would be "interesting", he promised, but he couldn`t say more until Dobson had the required security clearance. And he couldn`t get the clearance unless he accepted the job. He only learned afterwards what he was expected to do. "My first thought," he says today, with characteristic understatement, "was, `Oh, my. That sounds like a bit of a challenge.`"

They would be working in a murky limbo between the world of military secrets and the public domain. They would have an office at Livermore, but no access to its warrens of restricted offices and corridors; they would be banned from consulting classified research but, on the other hand, anything they produced - diagrams in sketchbooks, notes on the backs of envelopes - would be automatically top secret. And since the bomb that they were designing wouldn`t, of course, actually be built and detonated, they would have to follow an arcane, precisely choreographed ritual for having their work tested as they went along. They were to explain at length, on paper, what part of their developing design they wanted to test, and they would pass it, through an assigned lab worker, into Livermore`s restricted world. Days later, the results would come back - though whether as the result of real tests or hypothetical calculations, they would never know.

"The goal of the participants should be to design an explosive with a militarily significant yield," read the "operating rules", unearthed by the nuclear historian Dan Stober in a recent study of the project published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Sciences. "A working context for the experiment might be that the participants have been asked to design a nuclear explosive which, if built in small numbers, would give a small nation a significant effect on their foreign relations."

Dobson`s knowledge of nuclear bombs was rudimentary, to say the least. "I just had the idea that [to make a bomb] you had to quickly put a bunch of fissile material together somehow," he recalls. The two men were assigned to one of Livermore`s less desirable office spaces, in a converted army barracks near the facility`s perimeter. Bob Selden found a book on the Manhattan Project that culminated in America`s development of the bomb. "It gave us a road map," Dobson says. "But we knew there would be important ideas they`d deliberately left out because they were secret. This was one of the things that produced a little bit of paranoia in us. Were we being led down the garden path?"

They faced one key decision, Dobson says: whether to design a gun-style bomb, like the one dropped on Hiroshima, that used a sawn-off howitzer to crash two pieces of fissile material together, or a more complex implosion bomb, like that dropped on Nagasaki. By now they were beginning to enjoy the challenge, so they went for the harder, more impressive option. "The gun device needed a large amount of material, and didn`t make a very big bang," Dobson says. "The other one was more bang, less material."

Dobson and Selden had decided to assume that their fictional Nth Country had already obtained the requisite plutonium - a huge assump tion, since it would be, almost certainly, the hardest part - but there was plenty more to consider. "Obtaining the fissile material is really the major problem - that drives the whole project," says Selden. "But the process of designing the weapon - I`m always careful to point out that many people overstate how easy it is. You really have to do it right, and there are thousands of ways to do it wrong. You can`t just guess."

As Stober`s study noted, the two amateurs were ironically aided by information published as part of President Dwight Eisenhower`s "Atoms for Peace" program, which spread word of the benefits of non-military nuclear power around the world. And Atoms for Peace was only the most prominent example of a fad for everything nuclear that propelled a huge amount of technical detail into the public domain.

Eventually, towards the end of 1966, two and a half years after they began, they were finished. "We produced a short document that described precisely, in engineering terms, what we proposed to build and what materials were involved," says Selden. "The whole works, in great detail, so that this thing could have been made by Joe`s Machine Shop downtown."

Agonisingly, though, at the moment they believed they had triumphed, Dobson and Selden were kept in the dark about whether they had succeeded. Instead, for two weeks, the army put them on the lecture circuit, touring them around the upper echelons of Washington, presenting them for cross-questioning at defence and scientific agencies. Their questioners, people with the highest levels of security clearance, were instructed not to ask questions that would reveal secret information. They fell into two camps, Selden says: "One had been holding on to the hope that designing a bomb would be very difficult. The other argued that it was essentially trivial - that a high-school science student could do it in their garage." If the two physics postdocs had pulled it off, their result, it seemed, would fall somewhere between the two - "a straightforward technical problem, but one that involves some rather sophisticated physics".

Finally, after a valedictory presentation at Livermore attended by a grumpy General Edward Teller, they were pulled aside by a senior researcher, Jim Frank. "Jim said, `I bet you guys want to know how it turned out,`" Dobson recalls. "We said yes. And he told us that if it had been constructed, it would have made a pretty impressive bang." How impressive, they wanted to know. "On the same order of magnitude as Hiroshima," Frank replied.

"It`s kind of a depressing thing to know, that it could be that easy," Dobson says. "On the other hand, it`s far better to know the truth." And the truth today, he is certain, is that terrorists - with a bit of luck and, crucially, access to the right materials - could easily build a nuclear bomb. "Back in the 50s, there were two schools of thought - that the ideas could be kept secret, and that the material could be locked up. Now? Well, hopefully the materials can still be locked up, but we all have our doubts about that." Obtaining sufficiently enriched fissile material could be difficult but, when it comes to creating the bomb, "It turns out it`s not overwhelmingly difficult. There are some subtleties that are not trivial ... but an awful lot has been published. If you were a grad student today, and you reviewed the literature, a lot of pieces would fall into place."

It was, relatively speaking, easy - so easy that both Selden and Dobson seem to have emerged from the Nth Country Experiment deeply troubled by their own capacities. Selden stayed in the military, on a career that sent him from Livermore to the army`s other major research base, at Los Alamos, and is still a member of the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board; he has been closely involved in planning how the US might respond to a nuclear terrorist incident. Dobson, meanwhile, felt so uncomfortable that he left the sector entirely. "It was one thing to work on a project which was hopefully going to illuminate the decision makers so they could see that weapons were easily designed," he says. "It was a rather different thing to go in and say, `OK, for example, let`s make a thermonuclear device that`s only four inches in diameter.` That`s an acceleration of the arms race, and I didn`t really want to do that."

Einstein was famously said to have commented that if he had only known that his theories would lead to the development of the atom bomb, he would have been a locksmith. Dave Dobson, having designed one, got a job as a teacher.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

June 24, 2003
Hitting the Halfway Point for Bush`s 2004 Campaign
By ELISABETH BUMILLER with DAVID FIRESTONE


President Bush collected $4 million at a fund-raiser in midtown Manhattan last night, and Vice President Dick Cheney raised more than $1.6 million at separate events in Virginia and Massachusetts. The events brought the White House halfway to its intimidate-the-Democrats goal of raising $20 million in two weeks for Mr. Bush`s 2004 re-election campaign.

The president`s fund-raiser, a $2,000-per-person cocktail party of coconut fried shrimp and glutinous pasta at the Sheraton New York Hotel, was his largest take for a single evening, although it fell short of earlier expectations that it would bring in $5 million. Organizers said they were counting only checks in hand, and not promised contributions. Mr. Bush`s previous record for individual contributions in a single day was a nearly $3 million fund-raiser in New York in October 1999.

"I`m getting loosened up, I`m getting ready, but I`m going to need your help," Mr. Bush told the crowd of more than 1,000 people, who greeted him with chants of "four more years."

The Sheraton fund-raiser, in which the president cheerily collected millions of dollars in New York, where Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans, was his first show of fund-raising prowess for 2004 in the city where the Republicans will hold their next presidential convention. New York`s Republican hierarchy — Gov. George E. Pataki, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani — turned out to heap praise on him.

"He will be one of our great presidents, because of the way he led this country through the worst attack in the history of the United States," said Mr. Giuliani, who with his wife, Judith, greeted Mr. Bush at the steps of Marine One, the presidential helicopter, after it landed on the edge of the East River in Lower Manhattan.

"Rudy and I and his new bride traveled from the helicopter pad together; it`s clear, like me, he married above himself," Mr. Bush said, reprising a favorite line from his stump speeches.

The fund-raiser`s organizing committee, which consisted of more than a dozen general chairmen who pledged to collect $200,000 each, drew from Wall Street, the city`s real estate industry and Mr. Pataki`s extensive fund-raising network. The chairmen included Henry M. Paulson Jr., the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, and John J. Mack, the chief executive of Credit Suisse First Boston.

Some organizers, like the event`s general chairman, Richard S. Fuld Jr., the chairman of Lehman Brothers, has been a generous fund-raiser in the past for Democrats, including Senators Joseph I. Lieberman and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut.

Despite the fund-raiser`s high admission price, it was not an elegant event. Large crowds surged around the buffet tables in the hotel`s Imperial Ballroom, which held tepid mini quiches, while larger crowds pressed toward the front of the room under bright white lights that glared down from the ceiling. There were few prominent New Yorkers in the crowd, although former Representative Rick Lazio of Long Island, the Republican who lost to Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2000 Senate race, was near the door.

The president`s half-hour speech highlighted the administration`s tax cuts, its promise to overhaul Medicare and national security. "Terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got," Mr. Bush said. "We have captured or killed many key leaders of Al Qaeda and the rest of them know we`re hot on their trail."

Earlier in the day, in Richmond, Va., Mr. Cheney emerged from the backstage shadows of the White House to give his first formal re-election speech, a hurried litany of the administration`s accomplishments delivered to about 350 supporters who paid a minimum of $1,000 each for a lunch of halibut and spaghetti squash. Campaign officials said the event raised about $452,000.

But even though the opulent ballroom of the Jefferson Hotel where the vice president spoke was filled with his fans, many of whom had sold enough tickets to pose with him for a photograph, Mr. Cheney`s famously uninflected speaking style failed to rouse his audience. Seven or eight obvious applause lines in his remarks flew right by the crowd with no reaction, with the exception of a reminder of the administration`s tax cuts.

Finally, a few frustrated members of Mr. Cheney`s advance team began leading the applause as he recited the administration`s accomplishments in the war on terror, the creation of the Homeland Security Department and winning trade promotion authority from Congress.

Mr. Cheney, well aware that he would never win an oratorical contest, made certain to joke about his lack of incandescence as he began his brief remarks.

"It`s an impressive turnout for the No. 2 man on the ticket," he said, looking around the jammed ballroom, "but like I always say, nothing draws a crowd like raw charisma."

He approached something near an emotional chord only when describing his boss.

"Along the way I`ve learned a few things about the presidency, and the kind of person it takes to do that job well," he said. "It takes the finest qualities of character, conviction, personal integrity, good judgment, compassion and courage in times of testing. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly the kind of man we have in the White House today."

That line needed no assistance to evoke a reaction.

Later in the day, Mr. Cheney raised $1.2 million at a fund-raiser in Hopkinton, Mass. Altogether, the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign hopes to raise at least $170 million.







Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Dazu siehe auch Guardian-Kommentar von heute #3492

June 24, 2003
Syrians Wounded in Attack by U.S. on Convoy in Iraq
By DOUGLAS JEHL


WASHINGTON, June 23 — During an American attack Wednesday on a convoy suspected of carrying fugitive Iraqi officials near the Syrian border, United States Special Operations forces engaged in a firefight with several Syrian guards, wounding five of them, Defense Department officials said today.

At least one of the Iraqi vehicles destroyed in the attack was hit by American attack helicopters on the Syrian side of the border, the officials said. They said three of the five Syrian border guards, who exchanged gunfire with American ground forces, remained in American custody for medical treatment.

The American officials refused to say whether there were any fugitive Iraqi leaders in the convoy. They said that as many as 20 Iraqis were detained in the combined air-ground assault, in far western Iraq near the village of Qaim, but they would not provide any details about their identities. A senior Defense Department official said most had been released after it was determined that they did not pose a threat.

The fact that the Pentagon would authorize an attack along the Syrian border and use ground troops underscored the risky nature of the clandestine air-ground attack. It was carried out by Task Force 20, a secret military team, as well as American helicopters and AC-130 gunships with support from Predator drone aircraft, the officials said.

Several senior American officials said they now had no reason to believe that Saddam Hussein or his sons were among the Iraqis killed in the strike. The officials said the possibility that Mr. Hussein or his sons, Uday and Qusay, were traveling in the convoy had been understood to be slim from the outset. With no conclusive evidence found in the five days since the attack, the officials said, they had all but ruled out the possibility that any of the three had been killed.

United States intelligence agencies now also believe that Mr. Hussein and at least one of his sons probably escaped at least two earlier American attacks, on March 19 and April 7.

The White House and the Pentagon provided public confirmation for the first time today of the bare outlines of the raid on Wednesday. But many details remained murky, and a State Department official said the United States had not yet discussed the matter with the Syrian government because so much remained unclear, including whether the Syrian guards had been trying to help or hinder the American effort to halt the convoy.

A Bush administration official acknowledged that the wounded Syrians had been recovered by American ground forces on the Syrian side of the border. But the official said it was unclear whether American troops or aircraft had crossed into Syria during the combat operations itself.

"We`re still trying to ascertain the facts of the incident," a State Department official said.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Gary Keck, said today that he did not have information about whether the attack occurred on the Iraqi or Syrian side of the border.

"There were some Syrian nationals involved in the incident," he said. "We`ll work with the Syrian government to determine the disposition of those individuals."

Defense Department officials said the possibility remained that the Iraqis killed in the attack would be tested to determine whether their DNA matched that of Mr. Hussein or his sons.

The officials said the attack had been prompted by solid intelligence indicating that the convoy, traveling in the vicinity of Qaim, was carrying senior members of the Iraqi leadership. They said that information was of particular interest because of information provided by captured Iraqi leaders, who said that Mr. Hussein and his sons had survived the American-led war and that they might be traveling near the Iraqi-Syrian border, administration officials said.

While there was never any clear indication that Mr. Hussein or his sons might be traveling in the convoy, administration officials said, the overlapping of intelligence made some officials hopeful. It also explains why the target was elevated to a high priority level that, to military commanders, justified the unusually heavy strike and caused them to alert President Bush in advance.

"I don`t think there was a high conviction level going in that it was him," a United States government official said, "but there was a lot of excitement."

They said American Special Forces troops in the Iraqi-Syrian border region had carried out other, smaller raids in recent days as part of the search for Mr. Hussein and his sons.

"We`re devoting a lot of manpower and resources to this effort," a senior Defense Department official said.

The detained Iraqi leaders include Abid Hamid Mahmoud al-Tikriti, the top lieutenant to Mr. Hussein, who was arrested by American forces in Iraq last week. Mr. Mahmoud has told American interrogators that he fled to Syria after the war with Mr. Hussein`s sons but that all were later expelled by the Syrian authorities, Defense Department officials said. The Syrian government has insisted that it has done nothing to harbor Iraqi fugitives, but the issue remains a source of strain between the Syrian and American governments.

In April, Bush administration officials threatened penalties against Syria because of allegations that it was harboring fleeing members of Mr. Hussein`s deposed government and that it had provided Iraq with military equipment. That pressure led to speculation that Syria might be the next American military target after Iraq, but tensions have eased since a visit on May 3 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

The Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, has said his government closed its border with Iraq. He cited strong tribal connections between the countries, however, and noted the vast desert areas on either side of the 300-mile border.

Senior United States officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Bush administration regarded the possibility that Syria might have provided assistance to Iraqi fugitives as an issue of grave concern.

The administration would provide only general details about the operation. "I can confirm for you there was a military operation against a leadership target or targets, and this should be seen in keeping with the ongoing military effort in Iraq to bring justice to people who we believe are associated with the regime or are leaders of the regime," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said today.

Defense Department officials said today that they did not know how many vehicles had been included in the convoy or how many Iraqis had been killed in the attack. The officials said an American site exploitation team was trying to collect the remains of the dead. They said they did not know the number of people killed, and would not say how many vehicles were in the convoy.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 24, 2003
U.S.-British Project: To Build a Postwar Iraqi Armed Force of 40,000 Soldiers in 3 Years
By PATRICK E. TYLER


BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 23 — The American and British occupation authority said today that within three years it would create a new Iraqi army of 40,000 soldiers, one-tenth the size of Saddam Hussein`s armed forces at their peak.

A senior American official here, Walter Slocombe, said an initial force of 12,000 would be formed within a year. It would operate without an air force, he said, and would be responsible for guarding the country`s borders and key installations.

The occupation powers also agreed today to pay, for an indefinite period, the salaries of up to 250,000 idled Iraqi soldiers. This follows weeks of angry demonstrations that culminated in the shooting death of two Iraqi officers during a rally on Wednesday.

The announcement appeared timed to avert another confrontation and to respond to the concerns of a number of Iraqi political figures as well as American military officers. They have urged L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American administrator here, to address the officers` demands so as not to drive them into resistance against the occupation powers.

The projected size of Iraq`s first postwar military seems to reflect the reality that a large contingent of American and British troops will be positioned in Iraq for some time, as the guarantor of security.

Mr. Slocombe said the new military would theoretically be able to defend Iraq from invasion. Mr. Hussein had sized his military to match his ambition to defend the Arab world from Iran`s revolution under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and to dominate the Persian Gulf region. At the height of his power, he boasted an army of more than 20 divisions and 400,000 soldiers, 2,600 tanks and an air force of more than 300 fighters and bombers.

"This country was grotesquely overmilitarized," Mr. Slocombe said, adding, "Most people in the old army will not be able to continue their military careers."

But for a while, at least, they will still be paid, and at more than their former wages. As many as 250,000 idled Iraqi servicemen will be eligible for generous monthly stipends of $50 to $150. In return, they will be required to sign statements renouncing the Baath Party.

The fact that Mr. Bremer felt compelled to reverse his earlier stance and offer the payments underscores how seriously the occupying powers are taking the security risk posed by the presence of hundreds of thousands of disgruntled and unpaid military men.

This weekend, American military commanders rushed riot-control gear to their troops guarding the Republican Palace, where Mr. Bremer and a large contingent of American and British staff members are quartered. The gates to the palace, now more heavily defended than during Mr. Hussein`s time, have become the primary place for Iraqis to vent their grievances.

The standoff with the army officers has coincided with the rise of small-scale military attacks against American forces in central Iraq. While United States officials have not accused former officers of organizing the attacks, the appearance of an armed resistance raised concerns that officers might resort to violence if their demands were not met.

Moreover, Iraqis who have met with Mr. Bremer in the last week say he exudes a greater sense of urgency to begin creating new Iraqi institutions. They say he is eager to instill in a restive population a sense that occupation will eventually give way to a new Iraqi state governed by Iraqis.

Next month, Mr. Bremer is expected to announce the formation of the first postwar political authority in Iraq, the "political council," which will serve as an advisory body. He has also called for a constitutional convention to appoint a commission to write the founding document for a new state. Iraqi political figures, however, have expressed deep reservations about Mr. Bremer`s insistence on putting off elections, and his opposition to turning over sovereignty to a provisional assembly or government.

Mr. Slocombe, who was an under secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and is now supervising the dissolution of Mr. Hussein`s armed forces, said applications for a new Iraqi army would be accepted starting next week, with a goal of fielding the first "light infantry" division of 12,000 soldiers in a year.

Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who until last week was the commandant of the United States Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., will supervise the training program, which will actually be conducted by defense contractors, Mr. Slocombe said.

Mr. Slocombe declined to comment on how the Kurdish militia forces, now comprising as many as 70,000 pesh merga fighters, would be treated as the new army is created. He said the Kurdish militias were a "separate" question, but did not elaborate.

Last month, the top American military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, exempted the Kurdish militias from his order that all Iraqis should turn in their heavy weapons. The two main Kurdish factions, the Kurdistan Democratic Party under Massoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan under Jalal Talabani, command sizable paramilitary forces armed with tanks, artillery and heavy machine guns.

General McKiernan said the Kurdish forces would be exempted for now from any disarmament order because they were cooperating closely with American and British forces. But Kurdish officials have said that their expectation is that their forces will eventually be integrated into a new Iraqi army. The schedule for such integration appears still to be an open question.

Mr. Slocombe said that the first payments to former Iraqi soldiers that they would be made on July 14 and would approximate those being made to civil servants. Army conscripts will get a one-time severance payment.

Before the war in March and April, thousands of Iraqi officers took seriously the millions of leaflets that allied aircraft dropped on Iraq. The fliers advised them not to fight for Mr. Hussein and send their troops home.

"I was with the 11th Infantry Division at Nasiriya, and we did what Bush told us to do," said Lt. Hassan Issa, 23. "We told all the soldiers to go home, and we could have been executed if we had been found out."

Now, married and with his first child — after his wife`s difficult Caesarean section — Lieutenant Issa said last month that he had only the equivalent of $50 to his name.

"We feel betrayed," he said on that hot afternoon in front of Mr. Bremer`s gate.

Now, if he applies to the occupation powers for a stipend and forswears the Baath Party, he will be paid. The future Iraqi government will have to decide for how long.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 24, 2003
Justices Back Law to Make Libraries Use Internet Filters
By LINDA GREENHOUSE


WASHINGTON, June 23 — The Supreme Court today upheld a federal law that requires public libraries to install pornography filters on all computers providing Internet access, as a condition of continuing to receive federal subsidies and grants.

No single opinion spoke for the court in the 6-to-3 ruling. Writing for four justices, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist said limitations on access to the Internet were, for library users, of no greater significance than limitations on access to books that librarians chose for whatever reason not to acquire. Justices Sandra Day O`Connor, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia signed the opinion.

Two other members of the majority, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, wrote separately to express constitutional concerns about the statute, the Children`s Internet Protection Act, and to suggest that it could be subject to a new First Amendment challenge if it proved unduly burdensome after it went into effect.

The law, enacted in 2001, has been blocked by a lower court ruling and has never taken effect. Both justices said there were not sufficient reasons to strike down the law on its face.

The law has been opposed by many librarians, and the American Library Association was one of the groups that brought the First Amendment challenge. Now that the statute will go into effect, librarians are highly likely to find that they have considerable discretion in administering it day to day, for adults as well as children.

The statute authorizes, but does not require, librarians to unblock Internet sites at the request of adult users. At the same time, it provides no procedures or standards for those decisions, leaving it up to individual library systems to decide whether to require users to give reasons for wanting access to a site or even whether to require them to identify themselves. Nor does the law specify what filter system to use, leaving it up to libraries to acquire filters on the open market. As a result of all these factors, there could be considerable variety in applying the law.

All nine justices agreed that restricting children`s access to pornographic material did not in itself pose a constitutional problem. Nor was there any dispute that available filters are blunt instruments that, by the use of key words, inevitably block more material than the statute contemplates.

The question was the extent to which this "overblocking" infringes the First Amendment rights of adult library users. Sexually explicit material that comes under the general heading of pornography has First Amendment protection, although obscenity and child pornography do not.

Almost since the birth of the Internet as a mass communications tool, Congress has been trying to shield children from sexually explicit material that it makes available. The earlier efforts, aimed at the operators of Web sites, foundered because of the problem of restricting too much access by adults.

Several elements of the Children`s Internet Protection Act served to make it different and constitutionally defensible, in the majority view. One was that the law operates as a condition on receiving federal money rather than a criminal prohibition.

"Congress has wide latitude to attach conditions to the receipt of federal assistance in order to further its policy objectives," Chief Justice Rehnquist said.

Libraries receive $200 million a year under two federal programs, one that provides Internet access at a discount and the other that gives grants for setting up and linking to electronic networks. Although libraries are free to reject the money and ignore the Children`s Internet Protection Act, budgetary constraints make that quite unlikely.

Instead, Christopher Wolf, a lawyer who represented one group of challengers, predicted that the law might lead to a proliferation of the "cybercafes" that are popular in other countries but are less common here, places where people can pay modest fees for unrestricted Internet access. He said the law turned "librarians into censors."

The three dissenting justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and John Paul Stevens, disputed the premises of Chief Justice Rehnquist`s opinion.

"An abridgment of speech by means of a threatened denial of benefits can be just as pernicious as an abridgment by means of a threatened penalty," Justice Stevens said.

Justice Souter said the proper analogy to blocking the Internet was was not a failure to stock a particular book.

"It is either to buying a book and then keeping it from adults lacking an acceptable `purpose` or to buying an encyclopedia and then cutting out pages with anything thought to be unsuitable for all adults," he said.

He and Justice Ginsburg said public libraries would violate the First Amendment if they blocked the Internet on their own initiative.

In striking down the law last year, a special three-judge federal district court in Philadelphia framed the issue as one of free speech in a public forum, with libraries as surrogates for the First Amendment interests of their users.

A coalition of libraries, library users and Web sites brought the case, suing in Philadelphia, where federal judges had been receptive to a challenge to an earlier version of legislation intended to limit children`s access to online pornography.

Internet access does not turn a library into a public forum, Chief Justice Rehnquist said, describing the Internet as an alternative tool for fulfilling libraries` traditional function of helping "research, learning and recreational pursuits."

The opinion, United States v. American Library Association, No. 02-361, appeared to take a narrower view of a "public forum" than the court has used in recent cases.

The issue is significant as a matter of First Amendment doctrine, because the government can curtail speech in a public forum only for compelling reasons.

When the case was argued in March, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson told the court that librarians would quickly unblock filters without requiring explanations or otherwise violating users` privacy. Even if that were not the case, Chief Justice Rehnquist said today, "the Constitution does not guarantee the right to acquire information at a public library without any risk of embarrassment."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

June 24, 2003
Cover Your Hair
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


BASRA, Iraq

Still no luck in my quest to help the administration find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But meanwhile, I`m getting the impression that America fought Saddam, and the Islamic fundamentalists won.

For a glimpse of the Islamic state that Iraq may be evolving into, consider the street execution of an infidel named Sabah Ghazali.

Under Saddam Hussein, Christians like Mr. Ghazali, 41, were allowed to sell alcohol and were protected from Muslim extremists. But lately extremists have been threatening to kill anyone selling alcohol. One day last month, two men walked over to Mr. Ghazali as he was unlocking his shop door and shot him in the head — the second liquor store owner they had killed that morning.

An iron curtain of fundamentalism risks falling over Iraq, with particularly grievous implications for girls and women. President Bush hopes that Iraq will turn into a shining model of democracy, and that could still happen. But for now it`s the Shiite fundamentalists who are gaining ground.

Already, almost every liquor shop in southern Iraq appears to have been forcibly closed. Here in Basra, Islamists have asked Basra University (unsuccessfully) to separate male and female students, and shopkeepers have put up signs like: "Sister, cover your hair." Many more women are giving in to the pressure and wearing the hijab head covering.

"Every woman is afraid," said Sarah Alak, a 22-year-old computer engineering student at Basra University. Ms. Alak never used to wear a hijab, but after Saddam fell her father asked her to wear one on the university campus, "just to avoid trouble."

Extremists also threatened Basra`s cinemas for showing pornography (like female knees). So the city`s movie theaters closed down for two weeks and reopened only after taking down outside posters and putting up banners, like this one outside the Watani Cinema: "We do not deal with immoral movies."

"We`re now searching all customers as they enter the movie theater," said Abdel Baki Youssef, a guard at the Atlas Cinema. "Everybody is worried about an attack."

Paradoxically, a more democratic Iraq may also be a more repressive one; it may well be that a majority of Iraqis favor more curbs on professional women and on religious minorities. As Fareed Zakaria notes in his smart new book, "The Future of Freedom," unless majority rule is accompanied by legal protections, tolerance and respect for minorities, the result can be populist repression.

Women did relatively well under Saddam Hussein (when they weren`t being tortured or executed, penalties that the regime applied on an equal opportunity basis). In the science faculty at Basra University, 80 percent of the students are women. Iraq won`t follow the theocratic model of Iran, but it could end up as Iran Lite: an Islamic state, but ruled by politicians rather than ayatollahs. I get the sense that`s the system many Iraqis seek.

"Democracy means choosing what people want, not what the West wants," notes Abdul Karim al-Enzi, a leader of the Dawa Party, a Shiite fundamentalist party that is winning support in much of the country.

Mr. Enzi is the kind of figure who resonates in mud-brick Iraqi villages in a way that secular American-backed exiles like Ahmad Chalabi don`t. While Mr. Chalabi was dining in London, Mr. Enzi was risking his life on secret spy missions for the Dawa Party within Iraq, entering from his base in Iran.

Four of his brothers and one sister were executed for anti-government activities, and Mr. Enzi was himself sentenced to death in absentia in 1979. He was once arrested in Iraq on a spy mission, but officials did not realize who he was and released him a month later. I found Mr. Enzi brave, admirable and medieval.

What should we do about this?

I`m afraid there`s not much we can do to discourage fundamentalism in Iraq, although staying the course and building a legal system may help. For now, the U.S. seems to be making matters worse by raiding offices of Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, who ran an anti-Saddam organization from exile in Iran and who in the past advocated an Islamic government. Cold-shouldering Mr. Hakim is counterproductive. It bolsters his legitimacy as a nationalist and further radicalizes his followers.

We may just have to get used to the idea that we have been midwives to growing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]

June 24, 2003
Denial and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Politics is full of ironies. On the White House Web site, George W. Bush`s speech from Oct. 7, 2002 — in which he made the case for war with Iraq — bears the headline "Denial and Deception." Indeed.

There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious.

About the deception: Leaks from professional intelligence analysts, who are furious over the way their work was abused, have given us a far more complete picture of how America went to war. Thanks to reporting by my colleague Nicholas Kristof, other reports in The New York Times and The Washington Post, and a magisterial article by John Judis and Spencer Ackerman in The New Republic, we now know that top officials, including Mr. Bush, sought to convey an impression about the Iraqi threat that was not supported by actual intelligence reports.

In particular, there was never any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda; yet administration officials repeatedly suggested the existence of a link. Supposed evidence of an active Iraqi nuclear program was thoroughly debunked by the administration`s own experts; yet administration officials continued to cite that evidence and warn of Iraq`s nuclear threat.

And yet the political and media establishment is in denial, finding excuses for the administration`s efforts to mislead both Congress and the public.

For example, some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar statements that is technically true. Really? We`re not talking about a business dispute that hinges on the fine print of the contract; we`re talking about the most solemn decision a nation can make. If Mr. Bush`s speeches gave the nation a misleading impression about the case for war, close textual analysis showing that he didn`t literally say what he seemed to be saying is no excuse. On the contrary, it suggests that he knew that his case couldn`t stand close scrutiny.

Consider, for example, what Mr. Bush said in his "denial and deception" speech about the supposed Saddam-Osama link: that there were "high-level contacts that go back a decade." In fact, intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and an infant Al Qaeda in the early 1990`s, but found no good evidence of a continuing relationship. So Mr. Bush made what sounded like an assertion of an ongoing relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but phrased it cagily — suggesting that he or his speechwriter knew full well that his case was shaky.

Other commentators suggest that Mr. Bush may have sincerely believed, despite the lack of evidence, that Saddam was working with Osama and developing nuclear weapons. Actually, that`s unlikely: why did he use such evasive wording if he didn`t know that he was improving on the truth? In any case, however, somebody was at fault. If top administration officials somehow failed to apprise Mr. Bush of intelligence reports refuting key pieces of his case against Iraq, they weren`t doing their jobs. And Mr. Bush should be the first person to demand their resignations.

So why are so many people making excuses for Mr. Bush and his officials?

Part of the answer, of course, is raw partisanship. One important difference between our current scandal and the Watergate affair is that it`s almost impossible now to imagine a Republican senator asking, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"

But even people who aren`t partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration`s dishonest case for war, because they don`t want to face the implications.

After all, suppose that a politician — or a journalist — admits to himself that Mr. Bush bamboozled the nation into war. Well, launching a war on false pretenses is, to say the least, a breach of trust. So if you admit to yourself that such a thing happened, you have a moral obligation to demand accountability — and to do so in the face not only of a powerful, ruthless political machine but in the face of a country not yet ready to believe that its leaders have exploited 9/11 for political gain. It`s a scary prospect.

Yet if we can`t find people willing to take the risk — to face the truth and act on it — what will happen to our democracy?



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company |

[Joerver]