Guten Morgen Mr. Bush - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Joerver]

[Trendfreund]

[Joerver]

Noch einen. Achtung da kommt ein Karto(o)n.

[Joerver]

Was hat Bush sonst noch gesagt?




The Worst President Ever


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

By: Norm. Walker - 02/10/03



For those of you that don’t know, Helen Thomas is a veteran White House correspondent who has been saying "Thank you, Mr. President," since her first press conference in 1961.

Helen has worked with eight Presidents and she says that George W. is the worst President ever. She has clearly stated, "He is the worst President in all of American history. She is in a position to have some authority on the subject.

George W. is the twelfth President of my lifetime. And, I’m convinced he is a walking talking disaster that is taking place in the United States every day he is in office. Even though his reading skills have improved in the past two years he is an embarrassment to the country in front of the rest of the world. When he is off script he is incapable of clarity of speech or meaning.

He stands before Congress and the American people in what we call the State of the Union and proceeds to deliver a Republican wish list as a substitute for the reality of our condition. Admittedly he did gloss over some negative conditions and hurriedly moved on.

Let’s take a close look at his speech and break it down by the amount of time on certain subjects. The time Bush spent talking about issues in his speech:

3 min - (Intro);

4 min - Economy/Corporate Crime/Tax-Cut;

2 min - AIDS in Africa;

26 sec - Social Security:

3 min - Energy / Environment;

4 min - Health Care / Elderly;

5 min - Faith Base / Mentor Program;

4 min - Abortion;

8 min - Terrorists / 9-11;

26 min - MWD/North Korea/Iraq

How much time did he spend on Homeland Security, States Budget, Unemployment, Poverty, Gas Prices, or the Price of War? I didn’t hear anything.

Daily more and more Americans are unemployed, financially ruined and uninsured, have lost their home and unemployment benefits, can`t afford to go to school or buy prescription drugs, and their country is about to squander $100 billion to $200 billion and put 150,000 American men and women in harm`s way while giving the wealthiest Americans the biggest tax break in history. If this is not ineptness I don’t know how else to describe it.

The majority of States are suffering from Revenue shortfalls. They can’t come up with the money to fund their governments. All of this has happened since Bush took office. Some Governors have described the current situation as the worst since the Great Depression. And have we heard any suggestions from The Twig on how to remedy this problem? I think not.

This is the Twigs reasoning when describing his proposed Tax Cut. Nineteen people are in a room and are fully employed making minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for 40 hours per week for 52 weeks per year which gives them a total earning of $10,712.00 each for a $203,528.00 total. Bring in another person that makes $596,472.00 per year and now the average income for 20 people is $40,000.00 and his Tax Cut average is $1100.00 per year. This is what is known as rhetorical claptrap.

I’m amazed that this President can hold the average American is such low regard. His arrogance is pure contempt for Mr. Average American. He behaves as if the 100 million people that didn’t vote for him have no say in this democracy.

No doubt Helen Thomas is right on target. He is the worst President in the history of the United States and history will so regard him.

And for all this we can all say "Thank you, Mr. President."



Norm. Walker is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die Hölle wird mit Öl geheizt

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Zu früh gefreut?

[Joerver]

http://www.villagevoice.com/fiore/

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Si tacuisses,...

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[M_B_S]

The old and the ancient world confront Powell with new realities

Gary Younge in New York
Saturday February 15, 2003
The Guardian

The Russians smiled, the Chinese nodded, the French relaxed, the British froze in solemn contemplation and the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, stared sourly into the empty space where his now discredited case for war had shone only last week.
The answer to the question of whether the world was moving towards war or peace was written on the faces of the permanent members of the UN security council yesterday, following the report of Hans Blix.

The body language around him was precisely the opposite to the last time he spoke, two weeks ago, when his report had been far more critical of Iraq than most had expected. Yesterday, as he suggested that, while problems remained, improvements had been made and solutions may yet emerge, the doves cooed and the hawks delayed their swoop.

While Mr Blix`s report did not represent a clear endorsement of either camp there could be little doubt which side of an increasingly polarised divide had been strengthened.

All sides sought to laugh off the tension of the past week, during which the French and German resistance to war was dismissed as the peevishness of "old Europe". The Chinese went further, insisting they were "ancient". Mr Powell said he was representing "the newest country and the oldest democracy", while only the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, sparked any laughter with the claim: "I speak for a very old country... founded in 1066 by the French."

Responding to the report, the French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, delivered an impassioned speech calling for more time in the name of peace and the unity of cultures that verged on the utopian.

Mr Powell could scarcely contain his irritation. With frustration and without notes, unyielding in his argument and relentless in his pace, he unloaded questions to the security council in rapid succession. "Are they serious? Are they going to comply? Are they going to cooperate?" he asked of the Iraqis.

In what may yet prove a reflection of global opinion, the chamber greeted Mr Villepin`s contribution with applause and Mr Powell`s with silence.

Immediately before the report the room had filled up quickly, a blur of lambswool coats, bespoke suits and leather cases milling in a last-minute flurry of diplomatic manoeuvring. With the balance of power shifting, nonaligned and less powerful nations such as Angola, Cameroon and Chile found themselves the object of intense interest.

Britain`s UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, glided from the Spanish to the Angolans before settling down with Syria. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, headed first for the German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, and then for Mr Powell. Only the delegate from Guinea stood alone, uncourted and apparently uninterested.

The call to order parted the sea of mingling dignitaries, sending them to their seats and entrenching them in the positions laid out earlier in the morning by their capitals to await Mr Blix`s verdict.

It did not come until the end of his report, which questioned Mr Powell`s intelligence reports and the need for military action. A conclusion that bought time and made the US and British positions even more difficult to sell.

[Joerver]

Es ist noch nicht angerichtet

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Mal was Ernstes.


The Vulnerable Giant
By Ernest Partridge
Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
February 13, 2003

George Bush and the Administration “chickenhawks” thrill at the contemplation of combat, past and future, that they did not and will not have to engage in personally. Thus they must be positively giddy at the very thought of onset of “Shock and Awe” – the unleashing of over eight-hundred cruise missiles in the first two days of the “Desert Storm II,” more cruise missiles than were fired through the entire first Gulf War.

Surely “Shock and Awe” will show every nation in the world who’s the boss of Planet Earth, and all those nations will yield to the will of The New Empire.

Today Iraq, tomorrow the world!

If this is what George Bush (a dropout from “the champaign squadron”) and his coterie of absentee warriors believe, they are wrong – as was Herman Goering who was convinced that the Blitz would shatter the morale of the British, and as was General Arthur “Bomber” Harris of the RAF, who similarly believed that the destruction of the German cities would demolish the morale of the German population.

Accordingly, while “Shock and Awe” might in fact result in the early capitulation of the Saddam Hussein regime, it is at least as likely that this blitzkrieg will steel the resolve of the Iraqi people, in addition to their Arab neighbors, to resist the invasion of their tormentors and avenge the slaughter of their compatriots. Thus the dreaded “urban warfare” will follow in Bagdad and Basra, while beyond Iraq, terrorism against American targets will escalate.

In either case, world opinion will be so infuriated at this bloodbath that Colin Powell’s so-called “Alliance of the Willing” (i.e., Tony Blair and the Seven Dwarfs), will be immediately overwhelmed by an “Alliance of the Enraged” extending throughout the world. At last, the world leaders may take seriously the imperial aspirations of the Bush gang, as stated explicitly in the “National Security Strategy" released last September, and articulated by George Bush at West Point in June.

Indeed, the precursors of that alliance can be seen today, in advance of “Shock and Awe,” as the leaders of Germany, France and Russia confer in a desperate attempt to forestall “Desert Storm II.” They are responding to the overwhelming sentiments of their populations. Public opinion on the European continent runs 60% to 80% against an Iraqi war without UN sanction – this includes the seven countries (minus Great Britain) of the so-called “Alliance of the Willing.” In Tony Blair’s United Kingdom, a solid majority of the population opposes a war without UN support. And in a poll just released, 32% of Britons consider the United States to be the greatest threat to world peace -- well ahead of Iraq and North Korea, each of which was cited by 27% of the respondents

The Bush regime’s “brain trust” (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is singularly uncurious about “side effects” and “unintended consequences.” And they never seem to ask, “and then what?” Thus, for example, we have heard precious little about what they plan for Iraq “post-Saddam.”

By all indications, an “Alliance of the Outraged” is totally off the Bush “projecto-scope.” Nonetheless, after Desert Storm II, the world at large will likely regard the United States military and the imperial designs of the Bush Administration as the pre-eminent threat both to their national sovereignties and to world peace. And one of the most fundamental and time-confirmed principles of politics is that alliances are formed by the perception of a common threat. Thus Athens and Sparta halted their war to join forces against the Persians. And capitalist America and Britain allied themselves with the communist Soviet Union against Nazi Germany – an alliance that fell apart after the defeat of Germany. As the familiar maxim states, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And we are all familiar with the maxim, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Can we therefore doubt that a world-wide anti-American alliance might be in our future – indeed, tentatively forming even now?

“Well, so what? What can the rest of the world do about it? They are facing the sole remaining super-power with the mightiest military in history. No power on Earth today can overcome the US military in a face-to-face military encounter.”

Clearly, that last statement is true: “No power on Earth today can overcome the US military in a face-to-face military encounter.”

From that truth, the Bushistas conclude: “No power on Earth can challenge the United States hegemony or cause damage to the American economy.”

That conclusion is radically and dangerously false.

All that the first, true, assertion tells us is that no opposing power, with a modicum of intelligence, will directly confront the US military. It does not tell us that opposing nations or alliances are helpless in the face of American military might. They have other, non-military, options.

To shift the perspective, the mere fact that no army, navy or air force can defeat us Americans in battle does not imply that we are invulnerable. Quite the contrary. As we well know, a multi-billion dollar defense and intelligence regime was defeated by box cutters and airline tickets. And the only effective defense against that attack turned out to be bodies and bare hands of a few courageous private citizens.

What the Bush team fails to appreciate is that the US, while militarily supreme, is otherwise extremely vulnerable. And should the US decide to take on the entire world, the rest of the world, in concert, can take down the US with ease. The “outside world” has two weapons – foreign debt and resource imports -- which, if employed either separately or in concert, will quickly bring catastrophe upon the United States without a shot being fired.

The first weapon involves the US foreign debt, which has grown in the past fifteen years from zero to $2.5 trillion – which is a quarter of the US GDP. At present rates, that debt will increase by another trillion in three years. Given these facts , do we dare to lord it over the rest of the world? In his brilliant article, “The End of Empire,” William Greider wryly points out “any profligate debtor who insults his banker is unwise, to put it mildly.”

All that our creditors need do is withdraw their capital from our economy and/or shut their cash boxes and refuse to lend us any more. After that, chaos ensues. As Greider observes, “you can’t sustain an empire from a debtor’s weakening position – sooner or later the creditors pull the plug.”

But if “the rest of the world,” but most acutely, Europe, Russia, China and the Pacific Rim, put the squeeze on us and try to cut us down to size, can’t the US simply say, in effect, “screw you all – we hereby repudiate our debts.” At that point, the US becomes a pariah to international trade and is thereafter, as Sam Goldwin said, “included out.” No more foreign markets to sell our goods and, far more seriously, no more imports of essential raw materials – the most essential of all, of course, is petroleum. And note this: now half of our petroleum is imported, as domestic sources approach final depletion.

As we pointed out earlier (in “The Oil Trap”), the lost luxury of driving our SUVs is the very least of our worries when the oil tap is shut off. We quite literally “eat oil,” for petroleum not only carries the food to our tables, it also provides the fuel for the farm machinery and the raw materials for the fertilizer which are necessary for our mode of intensive, industrialized agriculture. In addition, we have foolishly opted to move most of our industrial and consumer products by trucks, rather than rail (which, incidentally, also uses diesel fuel).

So imagine a sudden and unrecoverable loss of half of our petroleum supply. From that moment, we might coast for a few months on the “strategic reserve” – crude oil that has been pumped back into the ground in case of emergencies. But after the reserve is gone, the US economy will collapse, as all inessential use of oil is forbidden, ordinary economic life grinds to a halt, gasoline is severely rationed, and all domestic oil supplies are directed to the task of bringing food and essential supplies to our cities – just to keep our populace alive.

The oil shortage might be further compounded by sabotage of the Alaska pipeline, which supplies approximately one and a half million barrels of crude oil per day. Almost all of the 800 miles of that pipeline is above ground – I know, I’ve driven alongside hundreds of miles of it. A couple of years ago a few rifle shots shut down the pipeline for several days. It is virtually impossible to protect the entire line, and a few well-placed satchel charges or bazooka shots could shut it down for good.

To put it graphically, the United States is like huge, ugly, menacing mechanical monster, powered by an AC line attached to a wall socket. The poor, cowering, intimidated victims need only notice that the wall socket is right behind them, within easy reach. (Would that I were a cartoonist!).

When the ninety-five percent of humanity that resides outside our borders – or at least a sizeable industrialized portion thereof – decides they have had enough of our bullying, they need only pull the plug, and our vaunted economy, along with our military, will collapse into a ruined heap.

To be sure, such a coordinated act of economic warfare would have serious economic repercussions for the anti-US alliance, though the damage would arguably less than the damage to the United States. After all, we need their raw materials, oil especially, to survive. The "outside world" has no need of our raw materials, and it can readily replicate our technology. But while the damage to the world economy might be considerable, the American bullying and empire-building might well become sufficiently onerous to the rest of the world that they would willingly suffer the consequences of bringing the US down. After all, any nation that goes to war believes that it is worth the cost of some rather horrific consequences. Never mind that the leaders almost always grossly underestimate the costs to their nation, and care little about the damage and misery that they inflict upon their enemies. The historical fact remains: nations (mis)-calculate the costs, and then willingly go to war. The costs of a bloodless economic boycott would seem to be considerably less than total war.

“Even so, they wouldn’t dare,” replies our irrepressible chicken-hawk. “If they did, we’d nuke ‘em. Just the threat should keep them in line, and should keep the oil coming in.” Sorry, fellas. You see, they also have nukes. Not as many as we do, but so what? With a few hundred warheads, and a reliable delivery to twenty of our largest cities, we will be adequately “deterred.” We have thousands of warheads, but no matter. Just a few hundred will do. More than that would be like adding more rifles to the firing squad. (See “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Armageddon”).

To sum up:, the mighty American military machine is a paper tiger. No military force on Earth can defeat it, but no such force need to. Our economy rests upon the willingness of our creditors to continue to put more billions of dollars “on the tab.” In addition, our economy – all of it -- depends totally on the energy supply that “the outside world” consents to sell us.

At any time, an “Alliance of the Fed-Up” can decide to cut off our credit line and/or pull our energy plug from the wall socket. George Bush and his gang of usurpers don’t seem to realize this.

Gawd help us all when the rest of the world comes to appreciate its leverage, and begins to look mischievously at that wall socket.

Copyright 2003 by Ernest Partridge

[Joerver]

News Item: When Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared at the United Nations ... February 5, to argue that Iraq had not complied with UN demands to disarm and poses an imminent threat, UN officials closed the curtain -- literally -- on Pablo Picasso`s Guernica, the most widely known artistic interpretation of war. (BuzzFlash.com, [link] February 7, 2003).

Artistic Sign Language: Signs of the Coming Bush Fall

Bernard Weiner
Co-Editor, The Crisis Papers
February 13, 2003

Sign is symbol, symbol is sign. Consider:

*Powell goes to the United Nations so that the missile attacks on Baghdad and Basra can begin -- and, in the lobby of that grand building, Picasso`s "Guernica" painting, which depicts the horrific results of the Nazi bombing of that Spanish town, is covered over prior to Powell`s arrival. No use embarrassing the U.S. by reminding folks of what`s in store for Iraqi civilians.

*Ashcroft, in his police-state zeal, begins shredding the Constitution`s Bill of Rights with its guarantees of due-process of law, and, early on, has the huge lobby statue of the Goddess of Justice draped and covered over because of its exposed breast. How appropriate to shroud Justice so that she can`t see what`s being done in her name.

*First Lady Laura Bush cancels a poetry workshop at the White House because she suspects that a number of America`s high-profile poets, in the sacred grounds of that seat of power, will raise the issue of the coming war with Iraq.

Did you notice the thread that unites these events? In all three cases, symbolic shrouds are placed over art, so that nobody will notice the bad things that are being done in American citizens` names.

But art knows. Art sees beyond, often before the general public is aware of what`s going on. (Often before the artists themselves are conscious of what they`re revealing.) Art points us in new directions that make us think and
question.

To those inclined more to rigid-order mentality, art is a virus that needs to be stamped out, or, at the least, tightly controlled. ("When I hear the word culture," said Nazi leader Goebbels, "I reach for my revolver.")

It`s all part of the so-called "cultural civil war." Those who control the signs and symbols control the polity. Thus, minions are trotted out to denounce artists and their tendency to look for complexity, ironies, hypocrisies, hidden humor. To incipient fascists, the world is a Manichean one, divided into black and white, those who are Good and those who are Evil ("You`re either for us or against us").

And since they are certain that God obviously favors their side, it follows that those in opposition -- or even (or especially) those who point the way to other visions of complex reality -- are part of the enemy forces and must
be dealt with.

One problem with authoritarianism -- whatever brand comes along: Stalin`s communism, or Hitler`s fascism, or Islamic Talibanism, or whatever we`re moving into in America right now -- is that it makes art more delicious and tempting. The public is not dumb and eventually comes to figure out that the "truth" being propounded by the frightened rulers does not match the world most citizens actually live in. And so they begin to seek out and support art and artists and, most of all, comedians -- those sly artisans, those holy fools, that can shake the foundations of power with a well-aimed dart.

Musicians, playwrights, poets, painters, sculptors, dancers, novelists, filmmakers, online satirists, comics -- everything these artists do in an authoritarian society comes to be seen by the public in the light of the repression visited from above.

A story to illustrate this point: American avant-garde theater artist George Coates was invited to bring his visual extravaganzas to Poland during the dark times there. One of the huge slide projections used by Coates was of a manhole cover, which image covered the entire staging area. Various human forms emerged from the holes -- i.e., real actors came out of holes in the stage, but, given the projection, they appeared to be emerging from the holes in the manhole cover.

The audience took this in with rapt silence and then a few brave souls began clapping. Then waves and waves of applause and cheering washed over the actors. Coates was mystified by the audience reaction. Audiences in the U.S. loved this bit of theatrical magic, to be sure, but nothing like this Polish crowd.

After the show, various Polish theater artists came backstage to talk to Coates and his cast. They nudged Coates in the ribs and whispered their admiration for his willingness to confront the Polish Communist rulers by celebrating the "underground." Yes, what was merely an interesting use of a visual image for Coates was a cunning reference to the underground resistance of a budding Solidarity movement. After a few attempts at explaining himself, Coates simply smiled and nodded as the Poles heaped praise on his revolutionary "political" art.

Art has power. Art unmasks. Art tells lies in the service of truth. (Whereas governments lie in order to conceal truth.)

The more lies authoritarian governments tell their citizens, the more a sub rosa consciousness bubbles up from the culture`s artists and then from its ordinary citizens. It`s a slow-growing and, at times, dangerous movement -- which is why the forces of reaction try so hard to stomp on it -- but it is an amazingly strong and vital and resilient force.

Because totalitarian governments rest on fake foundations, when those regimes fall, they fall with amazing quickness and ferocity. One day there`s a wall, the next day it`s torn down and the celebrations begin. One day there is officially sanctioned art, the next day those huge statues are toppled. One day, the culture arbiters and censors are in control, the next day they are in disgrace -- or in jail.

Americans, still gripped by fear from 9/11, have tended to be in a state of animated numbness, putting up little resistance to the machinations of the authoritarian rulers. Similarly, out of great sympathy for the post-9/11United States, various nations around the world bowed to the wishes of the Bush government.

Bush&Co., meeting little resistance, interpreted this relative lack of opposition as full support for their programs, foreign and domestic. And so they`ve continued to want more, tighten the screws more, reach and then over-reach for more. Their motto and guiding principle seems to be: "We can`t be stopped, so let`s just go take it all."

Suddenly, though, Bush&Co. are running into overt opposition. Their allies abroad are telling them -- to their face -- that current American policies are mad, wrong, dangerous. More and more conservative allies at home are warning the Bush Administration that their dash toward imperial rule abroad and draconian Constitution-shredding at home is a violation of what America stands for, and will bring the United States (and, given the economic interweavings between nations, much of the world as well) nothing but disaster.

The current U.S. rulers will not alter their course. It`s war with Iraq, full speed ahead and to hell with the rest of you -- especially ignorant "old Europe," and American dissidents at home. It`s a proposed extension of the so-called USA Patriot Act, to give the federal government even more martial-law-like police powers in controlling the society -- the "cover" is hunting for terrorists, of course -- and to hell with the protections
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

These Bush&Co. leaders are so arrogant, so rude, so greedy and power-hungry, so taken with themselves as God`s mesengers and as the world`s only Superpower, so convinced they are right in the tunnel-vision black-and-white world they inhabit, that it`s clear their days are numbered. It may take a bit longer to build to critical mass -- and there is going to be death and destruction and persecution while that momentum is being built up -- but when the time for their fall arrives, it`s going to be quick and nasty. And we`ll finally all wake up from this nightmare that has crushed our economy, diminished our moral light in the world, disgraced our beloved Constitution and country.

And at the vanguard of this movement away from the shadow America and back into the light will be our our poets, our comedians, our painters, our playwrights, our novelists, and so on -- "dangerous" artists all, even when they`re not political. They simply see too much, too clearly.

A toast to their hungry vision.#

Copyright 2003 by Bernard Weiner

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Ein Themauct Tape(von Henkel)

[Joerver]

WHO WAS THE WORST IN AMERICAN HISTORY?

To commemorate Presidents` Day Weekend 2003, MWO is sponsoring a special write-in survey, posing the perennial question: Who was the worst White House occupant in American history?

We present some of the lowlights of five men generally held as among the very worst, just to jog your memory. Write in with your pick, and the reasons why you picked him

It`s educational! It`s historical! What`s more, it`s fun for the whole family! Send in your pick today!!

John Adams

--Alien and Sedition Acts
--Quasi-War with France
--Led What Jefferson Called a "Reign of Witches"

James Buchanan

--Doughface Democrat, Truckled to Pro-Slavery Radicals
--Backed pro-Slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas
--Did Nothing During Secession Crisis

Warren G. Harding

--Teapot Dome Scandal
--Cronyism of Ohio Gang

Herbert Hoover

--Economic Policies Worsened Early Stages of Great Depression
--Went On to Demonize New Deal, Back Ultra-Right Obstructionists

George W. Bush

--Radical Economic Policies Threaten New Depression
--Failed Quasi-War on Terrorism
--Repressive Legislation on Civil, Personal Rights
--Efforts to Destroy Social Security, Medicare
--Efforts to Demonize, Destroy NATO, UN: New Unilateralism
--Right-Wing Court Packing Scheme
--Largest Federal Deficit in U.S. History
--Neo-Confederate Appointees to Cabinet, Federal Courts

We think you`ll agree that we`ve scraped the bottom of the White House barrel here, folks. But we want to know who had truly been the very worst, the lowest of the low.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Lost Weekend
How the junta uses idiocy to hide fiascos
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
02/14/03
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/VRWC/lostweekend.htm
Yeah, America’s probably had worse weekends than the one just past. There was the time the Brits burned down Washington, for instance. That wasn’t too good. There was that time the south American mob almost greased Nixon. Most Americans found that pretty upsetting, although if they knew then what we know now, they might have been routing for the mob. There was the Tet offensive, and when the My Lai story broke. Pearl Harbor. Various civil war battles.

This weekend was different. No howling mobs, no cities in flames, no shots being fired. And we can all take solace in the fact that this time around, Nixon is still dead. The man most responsible for turning American politics into the vicious reactionary circus we see today is dead. There’s that, at least.

Now, the set backs for America were in the quiet and cloistered halls of the diplomatic community, that realm of colorless little men discussing the unspeakable in calm and placid tones.

It started with Colin Powell’s UN address. Even as he was giving it, the story broke that a British "white paper" which was supposed to be an up-to-date risk analysis of Iraq’s capabilities, and one on which Powell was basing much of his argument, was in fact stale data largely plagiarized from a position paper written by a grad student some twelve years earlier. Another big element of Powell’s testimony, a chemical weapons lab in Iraq run by al Qaida elements (and one which Powell himself admitted was in a part of Iraq not under Saddam’s control) was opened to the media by gleeful militia types. It turned out to be a ramshackle collection of shacks without plumbing and with only a generator for electrical power. Oops. Later in the week, it came to light that the administration told the media the previous August that they had examined the facility, and had concluded that it was, in fact, too primitive to be capable of any significant military purpose. So Powell not only looked foolish, but he was proven a liar. Double oops.

Powell was the token decent guy in this administration. The resident bums fared much worse.

Rumsfeld, for example, got a dressing down from the German Foreign Minister. Just so there could be no mistake, the minister addressed Rumsfeld personally, in English. He said, "...in a democracy, you have to make a case, and you have not made your case. You have not convinced me."

Mild enough, except for the little jibe about how people do things in a Democracy. Well, it would be understandable if Rummy needed reminding.

Rummy had just enough brains to realize that the minister had taken a shot at him. He was openly livid, and for a moment, I wondered if he was going to jump up and start a fistfight.

That would have been entertaining.

Instead, he snarled that Germany and France were "old Europe" (Spain and Italy are apparently "new Europe"), which didn’t mean much except that Rumsfeld is an ignoramus who makes empty insults when frustrated in negotiations. Just the sort of guy you want representing your country, right?

Rummy and the rest of the administration forgot one little detail about the UN and diplomats in general. They exist for the main purpose of trying to AVOID war. This little nicety seems to have eluded the semi-literate stumblebum in the white house, and his handlers are too ideological to notice little things like that.

So when France and Germany proposed a peaceful way of bringing Saddam to heel, the Americans went right out of their tiny little minds.

The French and German proposal, which would be competing in the Security Council with the American demand to simply start bombing the hell out of Baghdad, was to triple the number of inspectors in Iraq, and station 150,000 UN troops there. This would give the Putsch junta the constraints and guarantees on Saddam that they claim is what they want, and pretty much finish off Saddam’s schemes, such as they are.

That’s when the Americans pretty much came unraveled. From across the blasted and desolate wasteland of the American right came a huge chorus of vituperation and insults, the like of which hasn’t been seen in years. Ranking members of the administration, Senators, and Congressmen joined the trashiest of talk show hosts in calling the French cowards and appeasers, and comparing the Germans to the Nazis. Rumsfeld, apparently with no sense of irony, said the UN risked "ridicule and discredit." He didn’t say who was going to discredit them – it certainly wasn’t going to be the juvenile clowns of the Putsch junta.

This so impressed Belgium that they were the first of three countries to vote to hold off on sending UN troops to defend Turkey. This was a lynchpin of the US/UK efforts to get good staging areas around Iraq. The Turkish government, mindful of the unpopularity of the American stance among its own people, and concerned that Saddam might lash out at Turkey, or that Kurds might engage in an uprising in both Northern Iraq and southern Turkey after the fall of Saddam, had demanded UN protection, along with guarantees from Britain to help get the financially wobbly Turkey into the European Union.

The right wing response here pretty much pushed American-German relations to a level not seen since 1945. The Republicans pulled out a memorable line about the French that was uttered on the cartoon show "The Simpsons," and characterized the French as "cheese eating surrender monkeys." This succeeded in simultaneously delighting and appalling the British media, who never think there’s a situation so grim that they can’t set aside a few moments to make fun of the French.

I wouldn’t say this particular overture greased the skids with the French. They probably aren’t going to be real helpful when the Security Council meets over the next few days.

It probably wouldn’t have made much difference. China, Syria and Germany are all going to veto it anyway, and there’s a pretty good chance the Russians might, too.

Which means Putsch acts unilaterally, with all that entails.

The Republicans know that with their followers, the best way to distract from the fact that they just made fools of themselves is to come up with something truly idiotic and scary. So they bumped Tom Ridges’ color bar up to Orange (It falls between yellow, which is "poke under your bed with a broom handle before getting in" and red, which is "Shit! We’re all gonna DIE!!!" and is officially classified as "Ohshitohshitohshitohshitohshitohshit!") They made a big production of placing stinger missile launchers around the capital, deployed a whole bunch of cops, and in a genius burst of staged idiocy, sonorously warned everyone that if they hoped to survive what might come, they should seal their homes with plastic sheeting and duct tape.

This might be the single most idiotic suggestion an administration has made to the public since the time the Reagan administration advised one and all that nuclear war was quite survivable – all you had to do was dig a hole, get in it, pull a board over yourself, and pile three feet of dirt on top of the board. (The actual mechanics of this were left unexplained). It seems that the three feet of dirt is what really turns the trick, and with it, you can handle a direct hit from a 10 megaton warhead, no problem.)

The administration didn’t explain whether it was the plastic sheeting or the duct tape that was going to save you from the big whatever, but in a reaction reminiscent of the Orson Welles panic, thousands of people ran out and cleared the hardware shelves of duct tape and plastic sheeting. It’s been cold in Washington. Carbon monoxide might present a problem in those sealed homes that Republican loyalists are creating.

As Larry Niven says, Think of it as evolution in action.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Aus der New York Times

By ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.
Certainly, fuel cells that use renewable resources like wind and solar power to extract hydrogen from water promise America a safe, clean energy solution. However, in a sop to the energy industry, the White House wants to extract hydrogen instead from coal and natural gas (without controlling carbon emissions), thereby increasing global warming and fouling our landscape. Worse, the president wants to build a new generation of nuclear power plants specifically for hydrogen production.

The president`s hydrogen plan will further reduce our national commitment to renewables by cutting our already anemic financing for research into wind, solar and other energy-saving technologies.

Fuel cells offer bright prospects but it will be 10 to 20 years before economical hydrogen vehicles are on the road. Meanwhile, Americans are buying 17 million new cars, trucks and S.U.V.`s a year — vehicles that could be much more fuel efficient. It`s no secret that right now we have the technology to make cars that get better mileage and pollute less. But the administration has repeatedly scuttled efforts to put these innovations in place, fighting tougher fuel economy standards for all vehicles, refusing to compel S.U.V.`s to meet the same mileage standards as cars and creating tax incentives for Americans to buy the largest gas guzzlers. Last week, in an astonishing move, government lawyers joined General Motors and DaimlerChrysler in a federal lawsuit challenging a California law that rewards carmakers for selling low-emission, gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles.

Hybrids are just one of the proven technologies that could start saving oil right now. They can increase fuel economy 50 percent, and never need plugging in. Other technologies that can lift fuel economy include more advanced transmissions; improved engine and valve train design; and tires that promote fuel-efficiency. Available now, these solutions won`t be widely used until Washington gets serious about the arithmetic of oil security: we use a quarter of the world`s oil, yet we have only 3 percent of the known reserves.

Requiring cars to average 40 miles per gallon by 2012 would save nearly 2 million barrels a day; that`s more than we imported from Saudi Arabia last year, and three times our Iraq imports. Raise that to 55 miles per gallon by 2020, and daily savings grow to nearly 5 million barrels, almost twice our current Persian Gulf imports.

We have an oil security problem and we have an air pollution problem. We also have the technology to fix these problems — if only we would have the will to use it

[Joerver]

[/url]

[Joerver]

Hawks should let God stand down

02/16/03




Help me out on this one, please: Whose side is God on?

In his taped broadcast last week, Osama bin Laden re peatedly invoked the name of God in urging Iraq to rise up against the American "Crusaders," a not-so-veiled link to Pope Urban II`s declaration in 1095 of a "Holy War" or Crusade to rout the Muslims and to reclaim Palestine for the Christian faith.

Bin Laden made it clear that God is on the side of the Muslim world, urging Iraqis to "fight the allies of the devil." He warned that President George W. Bush wants to install a Baghdad regime run by Israel and the United States "in preparation for the establishment of greater Israel, God forbid."

Distancing himself from Iraq`s secular ruler, Saddam Hussein, bin Laden directed that "the fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq. Victory is from God alone. . . ."

Saddam has a reputation for reveling in women and wine, not to mention acts of cruelty against his own people, but that does not deter him from proclaiming that God is on his side.

Saddam rails against "the hopeless cowardly Americans . . . hiding behind a technological advance that God, most gracious, wanted to be their curse and cause for shame," and tells his troops that God sees war against the West as "a source of honor, pride, glory and blessing for you in this life and the hereafter."

No matter how many times Saddam pays tribute to "God, the most gracious, the most merciful," he is no match for our president in the God-fearing department. Bush, who credits Jesus with enabling him to kick a heavy drinking habit, has infused the presidency with an evangelical fervor unrivaled in American history.

Bush was introduced at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville last week as a man who "unapologetically proclaims his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Bush dismissed any doubts that the Prince of Peace might not look kindly on a U.S.-led attack against Iraq, saying such an attack would be "in the highest moral traditions of our country."

The Washington Post reported that many of the broadcasters said Bush was divinely chosen to lead the country during its trials, an interpretation that the president does not shy from.

In a speech to a joint session of Congress shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, the president confidently assured the country that God is on our side.

"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain," he said. "Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war. And we know that God is not neutral between them." He called bin Laden "the evil one," a term synonymous with the devil.

Bush`s attorney general, John Ashcroft, the son and grandson of Pentecostal preachers, echoed the boss` words in his speech to the religious broadcasters a year ago, describing "a conflict between those who believe that God grants us choice and those who seek to impose their choices on us . . . a conflict between good and evil." He said God has no trouble picking between the two.

In an interview with syndicated columnist Cal Thomas, Ashcroft went further, saying, "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you."

When American Muslims objected, Ashcroft said his reported remarks "do not accurately reflect what I believe I said." But Thomas said he had cleared the quotation with Ashcroft beforehand.

Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and President Bush are hardly the first to claim God as an ally. No less a beast than Adolph Hitler, in "Mein Kampf," unabashedly wrote, "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell at first blamed the 9/11 attacks on liberal decadence in America, saying that God was punishing those who promote abortion and homosexuality.

Later, in an apparent attempt to redeem himself, he tried a different tack, suggesting that the terrorists were following the misguided teachings of Mohammed, himself "a terrorist . . . a violent man, a man of war."

Come to think of it, instead of arguing over whose side God is on, the world would be better off if the all-too-human instigators of war would leave God out of it.

Brazaitis, formerly a Plain Dealer senior editor, is a Washington columnist.

Contact Tom Brazaitis at:

[e-mail], 202-638-1366

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Der Guardian berichtet, dass Saddam mit dem Euro viel Geld verdient hat, indem er im Oktober 2002 Öl für Euro verkauft hat zu 0,82$.

SADDAM SELLS OIL FOR EUROS, ONLY "A bizarre political statement by Saddam Hussein has earned Iraq a windfall of hundreds of million of euros. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar - `the currency of the enemy` - for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time....`It was seen as economically bad because the entire global oil trade is conducted in dollars,` says Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies. The marked appreciation of the euro, higher interest rates, and the ability to pay mainly European suppliers in euros is believed to have made hundreds of millions for the Iraqi oil-for-food programme. " 2.17.03
guardian

[Joerver]

Nun geht Bush auf die Straße und singt: "Give war a chance!"



http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/warachance.h…

[Joerver]

Ein seltsames Geschenk, ob Tony sich mit 12 Flaschen schottischem Whisky bedankt hat.

[Joerver]

Ein Mann ein Wort

[Joerver]

The Inpedendent

Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of America


In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare stories and false information and student essays dressed up as "intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle East to their advantage.

No wonder, then, that Hans Blix`s blunt refutation of America`s "intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the untrustworthy "allies" they have become.

The British don`t like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.

Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies, is now sending America`s poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw, the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss the dark political agenda behind George Bush`s government, nor the "sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the President.

Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they`ve biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese imperialists for generations, Iraqis included – though we play down the RAF`s use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror stories, Britons – and many Americans – are a lot braver than Blair and Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All Seasons, tales to frighten children.

Perhaps Henry VIII`s exasperation in that play better expresses the British view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.

Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a burning, fearsome wound to which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union speech – but even Blair can`t get away with that one; hence his "conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take part via video-link because Israel`s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to let them travel to London.

So much for Blair`s influence over Washington – the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn`t persuade Sharon to change his mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon – war criminal though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres – treated Blair with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an office in Baghdad.

Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa`ida men who support violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America`s way of giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder against the Chechens, just as Bush`s odd remark to the UN General Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq`s Turkomans only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq`s largest oil fields.

The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush`s most influential advisers, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was elected – if he was elected – US President. And they weren`t doing so for the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by – yes, Richard Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel`s monopoly of nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us – a war for Israel is not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices – Jewish American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-Israeli organisations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell`s UN speech. Cohen suggested that European nations` objections to the war might – yet again – be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld`s snotty remarks about "old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the "old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old" America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt. Rumsfeld and Bush symbolise the old America that killed its native Indians and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being asked to fight for – linked to a new form of colonialism – an America that first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as well as her enemies.

In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-sought-after second UN resolution. UN permission for America`s war will not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union`s abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that – after a quick US military conquest of Iraq and providing `they" die more than we die – there will be plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along. The first pictures of "liberated" Baghdad will show Iraqi children making victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of this conflict will become evident as soon as the "war" ends, when our colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.

There lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace". But Sharon fears he may yet face trial over Sabra and Chatila, which is why Israel has just withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I`d like to see Saddam in the same court. And Rifaat Assad for his 1982 massacre in the Syrian city of Hama. And all the torturers of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.

Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an eternal war against "terror". And the British and most Europeans don`t believe him. It`s not that Britons wouldn`t fight for America. They just don`t want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime Minister, they don`t want to fight for Blair either.
18 February 2003 11:15



Printable Story

[Joerver]

Currently, less than half of the American public thinks that leaders of countries around the world have respect for President Bush.



Do you think leaders of other countries around the world have respect for George W. Bush, or do you think they don`t have much respect for him?



± 3% Margin of Error
February 3-6, 2003
Sample Size= 1,001

[Joerver]

British Prime Minister`s Popularity Drops by 14 Percent in New Poll
The Associated Press
Published: Feb 17, 2003




LONDON (AP) - Prime Minister Tony Blair`s popularity has slumped amid concern over the Iraq crisis, according to an opinion poll published Monday.
The British prime minister was rated as satisfactory by only 35 percent of respondents to an ICM Survey for The Guardian newspaper. The figure was down from 49 percent a month earlier.

Fifty-five percent said they were dissatisfied, up 12 points from January. The other 10 percent expressed no opinion.

Blair is staking his political future on backing the United States against Iraq, despite considerable opposition from Britons to war without United Nations backing.

An estimated 750,000 peace demonstrators marched in London on Saturday as part of a global anti-war protest. Politicians, trade unionists and some British newspapers said Sunday that Blair will risk his political future if he ignores the protests.

According to the poll, 52 percent of respondents oppose a war with Iraq, up five percentage points from last month. The poll did not indicate if that opposition depended on U.N. backing for military action. Twenty-nine percent said they would support military action, down one point.

Support for Blair`s governing Labor Party fell from 43 percent to 39 percent, according to the survey. Support for the main opposition Conservative Party, however, rose only one percentage point to 31 percent, as it did for the Liberal Democrats, which stood at 22 percent.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults by telephone on Feb. 14-16. The margin of error was plus or minus three percentage points.

AP-ES-02-17-03 1751EST

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Das Imperium schlägt zurück

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

ROBERT STEINBACK

`Why war?` needs answer




Let`s make clear what the impending war in Iraq is not.

It is not a war to liberate the Iraqi people.

More than a few hawks are putting forth this fiction to soothe the sting of what war really would be: History`s first instance of America choosing to invade and occupy a sovereign nation that poses little discernible threat to this country or our allies.

The liberation hawks were inspired by President Bush, who, in his State of the Union message, referred to an America willing to make a ``sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.``

This is breathtaking sophistry. We`re going to liberate a population by killing them? How many Iraqi deaths have we decided are worth sacrificing for Iraq`s freedom -- 500? 50,000? More?

It reminds me of the wicked line from the animated movie Shrek in which Lord Farquad tells the knights competing for the chance to rescue Princess Fiona from the fire-breathing dragon, ``Some of you may die, but it`s a price I`m willing to pay.``

The liberation claim is part of the convoluted stew of rationalizations that the Bush administration has cooked up to obscure what is nothing less than the abdication of the very principles of peace, justice and law upon which America was founded.

We`ve been told we`re going to war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction we haven`t located yet; to retaliate for links to al Qaeda that are historically tenuous; to eliminate a man for actions he might take some day; to liberate an oppressed people we didn`t care about before Sept. 11.

Which is it? It doesn`t matter to the Bush administration, as long as you accept any of the above.

It`s the absence of a clear rationale for war that inspired millions of demonstrators around the world to voice their opposition over the weekend. It should be noted that nothing of the sort was seen prior to the Gulf War, because the reasons for war were evident to all, and because the world acted in concert to reverse Iraqi aggression.

It`s a fair assertion that the Iraqis would be better off without Saddam Hussein in power, even before considering if any alternatives might be worse.

But it isn`t up to the United States to decide when a people must be freed. A people`s liberation -- especially from an oppressor spawned from within, like Hussein -- isn`t something for outsiders to choose or impose. The agitation for liberation must first come from the oppressed people themselves.

When a population has decided on its own to make such a sacrifice, the door then opens for outside support. Yet even as American ``liberators`` gather on Iraq`s doorstep, one hears little enthusiasm from the Iraqis for the coming conflagration.

Pre-Dubya America placed its faith in peacefully exporting the ideals of democracy, liberty, capitalism and self-determination, concepts that inspired lovers of freedom the world over to accept the risks of challenging oppressors. Now, no matter what guise we adopt, the United States in Iraq will be an invading army bent on reshaping a foreign land to suit our own purposes.

Hawkish syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer cut through the lame liberation rationalizations to make exactly this case for war. In his column in the Feb. 17 edition of Time, Krauthammer argues that post-Sept. 11 America should use its military power to reshape troublesome parts of the world: ``A de-Saddamized Iraq . . . would provide friendly basing not just for the outward projection of American power but also for the outward projection of democratic and modernizing ideas,`` he wrote.

In an Internet piece, he was more direct: ``It`s about reforming the Arab world . . . We haven`t attempted it so far. The attempt will begin with Iraq.``

This is the same reasoning used by such notables as Adolf Hitler and General Tojo, who used military invasion to reform Europe and the Pacific to suit their own purposes. As distasteful as these parallels may seem, the question must be asked: What makes our rationale for invasion any different?

Haven`t we abandoned American ideals the moment we attempt to impose them by force?






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

© 2003 The Miami Herald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.

[Joerver]

President Bush`s Ratings Fall Sharply




President`s Ratings Now 52% Positive, 46% Negative

Colin Powell Now the Only Cabinet Member or Political Leader with
Very High Ratings

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Feb. 19 /PRNewswire/ -- The last two months have taken a
heavy toll on the president`s popularity, but a modest 52% to 46% majority
still gives him positive ratings. Two months ago, almost two-thirds of all
U.S. adults (64%) gave the president positive ratings and only just over a
third (35%) gave him negative ratings.
Other members of President Bush`s cabinet, as well as the parties in
Congress and Congressional leaders, with one exception, have all seen a huge
decline in their popularity since the very high numbers we recorded soon after
September 11, 2001. The one exception is Secretary of State Colin Powell. He
still enjoys an extraordinarily high degree of popularity, with 76% giving him
positive ratings and only 21% giving him negative ratings. These numbers are
fractionally better than they were in December 2002, perhaps because of his
powerful recent testimony to the United Nations Security Council.
While none of the other leaders has seen as big declines since last
December as President Bush has, their numbers, nonetheless, are all down very
substantially since their peak soon after September 11, 2001.
Including results from the latest poll, we see the following declines in
popularity since soon after September 11, 2001:

* President Bush down from 88% to 52%, a decline of 36 points.
* Secretary of State Colin Powell down from 88% to 76%, a decline of 12
points.
* Vice President Dick Cheney down from 69% to 45%, a decline of 24
points.
* Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld down from 78% to 56%, a decline of
22 points.
* Attorney General John Ashcroft down from 65% to 51%, a decline of 14
points.
* House Speaker Dennis Hastert down from 52% to 33%, a decline of 19
points.
* The Republicans in Congress down from 67% to 43%, a decline of 24
points.
* The Democrats in Congress down from 68% to 38%, a decline of 30 points.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll(R), a nationwide
telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive(R) among a sample of 1,010
adults, from February 12 to 16, 2003.


Mehr unter:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=CMPTW_inte…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

February 20, 2003

COMMENTARY

This Road to Hell Is Paved With Bush`s Bad Choices
Misguided tax cuts hurt the economy, and diplomatic bungling resulted in our foreign policy crisis.


By John B. Judis, John B. Judis is senior editor of the New Republic.

With the Cold War`s end, many Americans thought we could close our air raid shelters and take the trillions of dollars that had gone into the military and put them into making our lives better by turning toward the pursuit of happiness rather than the defense of our liberty.

And some of that did happen in the last half of the 1990s, during the Clinton-era boom. But only three years into a new century, the United States finds itself plagued by rising unemployment, soaring budget deficits, constricted civil liberties, the threat of terrorist attack and the prospect of a war with, and occupation of, Iraq. We`ve gone from the best of times to the worst of times.

The Bush administration tells us that it is entirely because of Al Qaeda and now Saddam Hussein that we face these difficulties, but the dark clouds that hang over our country are largely the result of Bush administration policies.

Take the economy. Sure, an economic downturn was inevitable after the speculative excesses of the `90s, and 9/11 certainly hurt airlines and hotels. But the Bush policies of enormous tax cuts directed at the most wealthy, and equally large increases in military spending, will prolong the current slump well through the decade, leaving large deficits just as baby boomers begin to retire.

The nation won`t necessarily be in recession, but it will suffer, as it did during the high-deficit Reagan years, from above-average unemployment and below-average growth. And our vaunted advantage over our industrial competitors will narrow.

That won`t be because of Osama bin Laden; that will be because of George W. Bush.

Or take the current prospects of war with Iraq. Bad foreign policy creates bad choices, as in Vietnam in the 1960s. By the time the Iraq issue landed back in the United Nations Security Council this month, Americans had no good options about whether to go to war with Iraq. Doing so could create heavy costs down the road, increase the incidence of terrorism and split our longtime alliances; not doing so could also inspire terrorists and split other longtime alliances.

But the question is how we got to this dilemma. We got here because of bad choices.

Al Qaeda was an offshoot of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and of the first Gulf War, after which, through an act of folly, we decided to maintain a major military presence in Saudi Arabia -- creating a rallying point for Al Qaeda without improving Saudi security.

Though few of Al Qaeda`s recruits came from the clash of Israelis and Palestinians, that conflict remained the single greatest source of instability in the Mideast.

After 9/11, we had a clear path before us: wage war against Al Qaeda and those regimes that sustained it, while simultaneously waging peace in the Mideast by using our considerable influence to force the Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

The Bush administration did wage war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But instead of seeking negotiations, the administration sided with Israeli leader Ariel Sharon, who responded to terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians by trying to destroy the Palestinian Authority -- Israel`s only viable negotiating partner. That made it impossible for the U.S. to win anything but grudging support from other Arab governments for our conflict with Iraq, and it also inflamed Islamic radicals.

As for Iraq, if our initial goal had been the reasonable and important one of preventing Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons, there was a host of options that could have been pursued, such as a demand for inspections coupled with the threat of an air campaign against any potential military target.

If these efforts had failed, their failure would have created far more support for an invasion than currently exists. Instead, the Bush administration began by demanding "regime change," declaring its willingness to fight a preventive war, and sending troops.

It took the very last, fateful step before it had taken the first. As a result, the troops are there, and we have to use them or risk a credibility crisis.

We also face the entirely predictable prospect of an enhanced threat from Al Qaeda -- exactly what the Bush policies set out to eliminate. Secretary of State Colin Powell claims that Bin Laden`s latest jeremiad, urging Muslims to commit acts of martyrdom to defend Iraq against the U.S., is evidence of a partnership between Hussein and Bin Laden.

What it actually shows is that U.S. foreign policy has managed to accomplish the one thing that it should have avoided: bringing into a tacit alliance two people who were previously at each other`s throats and who still hold each other in contempt.

And, of course, this new threat has spawned new terrorism alerts and instructions to put duct tape on our windows, stock up on canned peaches and watch out for any swarthy-looking foreigners. It also has provided cover for conservative Republicans who want to roll back our environmental laws and privatize Medicare and Social Security.

We are on a fast train to hell, and the question is when the American people are going to decide they want to get off.


Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
By visiting this site, you are agreeing to our Terms of Service.
Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

What Is Really Driving The Bush Administration’s Desire For War With Iraq?


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

By: Jason Leopold - 02/19/03



Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfield and Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz undertook a full-fledged lobbying campaign in 1998 to get former President Bill Clinton to start a war with Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime claiming that the country posed a threat to the United States, according to documents obtained from a former Clinton aide.

This new information begs the question: what is really driving the Bush Administration’s desire to start a war with Iraq if two of Bush’s future top defense officials were already planting the seeds for an attack five years ago?

In 1998, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were working in the private sector. Both were involved with the right-wing think tank Project for a New American Century, which was established in 1997 by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, to promote global leadership and dictate American foreign policy.

While Clinton was dealing with the worldwide threat from Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz wrote to Clinton urging him to use military force against Iraq and remove Hussein from power because the country posed a threat to the United States due to its alleged ability to develop weapons of mass destruction. The Jan 26, 1998 letter sent to Clinton from the Project for the New American Century said a war with Iraq should be initiated even if the United States could not muster support from its allies in the United Nations. Kristol also signed the letter.

“We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War,” says the letter. “In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”

“We urge you to turn your Administration`s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam`s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council,” says the letter.

The full contents of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz letter can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Clinton rebuffed the advice from the future Bush Administration officials saying he was focusing his attention on dismantling Al-Qaeda cells, according to a copy of the response Clinton sent to Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol.

Unsatisfied with Clinton’s response, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Kristol and others from the Project for the New American Century wrote another letter on May 29, 1998 to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott saying that the United States should “establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power.”

“We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein`s claim to be Iraq`s legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal,” says the letter to Gingrich and Lott. “U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein`s regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily. But the alternative is to leave the initiative to Saddam, who will continue to strengthen his position at home and in the region. Only the U.S. can lead the way in demonstrating that his rule is not legitimate and that time is not on the side of his regime.”

The letter to Gingrich and Lott can be viewed at http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqletter1998.htm

The White House would not comment on the letters or whether Rumsfield and Wolfowitz possessed any intelligence information that suggested Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time. The letters offered no hard evidence that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction.

The Clinton aide said the former President believed that the policy of “containing Saddam Hussein in a box” was successful and that the Iraqi regime did not pose any threat to U.S. interests at the time.

President Clinton “never considered war with Iraq an option,” the former aide said. “We were encouraged by the UN weapons inspectors and believed they had a good handle on the situation.”

Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol, however, disagreed; saying the only way to deal with Hussein was by initiating a full-scale war.

“The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months,” Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Kristol wrote in their letter to Clinton. “As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”

Those alleged threats posed by Iraq and the advice Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol first offered the attention of the Clinton Administration five years ago have now become the blueprint for how the Bush Administration is dealing with the Iraq.

The existence of the Rumsfield and Wolfowitz “war” letters is just another reason to question the Bush Administration’s desire to go to war with Iraq now instead of dealing with other pressing issues such as Al-Qaeda. Because the letters were written in 1998 it proves that this war was planned well before 9-11 and casts further doubt on the claims that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

http://fp.enter.net/~haney/j4.htm

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Bush Gives You The Finger
Millions worldwide rally against Dubya`s oily little war -- not that he gives a damn
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 21, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/




And then there`s the one about the smirky war-happy oil-drunk American president who shrugged off the disdain of pretty much the entire world and humiliated us all on a global scale and went ahead and blasted the living hell out of an otherwise worthless oil-rich nation with no real proof of serious wrongdoing and for no justifiable reason, except for the oil and the power and for Daddy and for the face-saving faux-macho pride, and the oil.

This is the guy. This is the president who cares not a whit that just last weekend, over a million people rallied in London -- the largest political gathering of any kind in British history -- to protest his (and Tony Blair`s) little multibillion-dollar war.

Or that 500,000 gathered at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, chanting slogans against his fearmongering ego, or that another 500,000 attempted to gather for a huge protest near the U.N. building in New York but, lacking a permit, were partially blocked by police.

This is the smirky Texas executioner-president who looked on while even in God-thumping pro-family ultraconservative Colorado Springs, Colo., land of the Born Agains and the heavily uptight, police fired tear gas into a crowd of war protesters, even though children were in an adjacent playground. Isn`t that nice? And Christian? Shrub just shrugs. Damn hippies. God bless America.

And, really, who cares about the huge protests in Amsterdam, Brussels, Barcelona, Melbourne, Paris, Rome, Berlin, San Francisco, Seoul, Tokyo and at least 600 other cities all over the world last week? We`ve got a bogus war to fabricate here, people. And an environment to gouge. An economy to gut. Busy, busy.

And, besides, were any of those horrified protesters petrochemical CEOs? Military-supply execs? Members of Bush Sr.`s draconian Carlyle Group? Colleagues of the ShrubCo cabal of neo-conservative gangster executives who stand to rake in billions when we go to war? No they were not. Screw `em.

Tough numbers to deny, nonetheless. Over 600 cities across the globe, all staging major anti-war rallies against America`s aggro attitude and insipid war posture, millions and millions of people -- teachers and salespeople and politicians and doctors and students and workers, every creed and gender and age group and nationality and hairstyle -- and yet Geedubya simply equates them all with some sort of negligible "focus group."

And he said he doesn`t base his policy decisions on focus groups, of course, because naturally he uses Barbie`s Super Magic 8 Ball and old secret codes from his Vietnam draft-dodging days intermixed with his father`s late-night gin-soaked advice and a cassette of Dick Cheney whispering demon-conjuring incantations in Latin. I mean, really, how else can you explain it?

This is the president who "respectfully disagrees" with just about everyone on the planet, with the almost universally held and repeatedly proven fact that Saddam isn`t the slightest threat to the U.S. and never really has been, nor that he had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, with that sort of respect, who needs a bloody violent skull bludgeoning? Can I get a hell-yeah?

This is the president who scowled his super-duper scariest scowl at Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector, as Blix calmly and rationally rebuffed everything a flustered Colin Powell could throw at him during the U.S. plea before the U.N. Security Council to please please please let America launch all our big new bombs and shiny cool expensive Lockheed Martin planes and then arm up 180,000 of America`s poor and have them go kill a half-million scary Iraqi people and destabilize an entire continent even further, please please oh pretty please.

U.N. inspectors, Blix reiterated for the 20th time, have found next to nothing. All those buildings in Powell`s super-top-secret satellite photos? Empty. Nuclear factories? Nada. All those terrifying WMDs? Almost nonexistent.

Can you smell it? This is when all that pro-war WWII-style jingoism starts to reek, its fumes just a little sour, a little venomous and toxic and soul curdling. Or that could just be Rumsfeld`s cologne. Eau du Warhead.

A touching side story: J. Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House and noted hunk of conservative sweating Muenster cheese, was actually considering legislation to ban French wine and bottled water -- for "health reasons," he said, and not because France has smartly dissed poor Shrub on the whole bogus-war thing. Isn`t that cute? Hastert claimed that some French wine is clarified using cow blood. Hee. Oh Dennis. As the kids say, are you high?

Hastert also reportedly claimed that certain molecules in French fries and French toast and French ticklers have perhaps been secretly coded by French porn stars with perverted terrorist messages designed to drive American babies insane and cause massive genital warts on teenagers and SUV owners. Just, you know, something he read. Note to Dennis: hush now.

But enough with the bit players. Have we seen this sort of thing before? This kind of protest, on this scale? Vietnam rings a rather bitter, and heartbreaking, bell. But that movement had a decidedly different complexion.

Huge protests, yes, but more localized, organized largely by doomed students, not quite so many millions of "normal" citizens rallying from Spain to Germany to Greece, all on the same day, all holding up signs featuring giant photos of our smirky squinty blank-eyed leader with a big red X over his face.

And oh yes, upwards of 50,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam. In Iraq, we might suffer, say, two dozen casualties, most from our own mistakes and "friendly fire" (if Desert Storm is any precedent), while we can expect to massacre roughly half a million Iraqis in the first week. Now, that`s patriotic. Would anyone tolerate Shrub`s warmongering if we stood to lose 50,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq? Hardly. Good thing it`s mostly just innocent foreign civilians and children.

Which brings us to the latest phony Orange Alert. And all the other astoundingly coincidental announcements of alleged terrorist action threatening the U.S., shrill alarmist rhetoric that, every single time, just so happened to be conveniently timed for just when Shrub was prancing most precariously in the glaring light of general idiocy and ratings slippage.

Enron scandal: Time for a terror alert. The economy is tanking: Look out! Terrorists! Tax cuts for the rich: Terrorists are in your yard! The U.N. rejects your plea, the whole damn world is against your little war and you need to drum up some additional domestic fear like, pronto, to justify your small-scale megalomania: Stand back, time for a bogus Orange Alert! Coincidence? You do the math.

This just in: A federal appeals court just decided that Arkansas officials can use drugs to render an insane murderer sane enough to execute. True. Finally, something Geedubya can cheer about. Just like Texas, eh, George? When life was easy and killing them crimnulz was just a flipped switch away? When all you had to deal with were a few dozen ragtag protesters outside the prison, decrying your love of killin` in the name of the state. Shoot. Life sure was simpler then. Damn hippies.


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

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

"To justify the indefensible, [Bush] talks about "appeasement" and compares Saddam with Hitler.
But one of the reasons Hitler was appeased was that he commanded a frightening, nearly invincible
war machine. It took almost the entire world to defeat him, and it was a close thing at that.
The Second World War lasted from 1939 to 1945. Will it take six years to defeat Saddam,
or six days, or six hours? Whatever his intentions, he has no tanks, no airplanes, no submarines,
no nothing. Anyone comparing this guy with Hitler has no understanding of how terrible Hitler was.
--Nicholas von Hoffman, An Imperial Adventure For Anglo-Saxon Powers, observer.com

[Joerver]

Art Spiegelman, cartoonist for The New Yorker, resigns in protest at censorship

Interview, Corriere della Sera (Milan)

13 February 2003

Art Spiegelman decided to leave The New Yorker in protest at what he calls "the widespread conformism of the mass media in the Bush era."

"The decision to leave was mine alone," the author of Maus, (the saga of Jewish mice exterminated by Nazi cats that won him the Pulitzer Prize -- the first ever awarded for a comic book), explained in an interview with Corriere della Sera. "The editor of the The New Yorker, David Remnick, was shocked when I announced my resignation. He attempted to dissuade me. But I told him that the kind of work that I`m now interested in doing is not suited to the present tone of The New Yorker. And seeing that we are living in extremely dangerous times, I don`t feel like stooping to compromise."

(Q) Do you consider yourself a victim of September 11?

"Exactly so. From the time that the Twin Towers fell, it seems as if I`ve been living in internal exile, or like a political dissident confined to an island. I no longer feel in harmony with American culture, especially now that the entire media has become conservative and tremendously timid. Unfortunately, even The New Yorker has not escaped this trend: Remnick is unable to accept the challenge, while, on the contrary, I am more and more inclined to provocation."

(Q) What kind of provocation?

"I am working on the sixth installment of my new strip, `In the shadow of no tower,` inspired both by memories of September 11 -- on that day, I had just left my apartment, a few steps from the tragedy -- and a present in which one feels equally threatened by both Bush and bin Laden. The series was commissioned by the German newspaper Die Zeit, but here in the USA, only the Jewish magazine The Forward has agreed to publish it."

(Q) Did you feel snubbed by the refusal of The New Yorker to publish it?

"Not at all. I knew from the beginning that the tone and content of the strip -- which, at this point in time, is of most importance to me -- were not in harmony with The New Yorker. A wonderful magazine, mind you, with delightful and refined covers, but also incredibly deferential to the present administration. If I were content to draw harmless strips about skateboarding and shopping in Manhattan, there would have been no problem; but, now, my inner life is inflamed with much different issues."

(Q) For what do you reproach The New Yorker?

For marching to the same beat as the New York Times and all the other great American media that don`t criticize the government for fear that the administration will take revenge by blocking their access to sources and information. Mass media today is in the hands of a limited group of extremely wealthy owners whose interests don`t coincide at all with those of the average soul living in a country where the gap between rich and poor is now unbridgeable. In this context, all criticism of the administration is automatically branded unpatriotic and un-American. Our media choose to ignore news that in the rest of the world receives wide prominence; if it were not for the Internet, even my view of the world would be extremely limited."

(Q) Then the Bush revolution has triumphed?

"Yes. In Reagan`s time, `liberal` was a dirty word and to be accused of such an offense was an insult. In the Bush Jr. era, the radical right so overwhelmingly dominates the debate that the Democrats have all had to move to the right just to be able to continue the conversation."

(Q) Will The New Yorker be the same without Spiegelman?

"The New Yorker existed long before I came on board. The great majority of the readers who adore the warm and relaxing bath of their accustomed New Yorker were very upset by the `shock treatment` of my covers. Those readers will feel more at ease with the calm and submissive New Yorker of the tradition which, since the 1920s, mixed intelligence, sophistication, snobbery, and complaisance with the status quo. Every time that I put pencil to paper, I was flooded with letters of protest."

(Q) Which of your works caused the most controversy?

"The cover with the atomic bomb issued on the 4th of July. The one from last Thanksgiving where turkies fell from military aircraft. The only one universally well-received was the Sept. 24 cover with the Twin Towers in two-toned black. The censorship of my work began as soon as I first set foot in the magazine, long before the 11th of September."

(Q) What kind of censorship?

"Large and small. For the Thanksgiving cover with turkies dropped in the place of bombs, I chose the title `Operation Enduring Turkey` to mimic `Operation Enduring Freedom` then begun by America in Afghanistan. But David Remnick forced me to change the title."

(Q) Is it possible that the media is more reactionary than their readers?

"I don`t think so at all, not after reading in the polls that George W. Bush is the most admired man in America. The world I see is very different from what they see. Those who think like me are condemned to the margins because the critical alternative press of the Vietnam War era no longer exists. The NYT chose to remain silent about the enormous protest marches that took place during the summer; and the readers of The Nation, the only major publication with any guts, are at most 50 thousand: that`s nothing in a country as large as ours."

(Q) What does your wife Francoise Moulay, the artistic director of The New Yorker, think of all this?

She thinks that I`ve left her at The New Yorker as a hostage, but I don`t think she wants to follow my example. Sometimes, I think I would like to emigrate to Europe; and seeing that in America they won`t even let me smoke, the temptation is very great."

Q) Your plans after The New Yorker?

"In May, at the Nuage Gallery in Milano, there will be an exhibition that covers my ten years at The New Yorker. Ten is a better number than eleven and, who knows, perhaps I left the magazine simply because it better suited the book and catalog that accompany the exhibition.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Rumsfeld was on board Of Company That Sold North Korea two nuclear power plants.

Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defense, was on the board of technology giant ABB when it won a deal to supply North Korea with two nuclear power plants.
swissinfo February 21, 2003 6:07 PM

Weapons experts say waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”.

The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million (SFr270million) contract with Pyongyang.

The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea’s east coast.

Rumsfeld – who is one of the Bush administration’s most strident “hardliners” on North Korea – was a member of ABB’s board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post.

Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld “was at nearly all the board meetings” during his decade-long involvement with the company.

Maybe, maybe not

However, he declined to indicate whether Rumsfeld was made aware of the nuclear contract with North Korea.

“This is a good question, but I couldn’t comment on that because we never disclose the protocols of the board meetings,” Eberhardt said.

“Maybe this was a discussion point of the board, maybe not.”

The defense secretary’s role at ABB during the late 1990s has become a bone of contention in Washington.

The ABB contract was a consequence of a 1994 deal between the US and Pyongyang to allow construction of two reactors in exchange for a freeze on the North’s nuclear weapons programme.

North Korea revealed last year that it had secretly continued its nuclear weapons programme, despite its obligations under the deal with Washington.

The Bush government has repeatedly used the agreement to criticise the former Clinton administration for being too soft on North Korea. Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, has been among the most vocal critics of the 1994 weapons accord.

Dirty bombs

Weapons experts have also speculated that waste material from the two reactors could be used for so-called “dirty bombs”.

Rumsfeld’s position at ABB could prove embarrassing for the Bush administration since while he was a director he was also active on issues of weapons proliferation, chairing the 1998 congressional Ballistic Missile Threat commission.

The commission suggested the Clinton-era deal with Pyongyang gave too much away because “North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme”.
From Zurich to Pyongyang

At the same time, Rumsfeld was travelling to Zurich for ABB’s quarterly board-meetings.

Eberhardt said it was possible that the North Korea deal never crossed the ABB boardroom desk.

“At the time, we generated a lot of big orders in the power generation business [worth] around $1 billion…[so] a $200 million contract was, so to speak, a smaller one.”

When asked whether a deal with a country such as North Korea – a communist state with declared nuclear intentions – should have been brought to the ABB board’s attention, Eberhardt told swissinfo:

“Yes, maybe. But so far we haven’t any evidence for that because the protocols were never disclosed. So maybe it was a discussion point, maybe not,” says Eberhardt.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Victoria Clark, recently told “Newsweek” magazine that “Secretary Rumsfeld does not recall it being brought before the board at any time”.

It was a long time ago

Today, ABB says it no longer has any involvement with the North Korean power plants, due to come on line in 2007 and 2008.

The company finalised the sale of its nuclear business in early 2000 to the British-based BNFL group.

swissinfo, Jacob Greber

[antigone]

BRANDREDE DES SENATORS ROBERT BYRD

"Bushs Politik ist bar jeder Weisheit"

US-Senator Robert C. Byrd hat mit einer Aufsehen erregenden Rede die Außenpolitik der Bush-Regierung als unbesonnen und arrogant gegeißelt. In scharfer Form kritisierte er auch das beklemmende Schweigen des US-Senats.




Byrd: "Offen gesagt, viele Erklärungen dieser Administration sind skandalös"


Hamburg - Seit 45 Jahren ist der Demokrat Robert C. Byrd, 85, als Vertreter West Virginias im US-Senat. In einer Rede, die derzeit in Deutschland in die Diskussion kommt, forderte er, jeder amerikanische Bürger müsse sich einmal bewusst machen, wie grausam jeder Krieg ist. "Doch im Senat herrscht weitgehend Schweigen, geheimnisvolles, bedrohliches Schweigen. Es gibt keine Debatte, keine Diskussion, keinen Versuch, der Nation das Für und Wider dieses Krieges darzulegen. Nichts!"
"Wir hüllen uns in passives Schweigen hier im US-Senat, gelähmt durch unsere eigene Unsicherheit, augenscheinlich erstarrt unter dem Eindruck der beunruhigenden Ereignisse.

Nur auf den Kommentarseiten unserer Zeitungen findet noch eine stichhaltige Diskussion über den Sinn oder Unsinn dieses Krieges statt. Der drohende Krieg stellt einen Wendepunkt in der Außenpolitik der USA dar und möglicherweise auch ein Wendepunkt in der jüngeren Weltgeschichte.

Diese Nation ist dabei, ihre revolutionäre Präventivschlag-Doktrin zu testen und sie zu einem ungünstigen Zeitpunkt anzuwenden. Sie beinhaltet die Idee, dass die USA oder jede andere Nation ganz legitim ein Land angreifen, das sie nicht unmittelbar bedroht, sondern das sie in der Zukunft bedrohen könnte - hierbei handelt es sich um einen ganz grundsätzlichen Dreh der traditionellen Vorstellung der Selbstverteidigung.

Diese Doktrin scheint gegen internationales Recht und die Charta der Völkergemeinschaft zu verstoßen. Sie wird ausprobiert in einer Zeit des weltweiten Terrorismus. Sie ist Grund dafür, dass sich viele Länder rund um den Globus fragen, ob sie auf unserer Hitliste stehen - oder auf der eines anderen Landes.

Hochrangige US-Regierungsvertreter weigerten sich jüngst, den Einsatz von Atomwaffen auszuschließen, als sie einen möglichen Angriff auf den Irak diskutierten. Was könnte destabilisierender und bar jeder Weisheit sein, als diese Art von Unsicherheit, besonders in einer Welt, in der vitale Wirtschafts- und Sicherheitsinteressen vieler Länder so eng verknüpft sind?


In unseren bewährten Bündnissen tun sich riesige Brüche auf, und die Ziele der US-Politik ist plötzlich zum Gegenstand weltweiter Spekulation geworden, was dem Ansehen der USA schadet.

Anti-Amerikanismus, der auf Misstrauen, falsche Informationen, Verdächtigungen und eine alarmierende Rhetorik führender US-Politiker zurückzuführen ist, untergräbt die ehemals feste Allianz gegen den globalen Terrorismus, wie sie nach dem 11. September existierte."

Die Bush-Regierung komme zwei Jahre nach Amtsantritt nicht gut weg, fährt der Senator fort. Einen für das kommende Jahrzehnt ursprünglich auf 5,6 Billionen Dollar bezifferten Haushaltsüberschuss habe sie in unabsehbar großes Defizit verwandelt. Und außenpolitisch sei es dieser Administration nicht gelungen Osama Bin Laden zu fassen.

"Diese Regierung hat die geduldige Kunst der Diplomatie in eine reine Droh- und Verleumdungspolitik verwandelt. Dies zeigt die Armseligkeit an Intelligenz und Einfühlungsvermögen unserer Führer, was Auswirkungen über Jahre haben wird.

Wenn Staatschefs Zwerge geheißen werden, wenn andere Länder als böse qualifiziert werden, und wenn mächtige europäische Verbündete als irrelevant bezeichnet werden, dann können diese Rücksichtslosigkeiten für unsere große Nation nichts Gutes bedeuten.

Wir mögen eine massive militärische Macht darstellen, doch wir können den weltweiten Krieg gegen den Terrorismus nicht allein führen. Wir brauchen die Zusammenarbeit mit unseren bewährten Verbündeten genauso wie die neuerer Freunde, die wir durch unseren Wohlstand gewinnen.

Den USA fehlt es bereits jetzt an Soldaten, daher brauchen wir die Unterstützung der Nationen, die uns Truppen zur Verfügung stellen und nicht nur ermutigende Briefe zusenden.

Der Krieg in Afghanistan hat die USA bisher 37 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Dennoch gibt es Beweise, dass der Terror in dieser Region wieder aufkeimt. Auch Pakistan droht destabilisiert zu werden. Die US-Regierung hat den ersten Krieg gegen den Terror noch nicht beendet, da ist sie bereits scharf darauf, sich in den nächsten Konflikt zu stürzen, in dem die Gefahren viel größer sind als in Afghanistan. Haben wir nicht gelernt, dass es nach einem gewonnenen Krieg gilt, den Frieden zu sichern?

Über die Nachwirkungen eines Krieges gegen den Irak hören wir wenig. Wo es keine Pläne gibt, blühen die Spekulationen. Werden wir die irakischen Ölfelder beschlagnahmen? Wem wollen wir die Macht nach Saddam Hussein in die Hand geben? Wird ein Krieg die muslimische Welt in Flammen setzen mit der Folge verheerender Angriffe auf Israel? Wird Israel mit seinen Atomwaffen Vergeltung üben? Wird die jordanische und saudi-arabische Regierung von radikalen Muslimen gestürzt, unterstützt von Iran, der mit dem Terrorismus viel enger verknüpft ist, als der Irak? Können Verwerfungen auf dem Weltölmarkt zu einer weltweiten Rezession führen?

Stachelt unsere unnötig kriegerische Sprache und unsere ausgesprochene Missachtung anderer Interessen und Meinungen weltweit das Bestreben anderer Länder an, bald selbst dem Club der Atommächte anzugehören?

In nur zwei Jahren hat diese rücksichtlose und arrogante Regierung eine Politik eingeleitet, die über Jahre hinaus eine verheerende Wirkung haben kann.

Man kann die Wut und den Schock eines jeden Präsidenten nach den üblen Anschlägen vom 11. September verstehen. Man kann auch die Frustration nachvollziehen, die entsteht, wenn man nur einen Schatten, einen gestaltlosen Feind verfolgt, an dem Vergeltung zu üben nahezu unmöglich ist. Doch es ist unentschuldbar, die eigene Frustration und den Ärger durch eine extrem destabilisierende und gefährliche Außenpolitik zu einem Debakel werden zu lassen, wie es der Welt gerade vorgeführt wird von einer Regierung, die die furchteinflößende Macht und Verantwortung hat, das Schicksal der größten Supermacht der Welt zu bestimmen.

Offen gesagt, viele Erklärungen dieser Administration sind skandalös. Es gibt kein anderes Wort dafür.

Dennoch herrscht Schweigen im Senat. Ganz ehrlich muss ich auch das Urteilsvermögen eines Präsidenten in Frage stellen, der sagen kann, dass ein schwerer militärischer - nicht provozierter - Angriff auf eine Nation, die zu mehr als der Hälfte aus Kindern besteht, in den `höchsten moralischen Traditionen unseres Landes` stehe.

Dieser Krieg ist zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht nötig. Der internationale Druck auf den Irak scheint eine gute Wirkung zu zeitigen. Es war ein Fehler der amerikanischen Regierung, sich so schnell festzulegen. Nun ist es unsere Aufgabe, uns möglichst elegant aus der selbstgedrehten Schlinge zu winden. Vielleicht gibt es einen Ausweg, wenn wir uns mehr Zeit lassen."


http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,237371,00.html

[Joerver]

Die Demokraten wachen auf.

Feb 22, 12:15 PM EST

Candidate Edwards Defends His Background

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called President Bush "out of touch, out of tune" with regular Americans as the freshman senator sought Saturday to turn his political inexperience and lucrative legal career into virtues.

"And so, I ask you, and I ask the American people, are you better off than you were two years ago?" Edwards said in his address to the Democratic National Committee. "In two short years, George W. Bush has taught us what the W stands for: Wrong. Wrong for our children, wrong for our parents, wrong for our values, and very, very wrong for our country"

Two other announced candidates addressed the DNC, the Rev. Al Sharpton and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Sharpton said he opposes war in Iraq, especially when terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Bush "can`t find a man hiding in a cave in Afghanistan," Sharpton said, drawing laughter and applause from the crowd.

The committee`s three-day gathering, which ended Saturday, gave a crowded field of presidential hopefuls the chance to court the party`s most active fund-raisers, political organizers and primary campaign voters.


Four Democratic hopefuls spoke Friday - Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the eighth candidate in a growing field, is recovering from prostate cancer surgery and did not address the DNC. His campaign shipped activists to his home in buses for private chats Friday night.

Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman are considered the field`s top candidates, DNC members say, although Moseley-Braun, Sharpton and Kucinich have plenty of time to make an impact.

Several other Democrats are considering joining the field, including Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, whose presence could change the top tier`s dynamics.

Amid all the jockeying, Edwards took a poke at Gephardt, Kerry and Lieberman, three long-serving lawmakers.

"If you think the only way to restore people`s faith in our government is (with) someone ... who`s been in Washington politics for decades, I am certainly not your guy," Edwards said in a text of his address prepared for delivery.

Kerry`s campaign has questioned Edwards` credentials, which includes only five years in government. Gephardt says he`s not a flashy, flavor-of-the-month candidate, which has been interpreted as a jab at Edwards and Kerry, but the Missourian says his experience counts more.

Bush has lavished Edwards with attention, scheduling legal reform events in North Carolina and accusing trial lawyers of chasing high-paying verdicts that drive up insurance rates.

"Let me be as clear as I can about this: I am proud of my career. I am proud of the families I represented. I am proud of the cases I won," Edwards said.

"Mr. President, we`ll let you take the side you`ve always taken. You take the insurance companies` side," Edwards said.

"He is out of touch, out of tune, and in November 2004, he will be out of time," the senator said.





http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_2004?SI…

[Joerver]

Ich hoffe, der Husten ist vorbei!

[Joerver]

Eine kleine Veränderung würde den Sticker auch für D brauchbar machen.

[Joerver]

Es gibt auch andere Meinungen zu Rumsfeld als im Spiegel:


http://www.takebackthemedia.com/pentagoon2.html

[Joerver]

Frankreich muß leiden.
The Times, Louisiana.
Viel Spaß beim übersetzen.


Tim Greening: Mon dieu! An angry Frenchman takes offense to our French bashing
Tim Greening / The Times
Posted on February 22, 2003
Dear American people,

Or, as I would rather say it,

listen up, you mullet-wearing Nelly worshippers!

I am a citizen of France. I am not an official with zee French government, nor an official spokesman. I am just your average Joe Six-paquet.

I am writing zis open letter to zee people of America to express my outrage over zee increase in French bashing by Americans.

Yes, we have heard zee jokes.

"A Frenchman on a battlefield is about as unnecessary as a men`s bathroom at a Lillith Fair show."

"Going to war without zee French is like going deer hunting without an accordion."

"How many French soldiers does it take to defend Paris? Nobody knows, it`s never been tried before."

We are not laughing.

Many blame zis increase in French bashing on our government`s refusal to support your president`s push for military action in Iraq.

But we Frenchmen know zee real reason you hate us: Because we ingest wine, cheese, butter and cream sauces from zee moment we wake up to zee moment we go to bed and we never gain an ounce.

Guilty, as charged. So take zat, you McRib-chomping Hummer jockeys! Stick zat in your Twinkie and deep fry it!

My question is, "Why all zee anger about war with Iraq?" (Well, perhaps zee real question eez, "Why does my accent translate to zee printed page?")

First of all, let me address zee misinformation that France is not ready for war. Of course, we are preparing for war - our white flag factories have been operating day and night.

Really, our militaries have a great history as allies. We were integral in your victory against zee British to win your independence, and we helped you fend off zee British again in zee War of 1812.

And zat alliance continues in zee modern era: In 1991, when American forces stormed zee deserts of Iraq to liberate Kuwait, we Frenchmen were behind you all zee way.

But now, one little disagreement and you get all bent out of shape like zee Tom Clancy-reading Zima addicts zat you are.

Well, I will explain to you tattoo-faced Bachelorette watchers why France opposes war.

Do you realize zee expense of war? To participate in zis effort, France would have to deploy 30 tanks, 300 military transport vehicles, 10,000 soldiers and one shower.

No, on second thought, we probably won`t need zee shower. Still, zat eez a very expensive undertaking!

See, war has a very high price - in human life and in money. That is what gives us pause, not, as you imply, because we are not tough.

And to prove to you we are tough, I have a warning for you gas-station-cappuccino-slurping Britney wannabes: We do have means of retaliation.

We still have your precious Joe Millionaire.

Zee people of France don`t share your fascination with zat Kangaroo Jack-loving mouth breather, and we will not hesitate to execute him if the French bashing doesn`t stop.

So quit with zee jokes or it`s guillotine time. We`ll lop his empty head off, Rick-James-circa-1983 Jeri Curl haircut and all.

Vive le France!

Sincerely,

Jean Q. Publique

[Joerver]

"Daddy, I liked it better when Bill Clinton was President."

[Joerver]

Nicht nur immer Spiegel:


Der postmoderne Krieg ist am Ende

Artur P. Schmidt 20.02.2003
Der gefährliche Trugschluss der Politik der Bush-Regierung

Die exponentielle Vermehrung der Waffen und deren potentielle Zerstörungskraft legt die Frage nahe, wie ernst wir es heute mit den Bemühungen um Frieden noch meinen. Insbesondere sogenannte saubere Hightech-Kriege, die dem Angreifer so gut wie keine Verluste bescheren sind heute en vogue. Leider trifft die Totalität dieser Angriffe immer mehr Zivilpersonen. Dies ist jedoch das besondere Merkmal der totalen Kriegsführung, deren Ziel nicht die Zerstörung von Soldaten oder Maschinen ist, sondern von Zivilisten. Der gewichtigste Grund für den Krieg ist angeblich der Frieden, der angeblich aber nur durch die Fortsetzung der Politik mit den Mitteln der Waffen gesichert werden. Betrachtet man jedoch die Ergebnisse der meisten Kriege, so sind diese völlig außer Kontrolle geraten und haben die Menschlichkeit in Massengräbern begraben.






Vietnam war das gleiche Fiasko für Amerika wie Afghanistan für die Sowjetunion. Kriege bekommen ab einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt eine unkontrollierbare Eigendynamik, die nur dadurch vermieden werden kann, indem man diese nicht beginnt. Die mögliche Eigendynamik, die ein amerikanischer Kreuzzug im Nahen Osten auslösen könnte, ist heute kaum abzusehen. Der angebliche Kriegsgrund Frieden führt jedoch oft in autokatalytischer Weise zu noch mehr Terror, Krieg oder Grauen. Mit dem 1. Irak-Krieg drangen die verlegten Bombenteppiche durch das Massenmedium Fernsehen endgültig in jeden Haushalt vor. Dies wurde nur deshalb während des Afghanistan-Krieges gestoppt, weil man keine Zeugen für das angerichtete Grauen mehr haben will. Das Grauen muss anonym bleiben.






Flucht vor der amerikanischen Unterdrückung


Ein Großteil der Weltbevölkerung lebt heute in bitterer Armut oder wird durch Krankheiten wie AIDS dezimiert. Die voranschreitende Globalisierung bietet nur noch für diejenigen wirkliche Vorteile, die über das nötige Kleingeld verfügen, um in den Konsumtempeln des Westens einkaufen zu können. Die vollständige Unterwerfung der Weltbevölkerung unter ein Wirtschaftsystem des sozialen Darwinismus bietet den Nährboden für die heutige Form des Terrorismus, den Neoliberalismus.

Allerdings kommen die Terroristen nicht aus den Slums der Entwicklungsländer, sondern wie beim Terror der 70er Jahr aus der Mittel- und Oberschicht. Die selbsternannten "Sprecher der Armen" sind ideologisch geprägt und wenden sich gegen die Verwestlichung der Welt. Der Grund für den Terrorismus ist nicht eine Verteidigung des Islam gegen das Christentum, sondern ein Kampf der Beherrschten gegen die Herrschenden.

Amerika, ein Land mit großartigen Bürgern, steht deshalb vor keiner geringeren Aufgabe, als der des Dialoges zwischen den Kulturen. Amerikanische Politiker müssen lernen, sich in den Anderen hineinzuversetzen und dessen Empfindungen zu verstehen. Sie müssen lernen, dass die Unterzeichnung und Einhaltung internationaler Verträge keine Sache ist, bei der man Sonderregelungen aushandelt, sondern die Basis für Vertrauen und gegenseitigen Respekt. Wenn Bush am 29. Januar 2002 sagte: "You will not esacpe the justice of this nation", so muss die Welt ausdrücklich hinzufügen: "But America has to accept the justice of this planet".


Die Rolle der Vereinten Nationen


In Somalia wurden die US-Kräfte von "Lord Bands" aus dem Land gejagt, in Ruanda scheiterte die U.N. bei dem Versuch, den Macheten-Genozid zu verhindern, und auch der Balkan wurde durch eine Alliierten-Bande in Schutt und Asche gelegt. Solange der Krieg als wesentlicher Bestandteil des wirtschaftlichen Systems fungieren kann, wird das Ziel des Friedens jegliche Form der Kriegsführung rechtfertigen, ob die Bürger dies wollen oder nicht.

Die Angewohnheit der USA, ihr eigenes Recht gegen das internationale Recht durchzusetzen, wann immer es gerade beliebt, repräsentiert die zeitgenössische Form politischer Heuchelei. Das Phänomen komplexer Systeme, positive und negative Rückkopplungen aufzuweisen, könnte uns im militärischen Maßstab zum Verhängnis werden, wenn es nicht gelingt, die heutigen Kriegsspiele in Friedensdialoge überzuführen. Das Wirken Gandhis hat gezeigt, dass friedliche Aktionen, wenn sie zur richtigen Zeit am richtigen Ort stattfinden, tiefe und weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die Überwindung bisheriger Paradigmen haben können.

Wer in einer globalisierten Welt die Außenpolitik allein den Streitkräften und den Wohlstand für alle nur der Wirtschaft überlässt, wird zur Zielscheibe sich zunehmend vernetzender Gegenkräfte. Der heutige "Krieg" gegen den Terrorismus wird vor allem von eben dieser Zielscheibe geführt. Die USA wurden 1986 vom Internationalen Gerichtshof (International Court of Justice - ICJ) u.a. wegen vom Völkerrecht verbotener Kriegshandlungen verurteilt und die Notwendigkeit der "kollektiven Selbstverteidigung" der USA gegen die Sandnisten nicht anerkannt. Die USA sind den Verhandlungen ferngeblieben und haben das Urteil nicht anerkannt. Gegen die Resolution 595 aus dem Jahr 1987, die Staaten dazu aufruft, das internationale Recht zu achten, wurde zu allem Überfluss ein Veto eingelegt. Lapidar kommentierte die New York Times, dass der internationale Gerichtshof ein "feindliches Forum" sei, dem man keine Beachtung schenken sollte. Hierzu passt auch, das Bush die Vereinten Nationen mittlerweile nur noch als Debattier-Club ansieht, dem keine Beachtung mehr zu schenken ist.


Arschlochizität


Als Charles Lewinsky sein Buch "Der A-Quotient" schrieb, konnte er nicht wissen, dass G. W. Bush das perfekte Beispiel für seine theoretischen Überlegungen zu Arschlöchern abgeben würde. Demokratie erfordert Dialoge, aber sie ist, wie Attlee bemerkte, nur wirksam, "wenn man die Leute dazu bringt, dass sie aufhören zu reden".

Angesichts der imperialen Ansprüche Amerikas sind wir zwar alle sprachlos, jedoch kann dieser Zustand mittlerweile nicht mehr länger aufrecht erhalten werden. Die neue Botschaft heißt Solidarität. Damit ist nicht diejenige gemeint, die durch Beistandspakte den Krieg unterstützt, sondern diejenige, die sich nach den Aufräumarbeiten in New York im Jahr 2001 und der Flutbekämpfung im Jahr 2002 in Deutschland zeigte. Das Volk muss, wie es Jaspers ausdrückte, nachdenken: "Es lernt nachdenken. Es weiß, was geschieht. Es urteilt."

Wenn wir heute zu urteilen haben, dann müssen wir deshalb die Nichtunterzeichnung des Kyoto-Protokolls durch die Amerikaner verurteilen. Die amerikanische Antwort auf die Klimakatastrophe heißt ignorieren. Hierbei stellt sich nicht die Frage nach der Richtigkeit derartigen Handelns, sondern nur diejenige, wie lange der Arsch des Politikers diese Vorgehensweise aussitzen kann.

Jetzt wird klar, warum Demokratie eine Frage der Weltanschauung ist. Man kann die Welt vom Kopf her oder mit dem Arsch betrachten. Während der Kopf Augen hat, ist der Arsch zumindest temporär blind, da das Loch in der Regel auf eine Scheibe mit einem dunklen Loch gepresst wird. Es kommt deshalb nicht von ungefähr, dass Politiker oftmals als Flachdenker bezeichnet werden müssen. Letztendlich ist die Demokratie die vornehmste Form, mit der sich ein Land ruinieren kann. Besonders eklatant wird die Situation dann, wenn Präsidenten zum Sprachrohr von Lobbyisten werden. Deshalb bezeichnete Hobbes zurecht "die Demokratie als eine Aristokratie der Redner, die durch die zeitweilige Monarchie eines Redners unterbrochen wird".

Zwar mag die Demokratie in den USA vom Volke ausgehen, aber spätestens seit den Wahlmanipulationen in Florida und allerspätestens seit der einseitigen Berichterstattung der US-Medien heute wissen wir, dass diese das Volk verlassen hat. Was lernen wir daraus: Demokratie heißt, das zu akzeptieren, was die USA als Demokratie bezeichnen. Nicht umsonst betonte bereits Alexis de Tocqueville, der erste Theoretiker der Massendemokratie, dass die Demokratie nichts Gutes ist, es jedoch keine effektive und geeignete Alternative gibt.


Die Begeisterung hält sich in Grenzen


Die Begeisterungsstürme für Nach-Afghanistan-Kreuzzüge der amerikanischen Regierung wie einen 2. Irak-Krieg halten sich in Europa in Grenzen. Dies kümmert die Amerikaner jedoch wenig. Ihre zukünftigen Kriege sollen möglichst nur Luftkriege sein, bei denen die Bodentruppen nur noch für die Trümmerbeseitigung benötigt werden. Der bereits 1999 erprobte Luftkrieg im Kosovo-Konflikt wurde im Afghanistan-Krieg weiter perfektioniert.

Der "American Way of War" in Form von Hightech-Kriegen, finanziert durch ausländische Kredite und mit Unterstützung des 53. US-Bundesstaates in Form von Großbritannien, soll zukünftig auf eine Vielzahl von Ländern ausgedehnt werden. Außerdem will sich der Weltpolizist Nr. 1 wieder vermehrt in die inneren Angelegenheiten von Entwicklungsländern einmischen und somit deren nationalen Unabhängigkeit und Selbstbestimmung untergraben.

In einem Krieg gegen Terroristen sind auch geheime Militärgerichte vorgesehen, die Nicht-US-Bürger nach Belieben aburteilen und einsperren können. Nach dem 11. September wurde die Tradition der Bewahrung der Freiheit ad absurdum geführt. Die Regierung hat im Namen der Terrorismusbekämpfung die Rechte des Individuums und damit wesentliche Elemente der amerikanischen Verfassung bereits außer Kraft gesetzt. Amerika hat damit einen Rückschritt zu den Theorien von Hobbes aus dem sechzehnten Jahrhundert vollzogen, der den Bürger zu bedingungsloser Loyalität gegenüber dem Staat verpflichtete. G. W. Bush wird immer mehr zum Globalisierungs-Darth Vader, der keine Freunde mehr kennt, außer denen, die ihm den Playboy der Schurkenstaaten-Intellektuellen, Usama bin Ladin, ausliefern - tot oder lebendig.

Neuerdings gehören auch Deutschland und Frankreich zum illustren Kreis von Wüstenstaaten und Zigarrenfetischisten. Für Amerika ergibt sich eine immer schwierigere Konstellation. Je mehr Kriege diese für ihr Land im Rahmen der "USA for USA"-Doktrin gewinnen, desto mehr weltweite Feinde werden geschaffen. Die Autokatalyse der Gegner fordert jedoch Widerstand und zivilen Ungehorsam heraus. Privilegierte Gegner wie Pakistan und Nordkorea sind die nächsten absehbaren Opfer des amerikanischen Kreuzzuges gegen das sogenannte Böse. George Lucas wird deshalb kaum darum herumkommen, eine neue Star Wars-Episode abzudrehen mit dem Titel: "Die Vorfahren von Darth Vader - Big Brothers Bush, Rumsfeld und Ashcroft."


Das Imperium schlägt zurück


Der Kampf zwischen den sich mittlerweile als Imperium verstehenden USA (pax americana) und dem Rest der Welt hat gerade erst begonnen. Als Kämpfer stehen jedoch nicht 300 Millionen Amerikaner den etwa 6 Milliarden anderen Bewohnern des blauen Planeten gegenüber, sondern rund ein Dutzend Regierungsmitglieder und deren Militärs kämpft gegen den Rest der Welt. Dies müsste einen nicht weiter beunruhigen, wenn das Imperium nicht über derart viele Atomwaffen verfügen würde.

Wenn der Philosoph Peter Sloterdijk sagt, dass die USA das "europäische Programm der imperialen Ordnungsaufgabe in der Welt übernommen" haben, so trifft er damit in das Schwarze. Ebenso wie das große Vorbild Rom erzeugen die Amerikaner durch ihren Imperialismus ihre eigene Isolation. Dieser Isolationismus ist besonders gefährlich, da er auch noch religiös untermauert ist. Der amerikanische Flug in die Zukunft in Form einer zur Glaubenssache proklamierten Weltherrschaft wird allerdings ohne Kehrtwende in der Außenpolitik ausgesprochen einsam sein.

Ronald Reagans Diktum, dass der Staat keine gesellschaftlichen Probleme lösen könne, hat sich unter G.W. Bush ins Gegenteil verkehrt. Der Staat ist jetzt nicht mehr Teil des Problems, sondern nur die Staatsmacht kann angeblich die anstehenden Probleme lösen. Die Folge wird ein Überwachungsstaat sein, der auf Verfassungsschutz, NSA, FBI, CIA und Grenzpolizei setzt. Das Aufblähen des Staatsapparates und das Abschotten von Informationen gehören zu den Methoden, mit denen der amerikanische Präsident seine Macht erweitert. Die Welt soll sich dieser Macht des One World One Order-Imperalismus unterordnen, weil Amerika angeblich nur das Gute will. Leider entsteht aus diesem Machtwillen immer mehr das Böse, wie das Abhören von Telefonen, die Einschränkung von Verteidigungsrechten oder die unbegrenzte Haft wichtiger Zeugen (z.B. die 600 im kubanischen Guantánamo ohne Anklage, ohne Anwalt und ohne Zeitlimit einsitzenden Talibankämpfer).

Die Grenzen zwischen einer Demokratie und einer Diktatur zerfließen und der Rest der Welt soll eine neue Stärke zu spüren bekommen. Bush ist längst dabei, mit den Machteliten, dem Militär und seinen Schutzdiensten eine Art Neben-Regierung zu formen, die selbst die McCarthy-Ära in den Schatten stellen wird. Die Folgen dieses Wahnsinns werden den noch teilnahmslos zusehenden Amerikanern dann zu Bewusstsein treten, wenn immer mehr Menschen ohne Anklage von der Bildfläche verschwinden.


Der Feind ist die amerikanische Regierung


Dass sich das amerikanische Volk mittlerweile mit einem neuen Feind, der eigenen Regierung, auseinander zu setzen hat, ist das eigentliche Phänomen in Folge der Ereignisse vom 11. September. Mittlerweile wurde das CIA in eine exekutive Behörde mit der Befugnis zu Attentaten und politischen Morden verwandelt. Die Anarchie wird hierbei nicht von unten, sondern von oben ausgerufen. Amerika handelt wie ein angeschlagener Boxer. Die Weltmacht scheint zu wanken und zu einer "totalitären Demokratie" zu avancieren, wie Erwin Chargaff bemerkte.

Amerika unterschätzt das Risiko, dass die gesamte arabische Welt sich gegen Israel wenden könnte. Doch wenn die muslimische Welt in Flammen aufgeht, wird die USA daran zerbrechen. Der Schriftsteller Dostojewskij sah die Herrschaft der Großinquisitoren und den Triumph der Macht über die Gerechtigkeit voraus, wie Albert Camus richtig beobachtete. In Dostojewskis Roman die "Die Brüder Karamasow" ist die wesentliche Botschaft, dass der Mensch niemals die Fähigkeit zur Reue verlieren darf. Bei der aktuellen amerikanischen Regierung sucht man diese jedoch vergeblich. Es wird immer offensichtlicher, dass die Amerikaner nicht nur diese, sondern seit dem 11. September auch ihre Freiheit verloren haben.

Die von amerikanischen Politikern verordnete Lebenslüge, dass es gut ist, wenn 10 % der Bevölkerung über 90 % herrschen, wird bedenkenlos hingenommen. Da es für diese 10 % keinen anderen Gott gibt als den Mammon, scheint alles, was der Manipulierung der Massen dient, erlaubt zu sein. Dies gilt mittlerweile auch im globalen Maßstab. Die Formel von G.W. Bush ist einfach: "Wer nicht für die USA ist, ist gegen die USA". Diese Rambo-Logik ist einfach und für jeden, sogar den Dümmsten, verständlich: Was nicht weiß ist, muss schwarz sein. Jetzt dürfte auf klar sein, warum es gerade die dümmsten Anführer sind, die in Amerika das Wort führen.


Entzieht ihnen die Nutzungsrechte!


Für Amerika bedeutet Entwicklungshilfe, wie Denis Healy richtig bemerkte, nicht anderes, als wenn die armen Leute eines reichen Landes für die reichen Leute eines armen Landes Geld spenden. Und es ließe sich noch anfügen, dass Entwicklungshilfe solange von armen Mehrheiten betrieben werden wird, bis die reichen Minderheiten entmachtet sind.

Die Gewaltherrschaft der Armut ist das Übel, welches es zu bekämpfen gilt. Betrachtet man die aktuellen Entwicklungen in den USA und das dort vorherrschende Vormachtstreben, so hat man als Europäer heute wahrscheinlich keine andere Möglichkeit, als eine Gegenposition einzunehmen. Jeder Weltbürger muss das Grundrecht zur Sicherung der Freiheit wahrnehmen. Da das Wort Republikaner sich von "Republica" ableitet, was soviel wie "Wohlfahrt des Ganzen" bedeutet, müsste man eigentlich den amerikanischen Regierungsmitgliedern die Nutzungsrechte für dieses Wort entziehen.

Die republikanischen US-Politiker arbeiten nach drei Prinzipien: 1. Wenn es irgendwo in der Welt ein Problem gibt, wende Gewalt an. Wenn dadurch etwas zerstört wird, ist dies nicht schlimm, denn irgendwann hätte es sowieso erneuert werden müssen. 2. Konstruiere Waffensysteme, die selbst ein Irrer anwenden kann. Somit wird sichergestellt, dass später auch nur ein Irrer die Waffe anwenden will. 3. Die Bürokratie ist so auszulegen, dass jeder Untergebene seine Stufe der Unfähigkeit erreichen kann.


Der gefährliche Trugschluss


Ob mit oder ohne Europa, Amerika war und ist zu Alleingängen entschlossen, ohne UNO-Beschlüsse oder Konsultationen abzuwarten. Dies war in der Vergangenheit so und es ist nicht ersichtlich, was sich in Zukunft daran ändern sollte.

Es ist abzusehen, dass die aktuell anbrechende Phase des Terrorismus gegen die USA, den amerikanischen Imperialismus noch weiter schüren wird. Einen wirklichen Kriegsgrund muss es dabei nicht geben, sondern nur einen, den man nach Belieben konstruieren kann. Wenn die USA glauben, durch einen Krieg gegen den Irak den Terrorismus auszumerzen, könnte sich dies als gefährlicher Trugschluss erweisen, der Amerika international noch weiter isolieren dürfte. Nährböden für den weltweiten Extremismus ist die Armut und so lange diese nicht beseitigt wird, führt die Rolle des Rüstungsweltmeisters Amerika direkt auf den Abgrund zu.

Im Falle eines Irak-Krieges könnten Folgekosten von über 1.000 Milliarden US-Dollar entstehen und die Weltwirtschaft in ihre bisher schlimmste Krise stürzen. Europa hat deshalb keine geringere Aufgabe, als sich von den US-Positionen zu entkoppeln, ja diesen eine eigene Ordnung entgegenzusetzen. Somit bleibt nur zu hoffen, dass es gelingt, Amerika diejenigen Wege abzuschneiden, mit denen es zur Macht gelangt ist. Es geht deshalb um nichts geringeres, als den Kapitaltransfer in die USA so lange zu stoppen, bis sich ein Sinneswandel einstellt. Ebenso wie Hollywood ohne deutsche Steuersparmodelle implodieren würde, ebenso wird der amerikanischen Kriegsmaschinerie ohne Geld aus dem Ausland der Atem ausgehen. Die amerikanische Verschuldungsproblematik kann dann zum Damoklesschwert avancieren und den friedlichen Untergang des Imperiums durch eine Millisekundenpleite einleiten. Der Kybernetik sei Dank.

[Joerver]

Ein Diskussionspunkt, der in der letzten Zeit ganz aus den Augen verloren wurde. Deutschland als selbstdenkendes Mitglied der Völkergemeinschaft und nicht als Appendix der USA.

Peter Sloterdijk, 09.02
profil: In den letzten Wochen des Wahlkampfs brachte Gerhard Schröder das Schlagwort vom „deutschen Weg“ ins Spiel, wofür er doppelt kritisiert wurde: von den Linken, weil sie nationalistische Tendenzen witterten; von den Rechten, weil sie die westliche Bündnistreue infrage gestellt sahen. Was hat die Formel vom „deutschen Weg“ bei Ihnen zum Klingen gebracht?
Sloterdijk: Deutschland ist nach dem Krieg groß geworden in einer Rhetorik der Leugnung deutscher Sonderwege. Wir haben uns quasi selbsttherapeutisch europäisiert und eine Art Quarantäne über die deutsche Mentalität verhängt, wenn es darum ging, nationale Interessen auszusprechen.

profil: Um damit auch krampfhaft Normalität zu simulieren?
Sloterdijk: Bis tief in die Ära Kohl hinein war deutsche Außenpolitik von dem Bewusst- sein geprägt, dass wir uns auf einer Sonderschule der Demokratie den Abschluss erst mühsam erarbeiten mussten. Schröder war, wenn man so will, der erste Kanzler der Normalität. Mit seiner Wahlkampfwendung vom deutschen Weg wurde sozusagen die Heimkehr der deutschen Demokratie in die Familie der nicht neurotischen Gesellschaften gefeiert. Darüber sind die ideologischen Sozialarbeiter und politischen Psychotherapeuten der Deutschen naturgemäß unglücklich, weil sie einen Patienten verlieren, an dem ihnen sehr viel lag und der sich so leicht nicht durch einen anderen ersetzen lässt. Schröders „deutscher Weg“ besticht vor allem auch durch die Selbstverständlichkeit seines Klangs, weil man weiß, dass hier kein Chauvinist oder Anti-Europäer spricht, sondern einer, der ganz deutlich signalisiert, dass im Bereich der deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen ein neues Kapitel aufgeblättert werden muss. Die Fähigkeit, zwischen den USA als kulturell verbündetem Projekt und der Bush-Administration zu unterscheiden, halte ich für eine elementare Tugend der deutschen Demokratie von heute.

profil: Eine spezifische Ausprägung dieses deutschen Weges war Schröders Weigerung, sich der amerikanischen Kriegsrhetorik gegen den Irak anzuschließen.
Sloterdijk: Das deutsche Nein in dieser Angelegenheit ist vor allem eine symbolisch-moralische Position, eine spezifische Form der Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sonderweg der USA. Der Begriff „rogue state“, mit „Schurkenstaat“ übrigens eher unglücklich ins Deutsche übersetzt, hat in der westlichen Politik seit einigen Jahren Hochkonjunktur. In der Biologie steht „rogue“ für das wieder ausgewilderte Einzelgängertier, das abseits von der Herde durch den Busch streift. Die beiden „rogue states“ der gegenwärtigen Weltpolitik sind, so gesehen, die USA und Israel, die jede Art von Alignment mit der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft aus dem Grundansatz ihres Selbstverständnisses heraus ablehnen, weil sie beide davon ausgehen, dass Nicht-Israelis beziehungsweise Nicht-Amerikaner sich in die besondere Situation dieser beiden Länder nicht einfühlen können. Das bestärkt sie auch in ihrer Neigung, die Fähigkeit zum Selbstmandat in einem überdurchschnittlichen Ausmaß auszuüben.

profil: Im Zusammenhang mit den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September 2001 wurde gern der pathetische Satz bemüht, nichts werde mehr so sein wie vorher. Hat „Nine-Eleven“ die Welt tatsächlich nachhaltig verändert?
Sloterdijk: Es gibt nicht nur sich selbst erfüllende Prophezeiungen, sondern auch sich selbst erfüllende Hysterisierungen. Sowohl die Sozial- als auch die Individualpsyche hat in weiten Teilen ihres Funktionslebens eine autohypnotische Struktur: Der Mensch wird, was er hört, und die Öffentlichkeit wird, was sie liest. Die Psychologisierung des öffentlichen Raums durch Massenmedien ist eine der Primärrealitäten einer Zeit, in der es Massenmedien gibt. Seit dem 11. September 2001 hat sich die westliche Welt in ein großes Labor autoplastischer Suggestion verwandelt, in dem das Modellieren mit pathetischem Material zu einer Massenbeschäftigung geworden ist. Gegen diese Hysteriezumutungen hilft meiner Meinung nach nur ein Stück nachgereichter Kaltblütigkeit.

profil: Mit anderen Worten: Der 11. September lässt Sie heute so kalt wie vor einem Jahr?
Sloterdijk: Ich bin so betroffen wie irgendwer. Ich gehöre aber Gott sei Dank einer Gruppe von Menschen an, die mit dem 11. September seit jeher den Geburtstag Theodor W. Adornos verbunden haben, und halte an der Einschätzung fest, dass diese Assoziation unter kulturgeschichtlichen Gesichtspunkten weiterhin die wichtigere bleibt. Im Übrigen gibt es nach dem 11. September immer auch einen 12., an dem das autohypnotische Schaumwerk wieder in sich zusammenfällt.

Interview: Sven Gächter

Das ganze Interview:

http://www.profil.at/export/profil/p_content.php3?&xmlval_ID…

Diskussion mit Richard von Weizecker und Peter Schneider:"Über die zukunft von Krieg und Frieden"
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/mediathek/ZDFde_video_cont/0,1912,VI…

[Joerver]

ANATOMIE EINER KRISE

Bushs Alleingang gegen die Welt

Von Jochen Bölsche

Biowaffen in Händen Dritter gelten den USA als Kriegsgrund, doch Uno-Pläne zur Inspektion ihrer eigenen Labors lehnt die Supermacht ebenso strikt ab wie Klimaschutzverträge oder Landminenverbote. Hat die Uno überhaupt noch eine Chance?

Salbungsvoller hätte George W. Bush sein Gelübde nicht formulieren können: Er werde das mächtigste Land der Erde mit der "Bescheidenheit wahrer Stärke" und der "Demut wirklicher Größe" regieren, versprach der 43. Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten vor seinem Amtsantritt im Januar 2001.


Die Inauguration lag gerade hundert Tage zurück, da war für politische Kommentatoren offenkundig, dass in Wahrheit Hybris die Hypermacht regierte - Bushs Ankündigung hatte sich binnen kürzester Zeit als pure Anmaßung erwiesen.

Gegenüber den Uno, aber auch im Umgang mit seinen Nato-Verbündeten schlug Bush unmittelbar nach Amtsantritt einen derart selbstgefälligen und selbstherrlichen Kurs ein, dass sich die "Washington Post" an den Spruch erinnert fühlte: "My way or the highway" - frei übersetzt: Nichts geht, wenn`s nicht nach mir geht.

Nach nur fünf Monaten im Oval Office hatte der Präsident sieben internationale Abkommen aufgekündigt, darunter Verträge zum Umweltschutz, zur Geburtenkontrolle und zur Rüstungsbegrenzung. Obendrein distanzierte sich Bush von der Zusage seines Vorgängers Bill Clinton, auf den Einsatz jener grausamen Anti-Personen-Minen zu verzichten, die gleichermaßen Infanteristen und Zivilisten verstümmeln und töten.

"Superschurkenmacht" mit Image-Problemen

Bevor Bush im September 2001 Verbündete für den Anti-Terror-Krieg gewinnen und sich daher vorübergehend mäßigen musste, suchte er monatelang "fast mutwillig" Streit sowie "Vorwände, internationale Verträge und Organisationen zu unterlaufen", wie die Berliner "Welt" mit Befremden beobachtete.

Das traditionell amerikafreundliche Blatt äußerte tiefe Sorge um das Image der USA, die sich manchem Europäer schon kurz nach Bushs Amtsantritt als "Superschurkenmacht" dargestellt hätten. In jenen Wochen außenpolitischen Wütens wurzelt die tiefe Entfremdung, die mittlerweile - wiederum durch amerikanisches Zutun - zum transatlantischen Zerwürfnis eskaliert ist, das Uno, Nato und EU entzweit.



So jedenfalls sieht es die Berliner Regierung. "Der außenpolitische Strategiewechsel der Bush-Administration, die Aufkündigung des Primats des Rechts und der Multilateralität, hat den Konflikt ausgelöst," beteuert der Grünen-Politiker Jürgen Trittin. Rapide gewachsen sei die Distanz zwischen den Partnerstaaten, als die USA im August vorigen Jahres erklärt hätten, sie würden die Uno im Notfall übergehen, wenn die sich nicht US-konform verhalte. Trittin: "Dieser eindeutig unilaterale Anspruch ist der Kern des Problems."

Nicht nur im Umgang mit ihren engsten Bündnispartnern, sondern auch im Alltagsgeschäft der Vereinten Nationen demonstrieren die USA seit Bushs Amtsantritt, wie tief die "Kluft zwischen außenpolitischen Stilen, Methoden und Instrumenten" in Nordamerika und Kontinentaleuropa geworden ist, die Reinhard Mutz vom Hamburger Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik ausgemacht hat. Die Liste der Streitpunkte wird von Monat zu Monat länger.

Nicht nur, dass der Rest der Welt verwundert reagierte, als die schießwütige Nation auf Drängen ihrer Waffen-Lobby ein Abkommen gegen den Schmuggel von Handfeuerwaffen durchlöcherte. Nicht nur, dass ausgerechnet die Megamacht, deren Präsident einem "göttlichen Plan" zu folgen vorgibt, sich fernhielt oder querlegte, als 178 Nationen für ein Abkommen zum Schutz der Umwelt kämpften und 148 Staaten ein verbindliches Verbot von Bio-Waffen verlangten.

"Selbstbewusst, um nicht zu sagen arrogant"

So wie ein "Single mit Bindungsangst" benehme sich die Supermacht seit dem Beginn der Bush-Ära, kritisiert die Öko-Organisation Greenpeace: "Sich festlegen, Verpflichtungen eingehen, Entscheidungen mit Partnern diskutieren - unter rechten Bushianern gelten solche Verhaltensweisen zunehmend als verpönt. Was die Handlungsfreiheit der USA einschränken könnte, ist von Übel, und damit gelten feste Bündnisse oder bindende Verträge als Überbleibsel der Vergangenheit."

Eine ebenso "selbstbewusste, um nicht zu sagen arrogante Positionierung" wie in Umweltfragen bescheinigt der Bonner Politikwissenschaftler Christian Hacke der Bush-Regierung auch bei ihrem wirtschaftspolitischen Umgang mit dem Rest der Welt. "Wenn Amerika weiter nach Belieben schalten und walten kann, Grundgesetze eines liberalen Welthandels nach Belieben aussetzt, den eigenen Markt durch protektionistische Maßnahmen abschottet und vor allem im Bereich der Rüstungskooperation so rücksichtslos nationalistisch handelt wie bisher, dann werden in Europa Unverständnis und Kritik weiter anschwellen," prophezeite der Professor auf einer Unionstagung: "Darauf müssen sich die USA einstellen."

Nicht minder schlechte Zensuren erteilt der Wissenschaftler dem US-Präsidenten für dessen Versagen bei der Friedenssicherung im Nahen Osten: "Viel zu lange" habe die Regierung Bush im palästinensisch-israelischen Konflikt "den radikalen Kräften freien Lauf gelassen". Und "zu lange" habe sie den Israelis erlaubt, "den legitimen Repräsentanten der Palästinenser, Arafat, auf eine Stufe mit dem Terroristen Bin Laden zu stellen".

Antiamerikanismus aus Amerika

George W. Bush mag derlei Stimmen aus Europa als puren Antiamerikanismus abtun. Doch über den Kurswechsel, den er nach seinem Amtsantritt vornahm, urteilten amerikanische Publizisten nicht weniger vernichtend als deutsche Politologen. Der "Washington Post"-Kolumnist Jim Hoagland etwa merkte voller Sarkasmus an: "Es muss eine bessere Methode geben, Freunde zu gewinnen und auf andere Nationen Einfluss zu nehmen, als aus Konferenzen auszuziehen, Abkommen zu schmähen oder auf seinen Händen zu sitzen, während der Nahe Osten brennt."

Als geradezu verheerend für das Ansehen Amerikas könnte sich Bushs Haltung zur Kontrolle jenes Teufelszeugs erweisen, dessen - auch nur vermutete - Präsenz in Drittländern auch schon mal als Kriegsgrund herhalten soll: A-Waffen, B-Waffen, C-Waffen.
"Da geht einem der Hut hoch"

Wie Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld jüngst den Mitgliedern des Washingtoner Verteidigungsausschusses eröffnete, bereiteten sich die USA darauf vor, im nächsten Golfkrieg auch "nicht tödliche" Chemiewaffen einzusetzen. Allerdings, bedauerte der Verteidigungsminister, machten internationale Verträge die Verwendung dieser "absolut angemessenen" Kampfmittel "sehr kompliziert". Tatsächlich verbietet die geltende Chemiewaffen-Konvention den Kriegseinsatz sämtlicher Kampfgase.

"Da geht einem der Hut hoch," entsetzt sich der Hamburger Jan van Aken, deutscher Leiter des internationalen "Sunshine Project"; der sonnige Name der Ökopax-Initiative spielt darauf an, dass manche C-Waffen-Wirkstoffe bei Tageslicht abgebaut werden.

Keinerlei Verständnis hat der Friedensaktivist dafür, dass die USA sich für den Häuserkampf im Zweistromland den Einsatz von Stoffen aus jener Gattung vorbehalten, die Washington als casus belli gilt. Die Bush-Regierung, argumentiert Akens Organisation auf ihrer Website sunshine-project.org, sei im Begriff, "dieselben Verträge zu verletzten, die zu verteidigen sie vorgibt".

Tod durch nicht tödliche Waffen

Die Deklarierung "nonlethal" hält der Experte im Übrigen für irreführend. Zur Gruppe der so bezeichneten C-Waffen gehören nicht nur bewusstseinsverändernde Mittel ("calmatives") und krampfauslösende Stoffe ("convulsants"), mit denen seit längerem in US-Geheimlabors experimentiert wird und die über die Haut oder die Schleimhaut auf den Gegner einwirken und ihn kaltstellen sollen. Unter dem verniedlichenden Etikett "nonlethal" rangiert auch das Kampfgas, das russische Militärs in einem Moskauer Musicaltheater zur Befreiung von Geiseln einsetzten; das Mittel forderte weit über hundert Menschenleben.

Die Friedenswächter vom "Sunshine Project" sind nicht nur, zumal seit Rumsfelds Vorstoß, in "großer Sorge" um den Fortbestand der C-Waffen-Konvention. Zugleich fürchten sie, dass die USA mehr und mehr dazu beitragen, dass auch das globale Ächtung von B-Waffen bröckelt.

Willkommener Vorwand für Dritte

Die Bush-Regierung lehnt es strikt ab, sich selber den Kontrollmechanismen der internationalen Biowaffen-Konvention zu unterwerfen. Unmittelbar nachdem vorletztes Jahr durch die "New York Times" publik geworden war, dass US-Forscher gentechnische Arbeiten an Milzbrandbakterien planen, appellierte "Sunshine" an die Berliner Regierung, sich gegenüber den USA "deutlich gegen diese Projekte auszusprechen" und die B-Waffen-Konvention "zu verteidigen und zu stärken".

Wie dringend notwendig eine lückenlose Kontrolle von biologischen Kampfstoffen wie Anthrax ist, das Milzbrand auslöst, erwies sich bald nach der Schrecken auslösenden Anschlagsserie im Herbst 2001 in den USA. Nachdem zunächst irakische Terroristen als Absender von Anthrax-Briefen verdächtigt worden waren, bestehen heute kaum mehr Zweifel daran, dass das weiße Pulver aus einem US-Militärlabor stammte.

Zwar unterstellt kaum ein Kritiker der US-Regierung, sie beabsichtige, tonnenweise Anthrax-Bomben zu produzieren wie etwa gegen Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Damals erwog der britische Kriegsherr Winston Churchill, mit C-Waffen und bereits angelieferten B-Waffen aus US-Produktion Hitlerdeutschland regelrecht zu "durchtränken". Doch die Weigerung Washingtons, die eigenen Labors internationalen Kontrollen zu unterwerfen, könnte Dritten als willkommener Vorwand dienen, ihrerseits internationale Inspektionen zu verweigern.

"Der Samen der Spaltung ist gesät"



Die gleiche gefährliche Doppelmoral legt die Bush-Regierung in ihrer Atomwaffenpolitik an den Tag. Washington wies nicht nur eine Anregung von Bundesaußenminister Joschka Fischer brüsk zurück, die US-Option eines nuklearen Ersteinsatzes zu "überdenken". Bush schockierte im Sommer vorigen Jahres auch die Moskauer Regierung mit der Ankündigung, einen amerikanischen Raketenschirm zu errichten, der zwar einigen europäischen Staaten Schutz bieten solle, nicht aber Russland.

Mit einer solchen Politik werde Europa erneut geteilt, fürchtet der SPD-Senior Egon Bahr, langjähriger Direktor des Hamburger Friedensforschungsinstituts und geistiger Vater der sozialliberalen Entspannungspolitik. "Frieden und Zusammenarbeit in Europa kann es ohne Russland nicht geben," verurteilt Bahr das Washingtoner Raketenschirm-Projekt: "Damit ist der Samen der Spaltung gesät."

Bedroht fühlen müssen sich die Russen - und nicht nur sie - vor allem aber durch amerikanische Pläne, die im März 2002 bekannt wurden: Das Pentagon will spezielle Mini-Atombomben zur Zerstörung von Bunkern, Höhlenverstecken und Waffenfabriken bauen lassen.

Wer zuerst schießt, stirbt als zweiter"

In einem an den US-Kongress adressierten Pentagon-Geheimpapier("Nuclear Posture Review") heißt es, diese neuartige Kategorie von Kernwaffen eigne sich zum Einsatz gegen sieben Staaten: Irak, Iran, Nordkorea, Libyen und Syrien sowie China und Russland.

Während US-Außenminister Colin Powell das Papier als "weise militärische Planung" rühmte, sprachen Europäer entsetzt von einem möglichen "Schritt vom Abschreckungsmittel hin zu aggressiven Präventivangriffen", wie der Wiener ÖVP-Sicherheitsexperte Bernhard Moser die Bedenken der Kritiker auf den Punkt brachte.

Die Regenbogenkrieger von Greenpeace, die schon seit Jahrzehnten vor pazifischen Atollen und in amerikanischen Wüsten gegen Atomtests protestieren, sehen in der offensiv verwendbaren Mini-Bombe eine Bedrohung des Weltfriedens: "Damit wird die Regel, die den Einsatz der Nuklearwaffen bislang verhinderte, außer Kraft gesetzt."

Den Umweltkämpfern schwant Schlimmes: "Im Kalten Krieg galt die Faustformel: Wer zuerst schießt, stirbt als zweiter. Zukünftig heißt es: Wer immer gegen die USA Gewalt einsetzt, muss mit seiner Vernichtung und der atomaren Verseuchung seines Landes rechnen - auch Länder, die selbst nicht über Atomwaffen verfügen."
Mit welchen Waffen auch immer die Vereinigten Staaten ihre nächsten Kriege führen werden - eine Gefahr will Bush ausgeschlossen wissen: dass sich der selbsternannte Weltpolizist vor irgendeinem Weltgericht gegen den Vorwurf verteidigen muss, im Eifer des Gefechts selber das Recht gebrochen zu haben.




Viele US-Falken fühlen sich noch immer tief gedemütigt durch ein über anderthalb Jahrzehnte zurückliegendes Votum des Haager Gerichtshofes: Die Jury hatte 1986 die Vereinigten Staaten für schuldig befunden, durch die Verminung von Häfen, die Zerstörung von Raffinerien und die Bewaffnung von Untergrundkämpfern den Sturz der Regierung von Nicaragua betrieben zu haben.

Massiv widersetzte sich die Bush-Administration - right or wrong, America - vorletztes Jahr dem Willen von mehr als 120 Nationen, einen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof zur Verfolgung von Völkermord, Kriegsverbrechen und Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit zu installieren.

Das Weiße Haus begründete den Boykott des Gerichtshofs, dessen Kosten zu einem Fünftel von Deutschland getragen werden, schlicht mit dem Bedürfnis nach "Schutz der amerikanischen Streitkräfte". Unterstützung erfuhren die USA lediglich durch Israel, China, Jemen und Katar sowie zwei der so genannten Schurkenstaaten: Libyen und Irak.

"Bisher gab es keinen Präzedenzfall, in dem die USA einen multilateralen Vertrag - den eine zu großen Teilen demokratische Koalition der Völkergemeinschaft anstrebt - mit solchem Druck zu verhindern sucht," kommentierte die liberale Hamburger "Zeit" den Widerstand Washingtons.

"Respektable Form des Kolonialismus"

Doch trotz des Dauerkonflikts mit der Uno - gänzlich missen möchten die USA die Weltorganisation nicht: Die Blauhelme werden noch gebraucht, zumindest für Nachkriegseinsätze in den zu besiegenden Ländern. Vor allem in der amerikanischen wie in der britischen Öffentlichkeit werden immer wieder Vorschläge erörtert, auf welche Weise sich die Uno im Ringen um eine neue Weltordnung nützlich machen könnte.

"Die Antwort auf den Terrorismus? Kolonialismus!" - unter dieser Überschrift plädiert der konservative britische Historiker Paul Johnson dafür, nach der militärischen Niederwerfung "halsstarriger Terroristenstaaten" das "Mandatssystem des alten Völkerbundes" wiederzubeleben, das einst als "`respektable` Form des Kolonialismus gute Dienste" geleistet habe.

Mit Hilfe einer "neuen Form des Uno-Mandats", so Johnson, könnten die Vereinten Nationen "terroristische Staaten einer verantwortungsvollen Aufsicht unterstellen". In Frage kämen neben dem Irak auch der Sudan, Libyen, Iran und Syrien.

Blauhelm ab, Tropenhelm auf?

Reminiszenzen an die Zeit des Tropenhelm-Kolonialismus weckte auch der Leitartikler Max Boot vom "Wall Street Journal": Viele Problemländer, schrieb er, schrieen heute geradezu "nach solch aufgeklärter ausländischer Verwaltung, wie sie einmal von selbstbewussten Engländern in Kolonialuniformen und -helmen geleistet wurde".

"Einseitige US-Herrschaft ist vielleicht keine Option mehr," fügte Boot hinzu - wohl weil er befürchtet, das schlechte Image der Yankees würde "Ami go home"-Forderungen Vorschub leisten. Aber, so Boot, "die USA können eine internationale Besatzungsmacht unter Uno-Mandat und in Kooperation mit einigen muslimischen Staaten anführen."

Ob allerdings die Uno, traditionell antikolonialistisch gestimmt, auf Dauer zur Kolonialmacht neuen Stils taugt und zur Verwaltung von Regionen bereit ist, die ohne ihr Plazet von den USA bombardiert und besetzt worden sind, steht dahin.

Falls nicht, bliebe ihr nach wie vor eine wichtige Rolle in der internationalen Arbeitsteilung - als mildtätige Hilfstruppe, die mit Euro-Millionen die Überlebenden jener Kriege ernährt, die das Pentagon führt.

Das wäre nichts Neues. Wie heißt doch der alte Nato-Spruch: "The US fights, the UN feeds, the EU pays."

[ODDLOT]

kleine Korrektur zur Aufgabenverteilung.

"The US fights, the UN feeds, the EU funds."

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Ein neuer Clinton?

Frieden in der Bewerbungsmappe

Von Lutz Kleveman, New York

Bisher folgte die Demokratische Partei der USA fast sprachlos dem Kriegskurs der Bush-Regierung. Doch nun regt sich Widerstand. Howard Dean, weitgehend unbekannter Bewerber um die Präsidentschafts-Kandidatur, bekam für seine Antikriegsrede beim Demokratentreff mehr Applaus als all seine renommierten Konkurrenten. Schon beschwören manche einen neuen Clinton.


AP

US-Präsidentschaftskandidat Howard Dean: gegen einen US-Alleingang


Als Howard Dean ans Rednerpult tritt, hält er sich gar nicht erst mit einleitenden Floskeln auf: "Was ich wissen will: warum unterstützt die Führung der Demokratischen Partei den unilateralen Krieg des Präsidenten gegen den Irak?" Wie ein Geschoss fliegt die Frage durch den Saal des Hyatt Hotels in Washington, wo sich das Nationalkomittee der Demokraten am Wochenende zur Wintertagung versammelt hat. Erschrocken starren die Partei-Granden auf den Ex-Gouverneur von Vermont, einen der bislang eher unbekannteren Bewerber um die Kandidaten-Nominierung für die Präsidentschaftswahlen im nächsten Jahr.
Da brandet plötzlich tosender Applaus auf, von den Hunderten Funktionäre und Delegierten. Jede Zeile, mit der der 54jährige Arzt fortan das unterwürfige Mitläufertum demokratischer Kongressmitglieder in der Politik von Präsident George W. Bush geißelt, wird wild beklatscht. "Ich bin Howard Dean, ich vertrete den demokratischen Flügel der Demokratischen Partei", ruft der liberale Nordstaatler. Am Ende der feurigen Rede erheben sich viele Delegierte zu stehenden Ovationen und "Howard, Howard"-Rufen. Die Oppositions-Partei, die der Bush-Regierung seit dem 11. September 2001 geradezu ohnmächtig gegenüber steht, hat einen neuen Star.


Der Mann, der jahrelang dem linksliberalsten US-Staat Vermont als Gouverneur vorstand, begeisterte sogar Parteifreunde aus so konservativen Staaten wie Wyoming oder Alabama - denen gefiel Deans Rede am besten. "Er hat heute die Richtung gewiesen", sagte die texanische Demokratenführerin Molly Beth Malcolm. "Die Leute dürsten nach Führerschaft, und Howard Dean zeigte genau das." Erfahrene Parteigänger indes räumem Deans Ambitionen keine großen Chancen ein. Der Mann sei zu links; was die Demokraten bräuchten, ist eine Figur wie Clinton, der sich immer in die Mitte stellt, egal, wo die gerade ist.

Auf jeden Fall aber tritt Deans Rede ein schwelender innerparteilichen Streit um die Irak-Politik offen zutage. Mitte Februar hatte Senator Robert Byrd im Kongress bereits eine flammende Anti-Kriegs-Rede gehalten; Deans Fortsetzung könnte nun die Demokraten aus ihrer bisherigen loyalpatriotischen Erstarrung wecken, die den Republikanern um Bush bislang weitgehend widerspruchsloses Regieren erlaubt hat. So sahen sich zwei von Deans mächtigen Rivalen gezwungen, auf der Tagung ihre Unterstützung für Bushs Kriegskurs zu verteidigen. "Saddam Husseins Massenvernichtungswaffen müssen lieber früher als später zerstört werden, denn falls wir das nicht tun, wird er sie früher oder später gegen uns einsetzen", sagte Joseph Lieberman, der Senator von Connecticut. Der ehemalige Mitkandidat von Al Gore bei den Präsidentschaftswahlen vor zwei Jahren gilt als der konservativste Falke unter den demokratischen Aspiranten für das Weiße Haus.

Zwischenruf von hinten: "Schande!"

Zwar kritisierte Lieberman, dass Bush nicht eine breitere internationale Koalition für den Angriff auf den Irak gewonnen habe, doch das Ziel an sich nannte er richtig und entscheidend für die Sicherheit Amerikas. Lieberman warnte seine Parteifreunde: "Niemand wird im November 2004 zum Präsidenten gewählt werden, der die Wähler nicht überzeugen kann, dass er Amerika`s Familien schützen wird." Die Delegierten reagierten mit respektvollem, aber zurückhaltendem Applaus.



AP

George Bush im Oktober 2002: Demokraten gaben ihm freie Hand in Sachen Saddam


Die Brandrede Deans galt auch dem Partei-Schwergewicht Richard Gephardt aus Missouri, der erst vergangene Woche seine Kandidatur um das höchste Amt im Staate bekannt gegeben hatte. Der langjährige Demokraten-Führer im Repräsentantenhaus war im vergangen Herbst entscheidend dafür eingetreten, dass die Demokraten mit grosser Mehrheit für die Kongress-Resolution votierten, die Bush einen Angriff auf den Irak erlaubte. "Ich glaube, wir müssen Saddam Hussein entwaffnen. Und ich bin stolz, dass ich die Resolution geschrieben habe. Sie half dem Präsidenten, schließlich seine Sache vor die Vereinten Nationen zu tragen." Die Delegierten schwiegen frostig, aus den hinteren Reihen donnerte ein Ruf: "Schande!"


Die offene Gespaltenheit der Demokraten spiegelt die wachsende Skepsis im amerikanischen Volk gegenüber der Kriegspolitik der Bush-Regierung wider. Zwar unterstützt eine knappe Mehrheit noch immer den Kurs des Weißen Hauses, doch der Widerstand im Uno-Sicherheitsrat und die Friedensdemonstrationen in amerikanischen Städten haben eine erneute Irak-Debatte entfacht. Am vergangenen Wochenende hatten in New York und San Francisco Hunderttausende gegen die US-Politik protestiert. Regierungssprecher und die bürgerlichen Medien spielten die Volksaufmärsche zwar nach Kräften herunter, und konservative Kommentatoren in Radio und Fernsehen sparten nicht mit Spott und Häme.

"Der Doktor ist in!!

Doch die Basis der Demokratischen Partei bekommt - ähnlich wie Tony Blairs Labour Party in Großbritannien - den Druck von unten immer deutlicher zu spüren. Auf seiner ersten Pressekonferenz als Kandidat etwa sah sich Gephardt vergangene Woche an einem College im US-Bundesstaat Iowa einem regelrechten Sperrfeuer von Fragen ausgesetzt, die seine Rückendeckung für das Weiße Haus kritisierten. Wahlkampfstrategen prophezeien bereits, dass die linksliberale Parteibasis in Iowa, traditionell der Ort der ersten Vorwahlen für Präsidentschafts-Kandidaten, den Falken Gephardt und Liebermann in diesem Jahr zünftige Abfuhren erteilen wird. Auch der wohl chancenreichste Kandidat, der Vietnam-Veteran und schwerreiche Senator John Kerry aus Massachusetts, wird jetzt auf die Frage antworten müssen, warum er für die Kriegsresolution gestimmt hat.


DPA

US-Demokrat Robert Byrd: Antikriegsrede im Senat


Davon könnte der bisherige Außenseiter und neue Hoffnungsträger Dean profitieren, dessen Vorstoß den Demokraten die Irak-Politik als Wahlkampfthema unumkehrbar aufgezwungen hat. Dabei betont der Sohn eines republikanischen Investmentbankers, keine pazifistische "Taube" zu sein. Dem New York Magazine sagte er: "Ich glaube einfach nicht, dass der Präsident überzeugende Argumente hat. Er muss zeigen, dass Saddam nukleare Waffen hat, und ich denke nicht, dass es dafür auch nur den Fetzen eines Beweises gibt." Biologische und chemische Waffen allein würden nicht reichen als Kriegsgrund, glaubt Dean, der sich offen für den französischen Vorschlag ausgesprochen hat, die Zahl der Uno-Inspektoren im Irak zu verdreifachen.

"Die meisten Leute haben keine Ahnung vom Krieg, außer Menschen, die ihre Kinder im Krieg verloren haben", meint der gebürtige New Yorker, dessen Bruder während des Vietnam-Kriegs von kommunistischen Vietcong in Laos als CIA-Spion hingerichtet wurde. "Deshalb glaube ich, dass meine politischen Mitbewerber um die Nominierung in Sachen Irak falsch liegen."

Nach der Tagung des Nationalkomitees in Washington waren sich jedenfalls fast alle Anwesenden einig, dass der Arzt aus Vermont von nun an ein ernstzunehmender Herausforderer sein könnte. Viele Delegierte, besonders junge, trugen Schilder, auf denen zu lesen war: "Der Doktor ist in!" Einige Ältere erinnerten an eine ähnliche Parteiversammlung vor zwölf Jahren, als sich ein ebenfalls weitgehend unbekannter Gouverneur eines kleinen Bundesstaats mit einer leidenschaftlichen Rede als Kandidat nach vorne gespielt hatte: Bill Clinton aus Arkansas.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/109643_thomas23.shtml

We need to hear from Democrats on Iraq
Sunday, February 23, 2003

By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS

WASHINGTON -- The Democratic presidential aspirants have been pussyfooting around the Iraq question, wanting to have it both ways on whether to support President Bush`s rush-to-war.

The time has come for them to show some backbone. They should declare their position clearly and point to peaceful options that the president has no time for. Speaking of clarity, I salute Bush for his laser-focused campaign against Saddam Hussein, even if he ignores facts and history. Also getting strong marks for clarity would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who is just as hawkish as Bush.

It`s disappointing that the Democrats don`t have a leading candidate to challenge that point of view with the force of moral clarity. Most of the leading candidates are straddling the fence, reluctant to take a firm stand one way or another. These wafflers should get C-minus grades when voters are passing out grades for leadership.

At a time when the Democrats need giants to challenge the incumbent president, they are surrounded by "me too" candidates.

If it gets down to Lieberman, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina, John Kerry of Massachusetts or Joseph Biden of Delaware, the voters will have scant choice in `04 and may feel they have to stick with the known quantity.

Democrats have always felt slightly queasy when dealing with issues of national security. Polls invariably show that voters trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to war and peace. The same voters trust Democrats more when it comes to education, health care and Social Security.

Maybe that explains why most of the growing list of Democratic contenders are so nervous when it comes to challenging the president on Iraq. They also have to be acutely aware of the fact that the American people will rally behind the commander in chief in time of military crisis, as shown in 1991 during Operation Desert Storm and its aftermath.

Against this wishy-washy backdrop, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean stands out because of his anti-war message.

In a foreign policy address earlier this week at Drake University in Des Moines, Dean said Bush is too focused on "the wrong war at the wrong time."

He suggested that the "right war" would be to target al-Qaida, which caused the devastating 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. U.S. officials are convinced the malevolent al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is still alive after his last tape rallying radical Muslims to more violence.

"What happened to the war against al-Qaida?" Dean asked in his Iowa speech.

Dean also said he believed Bush should be spending money for the defense of our country by hiring more emergency workers and suggesting more security measures.

At the same time, Dean said he would be prepared to go ahead against Baghdad if the U.N. Security Council approved and if it were "clear the threat posed to us by Saddam Hussein was imminent and could neither be contained nor deterred."

Bush hasn`t made the case for war, noted Dean, who endorsed more of "the hard work of diplomacy and inspection" as alternatives to the Bush war machine.

Dean said he would have voted against the congressional resolution giving the president open-ended power to go to war on his own terms and timing.

While attacking Bush, Dean also heaped scorn on his Democratic rivals who are members of Congress.

"I do not believe the president should have been given a green light to drive the nation into conflict without the case having first been made to Congress and to the American people for why war is necessary," Dean said.

"That the president was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who postured for position instead of standing on principle," Dean added.

He chided the congressional presidential aspirants for voting for the war resolution and then running around to voter groups and criticizing the administration`s war campaign.

Other anti-war Democrats -- Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and Al Sharpton of New York -- also are on the growing list of presidential hopefuls.

Dean has burst on the scene in a way reminiscent of Jimmy Carter of Plains, Ga., the former governor of Georgia, who in 1976 was a virtual unknown outside the South. But he patiently put together a winning campaign to defeat the incumbent president, Gerald Ford. He stunned all the Beltway seers.

Dean isn`t making any brief for Saddam, calling him "a vicious dictator and a documented deceiver."

Kucinich, 56, notes that Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward`s book, "Bush At War," depicts the administration as so eager to attack Iraq that on Sept. 12, 2001, when the nation was in a state of shock after the terrorist attacks the day before, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was already urging war against Iraq.

"Why shouldn`t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaida," Rumsfeld is quoted as saying. He was echoing his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who has had Iraq on his target list since 1991 when he unsuccessfully tried to sell it to the first President Bush.

Rumsfeld was "raising the possibility that they could take advantage of the opportunity offered by the terrorist attacks to go after Saddam immediately," Woodward wrote.

There was no evidence then of any link between Iraq and al-Qaida. And try as they might, and despite lots of huffing and puffing, Bush administration officials haven`t produced any evidence since.

For reasons that I and many other people don`t understand, Bush has been angling to attack Iraq for years. His Democratic challengers should demand to know why.



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

Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: [e-mail]. Copyright 2003 Hearst Newspapers.

© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Poll suggests public wants U.N. support for military action

The Associated Press Monday, February 24, 2003

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



(02-24) 17:09 PST (AP) --

A majority of Americans want the Bush administration to build more support within the U.N. Security Council for military action against Iraq, even if that means moving more slowly, says a new poll.

In an ABC News-Washington Post poll, more than 56 percent said they want to see the United States win over more of the Security Council`s membership before attacking, even if that takes more time. Thirty-nine percent said this country should move quickly against Iraq even if that means acting without the Security Council`s support.

The public favors U.N. involvement in any military action, even though they tend to disapprove of the world organization`s handling of the Iraq situation -- 38 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval.

Public support for President Bush`s handling of the Iraq situation has dropped slightly from 61 percent two weeks ago to 55 percent now. Bush`s overall approval rating was at 60 percent, about where it has been in polls in the last few months.

The level of public support for military action depends on how much international backing the United States can muster.

* 63 percent favor military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

* 57 percent support military action even without approval of the United Nations as long as some allies such as Britain, Spain and Australia are involved.

* 50 percent back military action and 46 percent oppose when they`re simply asked their position if the United Nations opposes the military action.

The poll of 1,024 adults was conducted Feb. 19-23 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Harvey Wasserman

A regime that hates democracy can`t wage war for democracy
February 22, 2003

George W. Bush says he wants to attack Iraq to install democracy. But as he explained on December 18, 2002: "If this were a dictatorship, it`d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I`m the dictator."

Under Bush the Constitutional guarantees that have made America a beacon to the world for two centuries have been shredded in two short years.

In terms of basic legal rights and sanctuary from government spying, Americans may be less free under George W. Bush than as British subjects under George III in 1776.

Though the trappings of free speech remain on the surface of American society, the Homeland Security Act, Patriot I, Patriot II and other massively repressive legislation, plus Republican control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, plus GOP dominance of the mass media, have laid the legal and political framework for a totalitarian infrastructure which, when combined with the capabilities of modern computer technology, may be unsurpassed.

The Administration has used the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, as pretext for this centralization of power. But most of it was in the works long before September 11 as part of the war on drugs and Bush`s modus operandi as the most secretive and authoritarian president in US history.

So with today`s US as a model, what would be in store for Iraqis should Bush kill hundreds of thousands of them to replace Saddam Hussein?

· President Bush has asserted the right to execute "suspected terrorists" without trial or public notice;
· The Administration claims the right to torture "suspected terrorists," and by many accounts has already done so;
· Attorney-General John Ashcroft has asserted the right to brand "a terrorist" anyone he wishes without evidence or public hearing or legal recourse;
· The Administration has arrested and held without trial hundreds of "suspected terrorists" while denying them access to legal counsel or even public notification that they have been arrested;
· The Administration has asserted the right to inspect the records of bookstores and public libraries to determine what American citizens are reading;
· The Administration has asserted the right to break into private homes and tap the phones of US citizens without warrants;
· The Administration has attempted to install a neighbors-spying-on-neighbors network that would have been the envy of Joe Stalin;
· The Administration has effectively negated the Freedom of Information Act and runs by all accounts the most secretive regime in US history;
· When the General Accounting Office, one of the few reliably independent federal agencies, planned to sue Vice President Dick Cheney to reveal who he met to formulate the Bush Energy Bill, Bush threatened to slash GAO funding, and the lawsuit was dropped;
· After losing the 2000 election by more than 500,000 popular votes (but winning a 5-4 majority of the US Supreme Court), the Administration plans to control all voting through computers operated by just three companies, with code that can be easily manipulated, as may have been done in Georgia in 2002, winning seats for a Republican governor and US senator, and in Nebraska to elect and re-elect US Senator Chuck Hagel, an owner of the voting machine company there;
· FCC Chair Michael Powell (son of Colin) is enforcing the Administration`s demand that regulation be ended so nearly all mass media can be monopolized by a tiny handful of huge corporations;
· Attorney-General Ashcroft has assaulted states rights, a traditional Republican mainstay, using federal troops to trash public referenda legalizing medical marijuana in nine states;
· Ashcroft has overridden his own federal prosecutors and assaulted local de facto prohibitions against the death penalty, which has been renounced by every other industrial nation and is now used only by a handful of dictatorships, including Iraq.

Overseas, the US record is infamous. Among those it has put in power are Saddam Hussein, the Taliban and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Somoza, Pinochet, Marcos, Mobutu, the Shah, the Greek Junta and too many other murderous dictators to mention in a single article.

Afghanistan, leveled in the name of democracy and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, now stands ruined and abandoned. In sequel, Bush is gathering Iraq attackers with the promise of cash bribes, oil spoils and conquered land.

Turkey, Bulgaria and Bush`s manufactured Iraqi opposition are already squabbling over the booty. Bush says rebuilding will be funded by Iraqi oil revenues, probably administered through the same core regime now in place, but with a different figurehead.

In other words: the media hype about bringing democracy to Iraq is just that. There is absolutely no reason to believe a US military conquest would bring to Iraq the beloved freedoms George W. Bush is so aggressively destroying here in America.

A regime that so clearly hates democracy at home is not about to wage war for one abroad.

Copyright © 2003 by Harvey Wasserman

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Ein neuer Star? Howard Dean

Howard Dean Gets Hot


By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 24, 2003; 9:08 AM


All of you are surely wondering this morning: Who won the Democratic presidential bakeoff?

We were thinking the same thing as we sat in the press rows at the big DNC conclave here over the weekend, so we asked some fellow chattering-class members.

"I`ve never seen Gephardt that good, but Dean was on fire," said veteran analyst Charlie Cook.

"Dean kicked [butt]," another reporter declared.

Dean was the unofficial winner, and Joe Lieberman the unofficial loser (he`s a great general election candidate, but his centrist approach doesn`t provide much red meat for party carnivores).

Nearly all the candidates (other than the recuperating John Kerry and Bob Graham) were here to speechify before the DNC delegates and the assembled press corps. Which means the insiders were comparing notes and wondering who has the Right Stuff (or perhaps the left stuff) to knock off George W.

This is all about early buzz, of course. But early buzz can produce good media coverage. Just ask Howard Dean, who in the last week has gotten nice write-ups in Salon, New York magazine and the Baltimore Sun ("Vt. Democrat`s anti-war stance could be ticket from obscurity"). Such stories can create a sense of momentum and attract supporters and fundraisers (Rob Reiner has now endorsed Dean).

Nationally, it`s a different story. A Time-CNN poll gives Lieberman 16 percent, Dick Gephardt 13, Kerry 8, John Edwards 7, Al Sharpton 7, Carol Moseley-Braun 4, Dean 3, Graham 3 and Dennis Kucinich 2 (not bad for a guy who announced 12 minutes ago).

Kerry, meanwhile, gets first-class treatment in Vogue, with the cover line: "Can a Blue-Blooded Mega-Millionaire Win the Heartland?" (Hey, why not? Bush did it.)

These cattle calls can be a bit demeaning, with all the potential presidents and assorted egomaniacs waiting in the wings for their allotted few minutes. But they are the opening innings of a very long game – and a great opportunity for those don`t have a national profile.

Like a certain doctor.

Just check out the headlines:

Chicago Tribune: "Dean takes Democrats to task over Iraq stance"

Washington Times: "`Gutsy` Dean rouses Democrats with call to arms"

St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Dean Scores a Home Run at Democratic Party Powwow"

Here`s the New York Times take:

"Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri drew the day`s warmest receptions by far.

"Dr. Dean moved to distinguish himself sharply from his rivals. Taking advantage of the fact that he is not a sitting member of Congress, he criticized Democrats who had supported White House policies for the past two years, starting with the Iraq resolution last year. Dr. Dean did not even bother to warm up his crowd, starting his attack immediately after walking to his microphone.

"`What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president`s unilateral attack on Iraq?` he asked, to applause from most of his audience. `What I want to know is why are Democratic leaders supporting tax cuts? The question is not how big the tax cut should be; the question should be, Can we afford a tax cut at all, with the largest deficit in the history of this country?`

"`I`m Howard Dean, and I`m here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,` he said. . . .

"In interviews, Democrats spoke highly of Dr. Dean, saying he had with his speech provided a sense of ideology and passion that many said had been absent among Democrats in last year`s Congressional elections.

"But Mr. Gephardt – who as the former House minority leader took much of the blame for last year`s defeats – drew reviews that were almost as warm. . . . Indeed, in many ways, the day might prove to be especially beneficial for Mr. Gephardt, who is a regular and perhaps overly familiar figure to many Democrats here looking for a fresh face."

The Boston Globe also likes the doctor:

"Howard Dean, a former governor of Vermont, had the crowd buzzing with a speech that attacked his own party nearly as viciously as he castigated Bush. . . . The audience was far more reserved for its first speaker, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut."

Says Newsweek: "So far, the boat rising fastest on the antiwar tide belongs to Howard Dean."

The Washington Post delivers a similar verdict:

"Dean`s fiery and unabashedly liberal message drew the most enthusiastic response from an audience demoralized by Democratic losses in the 2002 elections. . . .

"Gephardt, who formally announced his candidacy this week, also drew strong applause with a speech that used personal and family experiences to promote an agenda to provide health care to all Americans, establish a pension system that would ensure workers a more secure retirement, create incentives to make it easier for young people to become teachers and work for a variable, international minimum wage. . . .

"Lieberman, the party`s 2000 vice presidential nominee, drew a polite but reserved response as he presented himself as a hawk on foreign and defense policy and a centrist on domestic policy."

ABC`s Note, before the cattle call, likes the man who wasn`t there. Democrats are "looking for an experienced fresh face with a military background and an anti-war stance. Barring that, they`re looking for the candidate with the best shot at beating George W. Bush.

"Right now, that candidate would seem to be Senator John Kerry, who, in fact, will be the only one of the current eight presidential candidates not addressing the DNC`s winter meeting because he is still recovering from prostate cancer surgery.

"Kerry`s top-notch staff`s ability to daisy-chain one advantage into another, in the vein of `good buzz leading to good clips leading to good staff hires leading to fundraising gains, and so on,` is no small part of why Kerry appears to be the frontrunner today. But the primary reason is his Vietnam/military credentials, which would seem, at least on the surface, to solve Democrats` biggest weakness – national security bona fides – for which they suffered badly in the 2002 elections."

In the Note`s handicapping, "the Senator from Massachusetts places first. In second: Senator John Edwards, followed by Senator Joe Lieberman at third, Rep. Dick Gephardt quite close behind in fourth, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at fifth, and the Rev. Al Sharpton in sixth place."

The speakers also included the newest candidates, Dennis Kucinich and Carol Moseley-Braun (who, despite brain-lock on our part Friday, is not the first serious female candidate in a generation. We somehow forgot about Elizabeth Dole`s short-lived effort).

The Philadelphia Inquirer sees trouble ahead for whoever emerges:

"As they ponder the next presidential race, Democrats are plagued by a recurring nightmare.

"In the spring of 2004, fresh from a bloody and expensive primary season, their candidate could be strapped for cash – while the Republican candidate, who lives in the White House, is rolling in dough.

"In fact, President Bush is expected to run his reelection race with the fattest campaign war chest in history, maybe $300 million, totally financed by private contributors – defying the spirit of federal reform law that, since the Watergate era, has sought to curb the dominance of private dollars in presidential campaigns. No Democrat has a prayer of matching the Bush money juggernaut.

"As national chairman Terry McAuliffe said here at the party`s annual winter meeting, Democrats face `a tremendous gap` in the competition with Republicans to raise campaign money."

There are hints that Kerry and Lieberman could dispense with public financing.

The New Republic is pining for a big strong military man:

"Mickey Kaus is probably right to think we`re on the verge of a Wesley Clark boomlet. Clark came off as serious and uncalculating on `Meet the Press` last Sunday--at least as uncalculating as you can be when you`re on national television testing the waters for a presidential run. (The `All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kosovo` routine did wear a little thin after a while.) . . . There aren`t many Democrats who have the former Supreme Allied Commander`s credibility on national security, which seems to be the party`s biggest vulnerability going forward. The problem is that, for all his credibility, Clark`s foreign policy vision isn`t very compelling. . . .

"Wesley Clark`s thoughts on the use of force sound disturbingly Powell Doctrine-esque. Then again, Colin Powell is one of the most popular people in the country these days."

But Kaus himself sees the retired general leaving himself plenty of wiggle room: "His ultimate Iraq stand – we have to go to war now, but a year ago Bush should have `set Iraq aside` and avoided war – also happens to be a perfect straddle of the issue. If war goes well, he was for it. If it goes badly, he was against it!"

Mike Murphy, the GOP strategist who now opines for Hotline, goes online and asks: "Who has the longest bio listed on any announced candidate`s website? Teresa Heinz Kerry with an impressive 1,143 words, nearly twice her husband John Kerry`s 635 words. I had no idea Ms. Heinz-Kerry was `heralded by the Utne Reader in 1995 as one of 100 American visionaries.` I`d extract more but her bio is almost twice as long as this column. . . .

"Fragile front-runner John Kerry`s website is a bundle of tells. Beyond Ms. H-K`s epic bio, the Kerry website reveals both the strength and the weakness of the Kerry campaign; an ocean of words yielding a puddle of message. The site is admirably thick – the most elaborate of any Dem contender – but the actual content is weak."

The Orlando Sentinel finds its home-state candidate less than forthcoming on his medical treatment:

"Sen. Bob Graham, who will begin raising money for a presidential campaign next week, said Thursday that his Jan. 31 heart surgery was much more serious that he had previously disclosed.

"Graham, in his first interview with reporters since open-heart surgery, said that despite the health troubles he will open a presidential campaign committee next week. And if his doctors say he can withstand the rigors of a national campaign, he said, he will announce his candidacy in four to eight weeks.

"But the more serious nature of Graham`s health problems, and the fact that he did not disclose the extent of the problem until Thursday, could hurt his campaign, political analysts said. . . .

"Surgeons performed a double-bypass on Graham after finding he suffers from coronary artery disease. They also repaired a congenital hole between the upper chambers of his heart."

There may be more GOP governors than Democrats, but they are suddenly on the defensive, says the Washington Times:

"A threatened exodus of Republican governors from the National Governors Association was slowed yesterday when the organization`s executive committee managed to kill a resolution that would have opposed tax cuts favored by President Bush.

"The resolution would have put the nation`s governors on record as saying the best stimulus to the economy would be more federal tax dollars for the states, rather than the tax cuts supported by Mr. Bush and most Republicans in Congress.

"Rebellious Republicans led by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens managed to thwart the resolution. The victory came a day after Republican governors met privately and resolved to work together to gain control over an NGA staff they say is dominated by liberals and Democrats."

Tired of Democrats and Republicans? This might be coming soon to a state near you, says the Baltimore Sun:

"Plans are underway for an invasion of New Hampshire. Or Wyoming. Or maybe Delaware, Montana or Alaska. Sparsely populated and independent in spirit, they`re all attractive targets for a certain bloodless coup in the making.

"Within the next several years, according to the plan, 20,000 Libertarians would move to a single state and begin infiltrating. They would get jobs, join civic groups, get elected and take a hatchet to taxes and laws. In this utopia called the Free State Project, schools would be severed from the state, gun-control laws abolished, drugs legalized, health and social services privatized, most federal aid rejected. Government`s only job would be to protect against `force and fraud.`

"`The Libertarian movement has existed for decades and produced leading intellectuals and Nobel Prize winners, but despite all that it hasn`t had much influence on a national level,` says Free State Project founder Jason Sorens. `I think it`s time we concentrate our resources in a place where we have a shot at actually winning.` . . .

"Once 20,000 have signed on – Sorens expects this by about 2005 – the migration begins."

The abortion issue may be popping up in an unexpected place:

"Advocates for women`s health are usually delighted when the government spends time and money to explore the causes of breast cancer," says the Los Angeles Times. "But some of them are charging that abortion politics, not science, is behind a conference starting Monday at the National Cancer Institute that will consider whether women who terminate a pregnancy also face a higher risk of breast cancer.

"The critics say the conference is the latest case of the Bush administration`s skewing the nation`s medical research agenda to please its conservative allies.

"There is hardly a breast cancer activist group around that can say that they`re happy this conference is happening, or that this is a high priority, or that they`ve called on the NCI to do more on this topic,` said Cynthia Pearson, executive director of the National Women`s Health Network, a Washington-based watchdog group."

Sandy Koufax has struck out Rupert Murdoch. As we told you Friday, the baseball legend disassociated himself from the Murdoch-owned Los Angeles Dodgers after a seamy gossip item in the Murdoch-owned New York Post, which has now apologized:

"A two-sentence blind item we ran here Dec. 19 about a `Hall of Fame baseball hero` has sparked a series of unfortunate consequences for which we are very sorry. The item said the sports hero `cooperated with a best-selling biography only because the author promised to keep secret that he is gay.`

"Two weeks later, the Daily News` Michael Gross, after finding `Sandy Koufax: A Lefty`s Legacy` by Jane Leavy on the best-seller list, named Koufax as the player and ran a photo of him. Koufax himself, an intensely private man, was deeply offended by our item. The author has denied making any deal with Koufax and called our item `erroneous.` We apologize to both Koufax and Leavy for getting it wrong."

Salon`s Keith Olbermann rips the Murdoch forces:

"It is the New York Post, of course, that published another piece of homophobic baseball gossip last spring that led the New York Mets` Mike Piazza to feel he had to publicly announce he was not gay. Besides the Post, the News Corp. also owns Fox Television, Fox News Channel, and other companies that produce products structurally similar to `news.` . . .

"I worked for News Corp. – for its Fox network and one of its cable sewers, Fox Sports Net, for three years. They were swine. Many companies are swine. But the Koufax episode is something extraordinary."

Tell us what you really think, Keith.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Norman Mailer: Gaining an empire, losing democracy?
Norman Mailer Tribune Media Services
Tuesday, February 25, 2003

Iraq is an excuse

LOS ANGELES There is a subtext to what the Bushites are doing as they prepare for war in Iraq. My hypothesis is that President George W. Bush and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that the only way they can save America and get if off its present downslope is to become a regime with a greater military presence and drive toward empire. My fear is that Americans might lose their democracy in the process.

By downslope I`m referring not only to the corporate scandals, the church scandals and the FBI scandals. The country has gone kind of crazy in the eyes of conservatives. Also, kids can`t read anymore. Especially for conservatives, the culture has become too sexual.

Iraq is the excuse for moving in an imperial direction. War with Iraq, as they originally conceived it, would be a quick, dramatic step that would enable them to control the Near East as a powerful base - not least because of the oil there, as well as the water supplies from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers - to build a world empire.

The Bushites also expect to bring democracy to the region and believe that in itself will help to diminish terrorism. But I expect the opposite will happen: terrorists are not impressed by democracy. They loathe it. They are fundamentalists of the most basic kind. The more successful democracy is in the Near East - not likely in my view - the more terrorism it will generate.

The only outstanding obstacle to the drive toward empire in the Bushites` minds is China. Indeed, one of the great fears in the Bush administration about America`s downslope is that the "stem studies" such as science, technology and engineering are all faring poorly in U.S. universities. The number of American doctorates is going down and down. But the number of Asians obtaining doctorates in those same stem studies are increasing at a great rate.

Looking 20 years ahead, the administration perceives that there will come a time when China will have technology superior to America`s. When that time comes, America might well say to China that "we can work together," we will be as the Romans to you Greeks. You will be our extraordinary, well-cultivated slaves. But don`t try to dominate us. That would be your disaster. This is the scenario that some of the brightest neoconservatives are thinking about. (I use Rome as a metaphor, because metaphors are usually much closer to the truth than facts).

What has happened, of course, is that the Bushites have run into much more opposition than they thought they would from other countries and among the home population. It may well end up that we won`t have a war, but a new strategy to contain Iraq and wear Saddam down. If that occurs, Bush is in terrible trouble.

My guess though, is that, like it or not, want it or not, America is going to go to war because that is the only solution Bush and his people can see.

The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in Americans` lives. It will be an ever greater and greater overlay on the American system. And before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. My long experience with human nature - I`m 80 years old now - suggests that it is possible that fascism, not democracy, is the natural state.

Indeed, democracy is the special condition - a condition we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America already.

Norman Mailer`s latest book is "The Spooky Art: Some Thoughts on Writing." This comment was adapted from remarks Feb. 22 to the Los Angeles Institute for the Humanities and distributed by Global Viewpoint/Tribune Media Services International.

[Joerver]

Fitzgerald: Bush talked of assassinating Hussein
By Eric Krol Daily Herald Political Writer
Posted on February 25, 2003


Sen. Peter Fitzgerald

President Bush recently told Sen. Peter Fitzgerald he would order the assassination of Saddam Hussein "if we had intelligence on where he was now and we had a clear shot," the Illinois senator said Monday.

Such an order would represent a major shift away from a nearly 30-year U.S. ban on assassinating foreign leaders. That ban was put into place during the Ford administration in response to criticism of CIA-backed plots in the 1960s and 1970s.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Monday he "can`t confirm whether or not" Bush and Fitzgerald discussed the potential assassination of Hussein. He said the Ford "executive order remains in place."

Fitzgerald`s comments came during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board in which he was asked how the United States could capture and remove Hussein from power without killing thousands of Iraqi citizens in the process.

"That`s a really good question because the administration -- I have personally talked to the president about this and if we had intelligence on where he was now, and we had a clear shot to assassinate him, we would probably do that. President Bush would probably sign an executive order repealing the executive order put in place by President Ford that forbid the assassination of foreign leaders," Fitzgerald said.

Asked later to clarify whether Bush had told him he would authorize changing U.S. policy to kill Hussein, the Inverness Republican said: "Yes, yes. Now, he told me that aboard Air Force One."

A Fitzgerald spokesman said he thinks the conversation took place Jan. 7 when the senator flew back to Washington with Bush following the president`s Chicago speech touting his tax-cut plan.

"I don`t want to betray any confidences of the president," Fitzgerald quickly added. "I assumed he (Bush) had said that somewhere else. But maybe if he didn`t say that anywhere else, I shouldn`t have said that just now."

In February 1976, President Ford officially banned assassination attempts by the CIA. President Reagan extended that executive order in 1981 to include hired assassins.

Last October, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer raised eyebrows by suggesting "the cost of one bullet, if the Iraqi people take it upon themselves, is substantially less" than the estimated $9 billion-a-month cost of a war in Iraq. Fleischer reiterated then that the Ford assassination ban remains in place.

Speaking at a Houston fund-raiser last September, Bush noted U.S. intelligence officials believe Hussein wanted Bush`s father assassinated 10 years ago: "This is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time."

Fitzgerald said he would support a change in policy to assassinate Hussein.

"I think in this limited case it would make sense if you could avoid a lot of civilian casualties, harm to our own young men and women in the armed forces, I think it would make sense. Not as a permanent change in policy but as a one-time policy," Fitzgerald said.

Illinois` senior senator, Democrat Dick Durbin of Springfield, cautioned against such a policy.

"I would say we ought to take care not to go too far on this issue," said Durbin, who sits on the Senate`s intelligence panel. "In the world we live in today, any elected official would be fair game for retaliation."

An official at the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations said only Iraqi ambassador Mohammed Aldouri could comment, but he was at U.N. hearings Monday and unavailable.

Assassinate: Fitzgerald would support policy change; Durbin urges caution

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

News Media Get Good Marks for Terrorism Coverage
But public generally skeptical about media accuracy and objectivity


by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- According to the latest Gallup Poll, a majority of Americans perceive the news media to be acting responsibly in their handling of the recent threats of terrorism in the United States. But the poll also shows that, more generally, Americans are skeptical about the accuracy and objectivity of the "fourth estate." Almost six out of 10 Americans say that news stories are often inaccurate. While Americans are roughly as likely to say that the media`s news coverage favors the Republican Party as the Democratic Party, 45% say that the media are too liberal, while only 15% say the media are too conservative. Perceptions of inaccuracy are not strongly related to party or ideology, but perceptions of partisan bias, predictably, are related to partisan orientation. Conservatives and Republicans are highly likely to say that the media have a liberal and Democratic bias, while liberals and Democrats say that the media show a bias for conservatives and Republicans.

The poll was conducted Feb. 17-19 and finds that 57% of Americans believe that the news media have acted responsibly "in handling the recent threats of terrorism in the United States," while 40% say the media have acted irresponsibly. After the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the public was more positive. By a margin of 86% to 12%, Americans said the media provided responsible coverage. Fifty-seven percent of Americans also said the media handled the sniper shootings last fall in a responsible manner.

Overall, do you feel the news media have acted responsibly or irresponsibly in handling the recent threats of terrorism in the United States?

Feb 17-19, 2003



Despite this positive assessment, Americans express skepticism that the news media routinely provides accurate and objective coverage. The poll shows that 58% of Americans believe news organizations` stories "are often inaccurate," while just 39% say they "get the facts straight."

In general, do you think -- news organizations get the facts straight, or do you think news organizations’ stories and reports are often inaccurate?










http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030226.asp

[goldmist]

[Joerver]

Fractured Foreign Policy
President Bush and Captain Arab -- Psychological soul-mates

Alex A. Vardamis Wednesday, February 26, 2003

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



Literature can often place a current dilemma in perspective. To understand the crisis between the United States and Iraq, Americans would do well to refer to Herman Melville`s "Moby Dick."

The parallels are striking. Consider the cast of characters: Captain Ahab is played by President George W. Bush. First mate Starbuck is Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Pequod`s three harpooners -- the Indian Dagoo, the African Tashtego and the kindly cannibal Queequeg -- are the military forces of the USA. They are the ones who confront the enemy. Their job is to hurl harpoons (read cruise missiles) down the whale`s throat.

The Pequod`s diversified crew represents not only all races of mankind, but all temperaments. They are the American people. They range from the intellectual schoolmaster Ishmael and the easygoing second mate Stubb, to the third mate Flask, brave and high-spirited to a fault.

Finally, the great white whale, Moby Dick is, of course, none other than Saddam Hussein.

To carry the comparison further, suppose Ahab`s whaling ship, the Pequod, to be the United States of America. The hostile ocean, then, is the billion- strong Muslim world.

Ahab is motivated by a monomaniacal hatred of Moby Dick. He is unable to rest until he has killed the whale. Bush, too, displays an obsession with Hussein. Both Bush and Ahab feel a personal affront. Ahab lost his leg to Moby Dick. The president`s dad was politically crippled by an inability to destroy Hussein.

Just as the Pequod`s job is to harvest oil from the sperm whale, so the current crisis involves controlling Iraq`s oil supply. But Ahab, like Bush, demonstrates only a perfunctory interest in economics. He forgets the principal purpose of his voyage and, instead, uses his whaling ship as an instrument of vengeance.

Ahab and Bush view the universe through the same lens. They see mankind engaged in a perpetual struggle between right and wrong. Ahab and Bush believe they are confronting pure evil. Compromise, therefore, is impossible. Good nations support America and bad nations oppose her in this dualistic world view.

It is interesting that Ahab`s confidante, the sinister Persian (read, Iranian) Fedallah, shares this view of the universe with Bush`s advisers, including the "prince of darkness," Richard Perle.

However, Bush, like Ahab, faces opposition. Starbuck, the Pequod`s brooding first mate, initially tries to dissuade Ahab from his quest. Similarly, Bush`s first mate, Powell, was an early advocate of moderation. But Starbuck and Powell are good soldiers. They take orders.

Everyone is familiar with the conclusion of Moby Dick. The struggle with the great white whale ends with harpoons flying through the air, capsized whaleboats and churning waves. Ahab is garroted by a harpoon line. Moby Dick sinks the Pequod. All hands, but one, are lost. In the struggle between good and evil, evil triumphs, it appears.

Or, perhaps, does evil reside in Ahab`s obsession? Most whales live out their lives placidly floating in the sea and feeding on plankton. Perhaps Moby Dick, a force of nature and potential weapon of mass destruction, turns violent only when he is goaded by relentless New Englanders.

In any case, Ishmael, the only survivor of the Pequod, clings to a coffin floating among the scattered wreckage. Ishmael? Is Ishmael not the forefather of the Arabs?

What in God`s name was Melville thinking when he wrote the Great American Novel? Is there a message here?

Alex A. Vardamis is a retired professor of American literature from West Point and the University of Vermont. He lives in Carmel.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Poll: Support Erodes for Bush on Economy
Wed Feb 26, 7:58 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Eroding support for President Bush (news - web sites)`s handling of the economy is undercutting the high marks he earned for tackling terrorism, says a new poll that shows his lowest job approval rating since before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.


People who disapprove of Bush`s handling of the economy now outnumber those who approve, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday.


It found that 43 percent now approve of the president`s economic policy and 48 percent disapprove — the first time a Pew poll has found more disapproving.


His overall job approval, 54 percent, was at the lowest level in this poll since before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 sent it into the 80s.


Bush is still near 60 percent in overall job approval in some other polls, including an ABC-Washington Post poll released Monday.


Public support for Bush`s handling of terrorist threats remains strong, with two-thirds, or 67 percent, saying they approve. Just under half, 48 percent, said they approve of his handling of the situation in North Korea (news - web sites), while just over a third disapprove.


The public`s view of "Bush`s stewardship of the economy continues to erode and his tax plan isn`t helping him much," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "The public is increasingly worried about finances."


Only four in 10 in the Pew poll, 42 percent, said they approve of his tax policy — suggesting his $670 billion tax-cut plan, including a centerpiece proposal to slash the tax on investor dividends, has not shored up eroding confidence in his economic leadership. About the same number, 44 percent, said they disapprove of his tax policy.


The poll was published the same day the Conference Board (news - web sites)`s Consumer Confidence Index (news - web sites) fell to its lowest level in nearly 10 years, plunging from 78.8 in January to 64.0 in February. That is its lowest reading since October 1993 and came in the face of analysts predictions for a reading of 77.0.


Kohut said his poll suggests many people "would roll back the last tax cut to pay for military spending rather than add to the deficit, so it`s not too surprising that the new tax proposals are a nonstarter."


When asked the best approach to pay for large increases in military defense and homeland security, 40 percent said the government should postpone or reduce last year`s tax cuts, 23 percent said it should add to the budget deficit and 21 percent said it should reduce spending on domestic programs.


More than half, 56 percent, said they are very concerned they will not have enough money for their retirement, up from 42 percent who felt that way in May 1997.


The poll of 1,254 adults was taken Feb. 12-18 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.


___

[Joerver]

This War Can Be Avoided
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, February 24, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/



Kuwait is not Poland. Iraq is not Nazi Germany. Saddam Hussein is not Adolf Hitler. This year, 2003, is not 1939.

People who now urge a slaughterous attack on the Iraqi people don`t seem to understand these simple facts.

In September 1939, the mighty armies of Germany and the Soviet Union invaded and quickly conquered Poland, which was virtually defenseless. We like to say now that the world stood by and did nothing, but that`s not true. The world finally began to prepare for war.

Germany, at the time, had a magnificent army. Going one-on-one against almost any nation, it was capable of winning decisively. The Soviet Union`s military might was nearly on a par with Germany`s.

Japan, possibly the world`s third-strongest power at the time, had thrown in its lot with Germany.

So, in fact, there really was nobody to resist Germany`s aggression. The United States, a long way from becoming a superpower, was on a peacetime footing, and not prepared for war. Britain was gearing up, but it, too, was unprepared.

One can argue that the rest of the world should have seen what Hitler and Stalin and Tojo, and Mussolini, were up to, and perhaps it did. But not in time to help Poland.

How different things were in 1990, when Iraq decided to settle, once and for all, its long-standing dispute with the so-called constitutional monarchy (more monarchy than constitutional) of Kuwait. Hussein invaded and quickly conquered Kuwait, declaring it Iraq`s 19th province.

However, unlike Hitler`s ambitions in 1939, Hussein`s aspirations in 1990 quickly backfired. The rest of the world was mobilized and prepared. The United States -- fearing further aggression by Iraq and destabilization of oil prices -- quickly put together a fighting force to take back Kuwait for the emir and sheiks who own it and the Palestinians who do their work for them.

George Bush the Elder did a magnificent job at the time of rallying world support for a war to retake Kuwait, dropping bribes and forgiving loans at a dizzying pace. Whatever his tactics, they worked, and by the time the American-led and American-dominated forces went on the attack, just about the entire world was united behind them.

The "fight" to retake Kuwait was more like a slaughter. Iraq was said to have the fourth-strongest military in the world at the time, but it might as well have fought with sticks and stones. American technology and firepower pulverized the Iraqis.

So Kuwait was quickly retaken. After a virtual massacre of an estimated 85,000 retreating Iraqi troops, the war was deemed over. Bush, who had made commitments to neighboring nations to not destroy Hussein and throw Iraq into chaos, didn`t know what to do next, so he simply withdrew most of our forces.

Please note that there was no appeasement of Hussein after he invaded Kuwait. He was promptly kicked out, at great cost to his armies and his pocketbook. Arms inspectors were sent into Iraq to find and destroy Hussein`s major weapons, a job they carried out with varying degrees of success. Economic embargoes were placed against Iraq, and "no-fly zones" were established over huge parts of the country.

Over the past dozen years, U.S. and British planes have struck perhaps thousands of times against Iraq. According to "The World Almanac," more than 400 targets were struck within Iraq in the seven months between January and August 1999 alone. We even bombed and shelled military targets in Baghdad on occasion.


Because of the devastation inside Iraq, and a shortage of food, the United Nations relented on its economic embargoes enough to allow Iraq to sell oil for food. Unfortunately, the U.N. did not supervise the oil-for-food program, so it turned into an oil-for-palaces program. Iraqi children continued to starve, thanks to Hussein`s callousness and the U.N.`s carelessness.

The U.N. also allowed Hussein to wreck the weapons-inspections program.

The U.N., by itself, has virtually no enforcement ability, so it depends on the leadership of great nations like the United States to provide that ability. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton wasn`t up to that job during his terms of office, nor was George W. Bush before Sept. 11, 2001.

However, it`s not too late, not even now.

We seem to forget that Iraq is a vanquished aggressor nation. As such, Iraq does not call the shots. It does what it is told.

Good parents never threaten their children unless they`re willing to carry out the threat. Children constantly threatened but never punished grow up thinking they can get away with anything.

The same principle applies here. Hussein has been threatened mightily by the U.N., but punishment for noncompliance has ranged from puny to nonexistent. So Hussein believes he can get away with anything.

That`s why he keeps toying with the arms inspectors. Experience has taught him he can get away with it.

The U.N. has made mistakes. The United States has not provided the leadership it should have. However, the remedy for these mistakes is not mass murder. We don`t have to destroy Iraq and tens of thousands of its people -- and put our own people at risk of retaliation -- in order to set things right.

If we use our heads, instead of just our muscle, we can get the compliance from Iraq required by the world.

For one thing, we can supervise the oil-for-food program so it works as intended. The fact that Hussein abuses that program is our fault, not his. We know what he is, so why would we expect him to do anything right? It is our obligation to make sure he does it right.

We should disarm Iraq completely and turn it into a kind of U.N. protectorate. Hussein, of course, would not like this proposal. So what? We really don`t care what he likes, do we?

If the goal is tranquillity in the region, a clawless Iraq, protected by U.N. forces stationed within Iraq, would go a long way toward achieving that goal. Even Israel, bellicose as it is, might appreciate that solution.

War against Iraq can be avoided. An offensive war, for a nation as powerful as ours, is an admission of failure. It is a sign of impatience and emotional immaturity. Such a war diminishes our moral standing in the world because it demonstrates a lack of character.

Strong people don`t control weaker people by knocking their blocks off. "All or nothing" is the philosophy of morons. The same principles apply to nations. When we demonstrate we`re incapable of dealing with intermediate steps, we demonstrate our intellectual and moral weaknesses.

We Americans have no aversion to the use of force to achieve our goals. Nor should we, when our goals are noble. However, brute strength should be used wisely and judiciously. An all-out war against Iraq now, when intermediate measures are still available, is neither wise nor judicious.

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

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Robert Fisk: How the news will be censored in this war
A new CNN system of `script approval` suggests the Pentagon will have nothing to worry about
25 February 2003
Already, the American press is expressing its approval of the coverage of American forces which the US military intends to allow its reporters in the next Gulf war. The boys from CNN, CBS, ABC and The New York Times will be "embedded" among the US marines and infantry. The degree of censorship hasn`t quite been worked out. But it doesn`t matter how much the Pentagon cuts from the reporters` dispatches. A new CNN system of "script approval" – the iniquitous instruction to reporters that they have to send all their copy to anonymous officials in Atlanta to ensure it is suitably sanitised – suggests that the Pentagon and the Department of State have nothing to worry about. Nor do the Israelis.

Indeed, reading a new CNN document, "Reminder of Script Approval Policy", fairly takes the breath away. "All reporters preparing package scripts must submit the scripts for approval," it says. "Packages may not be edited until the scripts are approved... All packages originating outside Washington, LA (Los Angeles) or NY (New York), including all international bureaus, must come to the ROW in Atlanta for approval."

The date of this extraordinary message is 27 January. The "ROW" is the row of script editors in Atlanta who can insist on changes or "balances" in the reporter`s dispatch. "A script is not approved for air unless it is properly marked approved by an authorised manager and duped (duplicated) to burcopy (bureau copy)... When a script is updated it must be re-approved, preferably by the originating approving authority."

Note the key words here: "approved" and "authorised". CNN`s man or woman in Kuwait or Baghdad – or Jerusalem or Ramallah – may know the background to his or her story; indeed, they will know far more about it than the "authorities" in Atlanta. But CNN`s chiefs will decide the spin of the story.

CNN, of course, is not alone in this paranoid form of reporting. Other US networks operate equally anti-journalistic systems. And it`s not the fault of the reporters. CNN`s teams may use clichés and don military costumes – you will see them do this in the next war – but they try to get something of the truth out. Next time, though, they`re going to have even less chance.

Just where this awful system leads is evident from an intriguing exchange last year between CNN`s reporter in the occupied West Bank town of Ramallah, and Eason Jordan, one of CNN`s top honchos in Atlanta.

The journalist`s first complaint was about a story by the reporter Michael Holmes on the Red Crescent ambulance drivers who are repeatedly shot at by Israeli troops. "We risked our lives and went out with ambulance drivers... for a whole day. We have also witnessed ambulances from our window being shot at by Israeli soldiers... The story received approval from Mike Shoulder. The story ran twice and then Rick Davis (a CNN executive) killed it. The reason was we did not have an Israeli army response, even though we stated in our story that Israel believes that Palestinians are smuggling weapons and wanted people in the ambulances."

The Israelis refused to give CNN an interview, only a written statement. This statement was then written into the CNN script. But again it was rejected by Davis in Atlanta. Only when, after three days, the Israeli army gave CNN an interview did Holmes`s story run – but then with the dishonest inclusion of a line that said the ambulances were shot in "crossfire" (ie that Palestinians also shot at their own ambulances).

The reporter`s complaint was all too obvious. "Since when do we hold a story hostage to the whims of governments and armies?We were told by Rick that if we do not get an Israeli on-camera we would not air the package. This means that governments and armies are indirectly censoring us and we are playing directly into their own hands."

The relevance of this is all too obvious in the next Gulf War. We are going to have to see a US army officer denying everything the Iraqis say if any report from Iraq is to get on air. Take another of the Ramallah correspondent`s complaints last year. In a package on the damage to Ramallah after Israel`s massive incursion last April, "we had already mentioned right at the top of our piece that Israel says it is doing all these incursions because it wants to crack down on the infrastructure of terror. However, obviously that was not enough. We were made by the ROW (in Atlanta) to repeat this same idea three times in one piece, just to make sure that we keep justifying the Israeli actions..."

But the system of "script approval" that has so marred CNN`s coverage has got worse. In a further and even more sinister message dated 31 January this year, CNN staff are told that a new computerised system of script approval will allow "authorised script approvers to mark scripts (ie reports) in a clear and standard manner. Script EPs (executive producers) will click on the coloured APPROVED button to turn it from red (unapproved) to green (approved). When someone makes a change in the script after approval, the button will turn yellow." Someone? Who is this someone? CNN`s reporters aren`t told.

But when we recall that CNN revealed after the 1991 Gulf War that it had allowed Pentagon "trainees" into the CNN newsroom in Atlanta, I have my suspicions.

[Joerver]

Der "eingebettete" Reporter

Florian Rötzer 27.02.2003
Transparenz und Echtzeitjournalismus verspricht das Pentagon im zweiten Krieg gegen das Lügenregime Irak, bei dem alles anders sein soll, als beim ersten Mal

Dieses Mal wird alles anders, verspricht das Pentagon. In diesem Krieg, der für die Bush-Regierung längst beschlossene Sache ist, auch wenn immer noch so getan wird, als könne Hussein ihn noch vermeiden, wird die amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit eine "unglaublich starke Berichterstattung" vom Krieg erhalten und gewissermaßen in der ersten Reihe sitzen, um zu sehen, wie die amerikanischen Soldaten den Irak schnell und chirurgisch vom Bösen befreien.

Kritik war zuletzt im Afghanistan-Krieg laut geworden, da hier den Journalisten, wie gehabt, zunächst kein Zugang zur Front eröffnet wurde ( Krieg gegen ein Land im Schwarzen Medienloch). Dafür wurde bekanntlich der arabische Sender al-Dschasira, der aus seiner Redaktion in Kabul die einzigen Bilder und Berichte aus dem Land brachte, "zufällig" von einer amerikanischen Präzisionsbombe getroffen. Die Journalisten durften sich hingegen in Pakistan drängeln und an den Pressekonferenzen der Amerikaner und der Taliban teilnehmen ( Kriegswirtschaft). Erst mit dem Vorrücken der Nordallianz kamen auch Journalisten in die bombardierten Gebiete. Anders als die medienfeindlichen Taliban wird aber Hussein zumindest versuchen, bis vielleicht eine der vielbesprochenen "E-bombs" alles Elektronische zerschmilzt ( Schon wieder eine neue "Wunderwaffe"), eine Art Gegenöffentlichkeit aufzubauen, die nicht unter der Kuratel des Pentagon steht.

Aber zurück zu Afghanistan. Wie weit die Medien im Kriegsfall überhaupt die unabhängige Instanz bleiben können, ist sicherlich eine schwierig zu beantwortende Frage. Auch in Anwesenheit von Journalisten wurden beispielsweise in Afghanistan Massaker ohne Konsequenz verübt. So hatten britische und amerikanische Bomber und später die Krieger von Warlord Dostum gnadenlos einige Hundert aufständische Gefangene in der Festung Kala-i-Dschangi niedergemacht. Fotos zeigten Leichen, die teils noch mit gefesselten Händen am Boden lagen, also kaum gefährlich sein konnten. Nur wenige entkamen dieser Hölle. Einer war der amerikanische Taliban Lindh ( USA: Im Krieg ist das Recht eingeschränkt). Warum es zu diesem Massaker kam und ob es tatsächlich gerechtfertigt und kein Kriegsverbrechen war, blieb ebenso ungeklärt, wie das Massaker an Tausenden von Gefangenen Taliban ( Das Massaker, das nicht sein darf) oder einige Fälle von sogenannten "Kollateralschäden". Untersuchungen) des Pentagon kamen hier in aller Regel zu keinen Ergebnissen ( Beweise beseitigt?). Die Medien bestenfalls zu Vermutungen. Ansonsten diktiert der Sieger die Geschichte.

Der saubere Krieg

Natürlich will das Pentagon hier nicht für mehr Aufklärung und unabhängige Beobachter sorgen, sondern mit der neuen Medienstrategie nur geschickter die Journalisten an sich binden, indem sie, wie es so schön heißt, "eingebettet" werden. Zulassungsbeschränkungen gibt es auch hier, die Journalisten werden Einheiten zugewiesen, Bewegungsfreiheit haben sie keine. Krieg in Echtzeit für die aufgeregten Zuschauer an den Bildschirmen, die endlich den Höhepunkt des Reality-TV erleben wollen, wird es nach Zensur bestenfalls zeitversetzt und mit gewünschten Bildern geben. Jetzt freilich tönt die Pressesprecherin des Pentagon, Victoria Clarke, noch, dass die Journalisten von Anfang an die Kampfhandlungen auf dem Boden, in der Luft und auf dem Meer begleiten und die Zuschauer Echtzeit-Kämpfe sehen werden.

Die Journalisten werden zwar schon gleich einmal je nach Herkunft und Medium sowie nach Vertrauen zugeteilt, so dass die nicht-amerikanischen Medienvertreter vermutlich eher weit weg, beispielsweise auf Schiffen, stationiert werden. Clarke versichert, dass die einzigen Beschränkungen der Berichterstattung für die Informationen gelten sollen, "die den Erfolg einer Mission beeinflussen" oder das "Leben von Menschen in Gefahr bringen können". Ausschließen will sie nicht, dass die Zuschauer vielleicht auch live den Tod eines amerikanischen Soldaten sehen können, aber man kann sicherlich davon ausgehen, dass der Krieg, soweit dies das Pentagon kontrollieren kann, "sauber" sein wird (Patrick J. Sloyan: What Bodies?). Im ersten Goldkrieg hatte man beispielsweise schnell mit Raupen toten irakischen Soldaten in den Schützengräben und in den getroffenen Fahrzeugen und Panzern unter dem Sand verscharrt. Wenn es nicht die Bilder von der "Straße des Todes" gegeben hätte, so hätte der Krieg trotz Zehntausenden von Toten tatsächlich ziemlich "sauber" mit zerstörten und ausgebrannten Fahrzeugen ausgesehen.

Der damalige Verteidigungsminister und jetzige Vizepräsident Cheney war jedoch anderer Meinung, was vermutlich auch einige Implikationen für den zweiten Irak-Krieg mit seiner Beteiligung besitzt: "Das war der am besten dokumentierte Krieg. Die amerikanischen Menschen sahen mit ihren eigenen Augen durch die Magie des Fernsehens von ganz nah, was das US-Militär zu leisten imstande war."

Transparenz gegen Propaganda?

Aber dann gibt es natürlich doch die vom Pentagon nach "zahllosen Stunden" mit Medienvertretern festgelegten Regeln, obgleich eigentlich den Journalisten weitgehend vertraut werden könne, dass sie die Streitkräfte mit ihren Berichten nicht gefährden. Ob dann auch Journalisten weiter eingebettet bleiben, die unerwünschte kritische Berichte liefern? Für Disziplin sorgt wahrscheinlich schon die Androhung, sie und ihr Medium könnten ganz ausgeschlossen werden.

Aber von diesen Dingen spricht man eher nicht, schon lieber von dem Prinzip der Offenheit, mit dem das Pentagon der irakischen Propaganda entgegen treten will: "Wir gehen gegen Menschen vor, die Meister der Lüge, der Täuschung und des Verbergens sind." Und die Lügen, die Eingang in die Medien finden, erhalten dann den Anschein von Wahrheit und werden glaubhaft. Ob aber die Menschen wirklich überzeugt davon sind, dass die "eingebetteten", also nicht gerade unabhängigen Journalisten die reine und umfassende Wahrheit berichten werden, wie dies Clarke als Ergebnis der neuen Pentagon-Strategie gerne hätte, darf oder sollte doch bezweifelt werden.

"Für uns ist es eine Sache, aufzustehen und beispielsweise wahrheitsgemäß zu sagen, dass Saddam Hussein Zivilisten in die Nähe von militärischen Einrichtungen und umgekehrt postiert hat. Es ist etwas Anderes und Mächtiges, wenn NBC oder CNN International der Welt mit ihren eigenen Bildern und Worten zeigen, dass er dies tut." Aber wenn es sich dann um freiwillige Schutzschilde handelt und/oder die Amerikaner trotz des Wissens, dass sich hier Zivilisten aufhalten, bombardieren, dann wäre womöglich das Pentagon nicht mehr so glücklich, wenn nicht nur, wie offenbar erwünscht, patriotische US-Sender, sondern auch solche von anderen Ländern vor Ort wären ( Aufmerksamkeitswaffen).

Allerdings werden die Journalisten vom Pentagon, wie auch erst am 26. Februar wieder, schon vor oder bei Bombardierungen stets darauf hingewiesen, dass der Feind militärische Ziele durch zivile Einrichtungen und Zivilisten schützt und Vorfälle inszeniert, um sie propagandistisch auszubeuten. Das gehört im Medienkrieg zur beiderseitigen Strategie, die Opfer sind auf jeden Fall die Zivilisten. Wie jetzt wurde dies auch im Afghanistan-Krieg gemacht, wobei man hier wiederum auf Beispiele aus dem ersten Irak-Krieg sowie aus dem Kosovo-Krieg zurückgriff ( Verbergen und Täuschen).

Auch wenn nichts dafür spricht, dass dieser Krieg, wenn er denn beginnen sollte, unter einer größeren unabhängigen und kritischen Öffentlichkeit stattfinden wird, so darf man trotzdem zumindest auf die versprochene Einlösung der Transparenz gespannt sein - und sollte die US-Regierung, die als gute Befreiungsmacht gegenüber einer bösen Tyrannei sowie als Instanz der Aufrichtigkeit gegenüber einem System der Lüge und Täuschung antritt, auch daran messen. Nach all dem, was bislang geschehen ist, dürfte das erste Opfer eines Krieges aber trotz aller Echtzeitmedien und Pentagon-Propaganda dasselbe Opfer wie immer sein. Aber was ist schon Wahrheit? Noch dazu in einem möglicherweise postmodernen Krieg ...

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Feb. 26, 2003. 05:35 AM


U.S. crackdown drives Muslims toward Canada
Refugee claimants jam border posts


MARK BELLIS
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

LACOLLE, Que.—After surviving winter`s wrath to reach this desolate border post on the way to Montreal from New York state, about 20 refugee claimants huddle inside a large waiting room, waiting to be buzzed in by an immigration official. Most looked terrified earlier this month as they waited for their names to be called. Their concerns were not unfounded.

Refugee claimants have overwhelmed Canadian border posts since December when the American Department of Justice added Pakistan to a list of mostly Muslim nations, and North Korea, as countries whose visitors must undergo special registration.

Men aged 16 and older from these countries, who are not permanent residents or United States citizens, are required to report for interviews where they are also fingerprinted and photographed, steps the U.S. government has said are necessary to fight terrorism and track illegal aliens.

Fearing deportation, more and more refugee claimants — mostly from Pakistan — are seeking shelter in Canada.

Jalil Mirza was among hundreds of other Pakistanis fleeing the post-9/11 crackdown on illegal immigrants. He quit his job, packed up his possessions and headed north rather than face a forced return to Pakistan.

After a 16-hour bus ride from Virginia with his wife and seven children, he crossed into Canada from Burlington, Vt., hoping to gain asylum.

Besieged Canadian officials told him to come back in two weeks.

But when he dragged their suitcases back to the American side, U.S. immigration agents promptly arrested him and his two teenage sons, leaving the rest of the family wailing in despair in the icy cold.

The Mirzas are part of an unusual and chaotic exodus that has jammed land crossings from the U.S. into Canada over the past two weeks, overwhelming immigration officials and refugee aid groups on both sides of the border.

In Ontario alone, 871 people applied for asylum in January, nearly double the number in November. Pakistani refugee claimants represented only 5 per cent of claims in November, surging to 49 per cent in January.

In Buffalo, it now takes at least 14 days just to get an appointment at the Canadian border. It used to take a few days.

Once in Canada, refugee claimants can expect their cases to be referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal whose members hear evidence during a face-to-face hearing, then render a decision on the refugee claim. Only about 55 per cent of refugee applications are accepted.

Rejean Cantlon, a spokesperson for Immigration Canada, said many more claimants are sent back to the U.S. with future appointments because "there are not enough translators or immigration officials available."

Back on American soil, hardship awaits.

Some are arrested by immigration officials for the same reason they seek refuge — not having proper paperwork — and return much poorer after paying bonds that start at $1,500 (U.S.).

A few are simply jailed.

But most head for emergency shelters, hoping for assistance until their hearings.

"It`s an outrage. It`s not the thing a great nation is supposed to do," said Patrick Giantonio, who helps run Vermont Refugee Assistance.

"I am crying, my wife is crying," said Samir Sheik, a Pakistani who had been working as a street vendor in New York City and was arrested at a checkpoint on his way to the Canadian border for having overstayed his visa.

Sheik said he could not return to Pakistan because he and his wife married against the wishes of both their families and he feared his wife would be killed by her father.

His wife, Erim Salim, shuffled silently around the crowded Salvation Army centre in Burlington, where they had been reunited after she borrowed from friends and neighbours to pay his $5,000 (U.S.) bond.

"She is sick now, mentally," said Sheik, nodding toward her sadly. "Millions of people live here and are overstays. Why is it only for Pakistanis and Muslim people that they do this?"

Hiraj Zafer, a Pakistani cook from Salt Lake City who was also trying to enter Canada, gave an answer. "After 9/11, people hate us," Zafer said.

Sheik said: "Yes, they hate us. But we love America. We feel free here."

Mirza joined the refrain, saying he loves America and does not want to leave.

A former restaurant manager in Virginia with four children born in the U.S., Mirza, 45, managed to scrape together the $4,500 (U.S.) he needed to get himself and his older sons out of jail. His family stayed two weeks in a shelter in Burlington, until yesterday when they had an 8 a.m. appointment with Canadian immigration officials.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With files from the New York Times and the Hamilton Spectator

[Joerver]

Erst Bagdad dann Peking?

Decisions, decisions
While we agonise about whether to go to war, the US has moved on to a different question: what next?

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday February 26, 2003
The Guardian

Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus. So says the latest hot polemic exciting transatlantic policy types: Robert Kagan`s Paradise and Power, a meditation on how Europeans have grown soft and idealistic (and feminine) while the Yanks remain tough, booted and aware (like real men) of how brutal a place the world can be. According to Kagan, our outlooks have grown so far apart that it`s time we stopped pretending we even "occupy the same world". We are from different planets.

Maybe that explains why so many Europeans are not just on the opposite side from the US in the debate over the coming war on Iraq, but why we are not even having the same conversation. While we still agonise over whether or not to go to war - forcing our prime minister to make and remake his case, even if that means taking an hour of questions on MTV, as he will next Friday - the American conversation moved on long ago. With barely a peep of congressional opposition to a military attack against Saddam, and most Democrats reduced to silent compliance, the Washington village has taken it as read, both that war will happen, and that it is justified. Their debate is focusing instead on a different question: what next?

It might be a simple function of power. We sit back making abstract, moral judgments while they, as the nation poised to do the business, concern themselves with practicalities. We are not quite spectators - 40,000 Brits will be involved, after all - but nor do we have the prime spot in the dugout, making the key decisions. Those will be made in Washington.

Whatever the explanation, the gulf between us is real. The op-ed pages of the American papers have the odd thumb-suck on the rights and wrongs of prising Saddam out by force, but their more pressing interest (besides pouring bile on the surrender monkeys of France and Germany) is in the task that will face the great US Army of Liberation once its initial work is done.

There is, for example, an argument about personnel. Should the American governor-general ruling newly free Iraq be a civilian - perhaps the former nuclear weapons inspector, David Kay, or Bush-friendly lawyer Michael Mobbs - or a soldier? Surely a man in a suit would smack less of military occupation, and therefore be the more tactful choice? On the other hand, a uniformed viceroy might repeat the magic worked when Douglas MacArthur oversaw Japan. If that`s the precedent, then retired lieutenant general and veteran of the first Gulf war, Jay Garner, would be a frontrunner. Or would it be smarter-to- name, Arabic-speaking Lebanese-American General John Abizaid, amusingly known as "Mad Arab" to his colleagues? Such are the dilemmas preoccupying pre-occupier America.

There are mechanical questions to ponder, too. Which system would work best? If not a formal military occupation, perhaps a Kosovo-style civilian administration? Or an interim government made up, à la Afghanistan, of multiple opposition groups, returned to Iraq after decades of exile? Or would it be more convenient simply to replace Saddam with a new strongman: whether a former Ba`athist suitably made over and rebranded as "pro-western" or an outsider, like Jordan`s Prince Hassan, a cousin of Iraq`s last king who was assassinated in 1958?

Decisions, decisions. And the US will, barring the most dramatic change of heart by either Saddam Hussein or George Bush, be making them soon. What they will turn on will be more than operational matters of efficiency. They will go instead to the heart of why America is fighting this war.

For if this conflict`s chief aim is what the new, second UN resolution claims it to be - the simple disarmament of Iraq - then any postwar settlement would be devised around that objective: perhaps a new, compliant dictator would do that job best. If the goal is the one touted by Tony Blair in recent days as the moral case - namely, liberation from tyranny - then only a fresh, democratic start will do.

If, however, the American victors insist on a much more robust level of US control - restructuring Iraq entirely, studding it with countless military bases - then we could start drawing rather different conclusions as to the true motive of this campaign. We might agree with those who detect in the Iraq adventure the opening move of a much grander American design: the establishing of US hegemony for the next 100 years.

This is not just twitchy, anti-war conspiracy talk. An outfit exists on 17th Street in Washington, DC, called the Project for the New American Century, explicitly committed to US mastery of the globe for the coming age. Its acolytes speak of "full spectrum dominance", meaning American invincibility in every field of warfare - land, sea, air and space - and a world in which no two nations` relationship with each other will be more important than their relationship with the US. There will be no place on earth, or the heavens for that matter, where Washington`s writ does not run supreme. To that end, a ring of US military bases should surround China, with liberation of the People`s Republic considered the ultimate prize. As one enthusiast puts it concisely: "After Baghdad, Beijing."

If this sounds like the harmless delusions of an eccentric fringe, think again. The founder members of the project, launched in 1997 as a Republican assault on the Clinton presidency, form a rollcall of today`s Bush inner circle. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle - they`re all there. So too is Zalmay Khalilzad, now the White House`s "special envoy and ambassador-at-large for free Iraqis".

It will not be the war itself which will reveal these ultras` true intent. That would be fought the same way whatever the underlying motive: overwhelming force aimed at a swift decapitation of the Iraqi regime. But the postwar occupation will reveal plenty. Then we will know if the hawkish dreamers of the project have indeed taken over US foreign policy. How they remake free Iraq will tell us whether they plan to remake the world.

In other words, this is one debate we cannot afford to sit out. As US commentator Sandra Mackay wrote this month: "Washington`s hawks understand that the real risks ... are not in war, but in the peace that follows." It`s after victory that the most enduring impact will be felt, whether it be a hated US-led occupation, sparking a fresh round of global terrorism, or the sudden release of Iraq`s lethal, internal tensions which Saddam has kept pent-up for 35 years. Kurds could fight Turks for their own state in the north; Shias might team up with Iran for control of the south; everyone may turn on the hated Saddamite Ba`athists in a frenzy of revenge. Iraq will not be like 1940s Japan or Germany, the occupations fondly remembered by the US commentariat. Those were coherent nations; Iraq is an artificial fusion of antagonistic tribes. Victory may be rapid and easy - but that`s when the real trouble could start.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Das hat noch nicht einmal Mr.Bush verdient.


Schroeder Doesn`t Speak for All Germans


By Angela Merkel

Thursday, February 20, 2003; Page A39


Rarely do we have the experience of witnessing firsthand the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. But this is exactly what people all over the world are now living through. This epochal change began with the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, which marked a victory for freedom and the opening of the transatlantic partnership to the East. It continued with the events of Sept. 11, 2001, which shook the United States to its very foundations -- with consequences that, to this day, many Europeans have not fully grasped. Because of these decisive events, Europe and the United States now must redefine the nucleus of their domestic, foreign and security policy principles.

Europe is, on the one hand, assuming new responsibilities around the world, whether in Kosovo or Afghanistan. On the other hand, it is divided, maybe even deeply split. Thus, for example, aid to Turkey, our partner in the alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by France, Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines the very basis of NATO`s legitimacy. The most important lesson of German politics -- never again should Germany go it alone -- is swept aside with seeming ease by a German federal government that has done precisely this, for the sake of electoral tactics. The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union are attacked by the French government simply because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership between Europe and the United States.

But there is a more positive side as well. An agreement was reached at the emergency EU summit on Monday: On the basis of U.N. Resolution 1441, participants decided on a coordinated attitude to be adopted by the Europeans in the Iraq conflict. The agreement, which was long overdue, has forced the German federal government to make its first change of course in its policy toward Iraq. As the German parliamentary opposition, we welcome this change and expect the German government`s behavior on the U.N. Security Council to be in accord with the EU decision, although we also have reason to doubt it will be.

Two things have been highlighted once again by the EU decision. First, the danger from Iraq is not fictitious but real. Second, working not against but jointly with the United States, Europe must take more responsibility for maintaining international pressure on Saddam Hussein. As is argued in the EU summit declaration, this means advocating military force as the last resort in implementing U.N. resolutions.

It is true that war must never become a normal way of resolving political disputes. But the history of Germany and Europe in the 20th century in particular certainly teaches us this: that while military force cannot be the normal continuation of politics by other means, it must never be ruled out, or even merely questioned -- as has been done by the German federal government -- as the ultimate means of dealing with dictators. Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.

This is a grave matter: Peace is a supreme good, for the sake of which every effort has to be made. But it is also true that responsible political leadership must on no account trade the genuine peace of the future for the deceptive peace of the present. The determination and unity of the free nations will, in the Iraq conflict, have a decisive effect not only on the outcome of the crisis but on the way in which we shape the future of Europe and its relationship with the United States. They will have a decisive effect, too, on how we guarantee peace, freedom and security, and how we find appropriate answers to the new threats of our time. Will it be alone or together, with determination or in despair, with our partners or against them?

I am convinced that Europe and the United States will have to opt for a common security alliance in the future, just as they did in the past. The United States is the only remaining superpower, but even so it will have to rely on dependable partners over the long term. Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within the transatlantic alliance with the United States.

A couple of days ago, an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany`s major national newspapers, carried the headline "The End of a Friendship." It included the following passage: "For Germany, a permanent break with America would probably be not much of a liberation but a return to an ugly old-new reality, to the completely disillusioned world of the old Europe with its narrow-mindedness and disloyalty. Gratitude, friendship with America: in future these could still prove to be reasonable feelings."

For the party that I lead, our close partnership and friendship with the United States is just as much a fundamental element of Germany`s national purpose as European integration. But both will be successful only if it is possible to build new trust and we are able to formulate our own interests. There is no acceptable alternative to this way forward at the beginning of this new epoch.

The writer is chairman of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag.




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

By Scott Shane

When Hussein was our ally
Iraq: Newly released documents reveal U.S. talk of regime change in the early 1980s - except then it was language condemning Iran for attempting to overthrow the government in Baghdad.
Sun Journal

February 27, 2003

In an interview Tuesday with the Arab-language television network Al-Jazeera, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld laid out again the case for war against Saddam Hussein`s Iraq. Among other crimes, he said, Iraq "used chemical weapons on its neighbor Iran."

The defense secretary has reason to remember that crime. It was taking place in December 1983, when Rumsfeld met with Hussein as a special envoy of President Ronald Reagan. But his mission then was to improve U.S.-Iraqi relations, assure Hussein that Iran was their common enemy and promote an oil pipeline project.

According to records of the meeting, Rumsfeld made no complaint to the Iraqi dictator about his use of weapons of mass destruction, though he did mention U.S. disapproval to Hussein`s foreign minister.

The National Security Archive, a nonprofit public affairs research group at George Washington University, published this week on its Web site recently declassified documents revealing the delicate diplomatic dance performed by the United States in the 1980s as it tilted toward Iraq and away from Iran.

Twenty years ago, Iran seemed a far bigger threat to the United States. Iranian students chanting "Death to America" had seized the U.S. Embassy in 1980 and taken diplomats hostage. Iran was implicated in major terrorist attacks against American targets, including the bombing of the U.S. Embassy and the Marine barracks in Beirut, carried out by Hezbollah militants.

But if Reagan and Rumsfeld were right to be cozying up to Hussein in 1983, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds, does that mean President Bush and Rumsfeld are wrong today to be preparing a war against Iraq and citing such chemical attacks as one reason? Or was U.S. policy wrong then and right now?

U.S. presidents often present American positions in starkly moral terms, as Bush did in describing Hussein in the State of the Union address: "The dictator who is assembling the world`s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages. ... International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

But all those evils were well-documented in 1983.

At the time of Rumsfeld`s visit, Hussein had invaded Iran, was seeking nuclear weapons and had used lethal mustard gas. He had harbored terrorists (though he had just expelled the infamous Abu Nidal) and had a well-established record of torturing and murdering domestic opponents.

The U.S. response? It dropped Iraq from the list of nations sponsoring terror, renewed diplomatic ties, and provided intelligence and aid to Iraq to prevent its defeat by Iran.

Joyce Battle, the National Security Archive analyst who assembled the previously secret U.S. documents, says they are a reminder that diplomacy is rarely a clear-cut campaign of good against evil.

"We published these documents as a response to the way the Bush administration is trying to describe this situation in black and white terms," says Battle. "In reality, that`s not the way international relations are carried out."

Following are excerpts from the documents:


On Nov. 1, 1983, State Department official Jonathan T. Howe writes to Secretary of State George P. Shultz expressing concern about both Iraq`s use of chemical weapons and its weak position in the war with Iran:

We have recently received additional information confirming Iraqi use of chemical weapons [CW]. We also know that Iraq has acquired a CW production capability, primarily from Western firms. ... If the [National Security Council] decides measures are to be undertaken to assist Iraq, our best present chance of influencing cessation of CW use may be in the context of informing Iraq of these measures. It is important, however, that we approach Iraq very soon in order to maintain the credibility of U.S. policy on CW, as well as to reduce or halt what now appears to be Iraq`s almost daily use of CW.


On Dec. 14, 1983, the top U.S. diplomat in Iraq, William L. Eagleton Jr., proposed "talking points" for Reagan`s envoy:

A major objective in the meeting with Saddam is to initiate a dialogue and establish personal rapport. In that meeting [Ambassador] Rumsfeld will want to emphasize his close relationship with President Reagan and the president`s interest in regional issues. ...

[Among the talking points]: The [U.S. government] recognizes Iraq`s current disadvantage in a war of attrition since Iran has [easy] access to the Gulf while Iraq does not, and would regard any major reversal of Iraq`s fortunes as a strategic defeat for the West.


On Dec. 21, 1983, a U.S. diplomat in London reports on the meeting the day before in Baghdad between Rumsfeld and Hussein, at which the U.S. envoy handed over a conciliatory letter from Reagan:

In his 90-minute meeting with Rumsfeld, Saddam Hussein showed obvious pleasure with president`s letter and Rumsfeld`s visit and in his remarks removed whatever obstacles remained in the way of resuming diplomatic relations. ... [Rumsfeld expressed] interest in seeing Iraq increase oil exports, including through possible new pipeline across Jordan. ... Our initial assessment is that meeting marked positive milestone in development of U.S.-Iraqi relations and will prove to be of wider benefit to U.S. posture in the region.

[Hussein] used a direct quote from Rumsfeld`s statement to the foreign minister the previous evening when he said "having a whole generation of Iraqis and Americans grow up without understanding each other had negative implications and could lead to mix-ups."


On Dec. 26, Eagleton cables the State Department that:

Ambassador Rumsfeld`s visit has elevated U.S-Iraqi relations to a new level. This is both symbolically important and practically helpful. ... We must now maintain some momentum in the dialogue and relationship.


On March 5, 1984, the State Department condemns Iraqi use of chemical weapons - but also blasts Iran`s determination to pursue regime change in Iraq:

The United States has concluded that the available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons. The United States strongly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons wherever it occurs. ... While condemning Iraq`s resort to chemical weapons, the United States also calls on the Government of Iran to ... put an end to the bloodshed. The United States finds the present Iranian regime`s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims.


Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Immer das Neuste aus Zeitungen und Internet aus USA:


http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/03/02/27_record.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Support for Bush`s re-election falls below 50 percent
President still enjoys advantage over Democrats
From Keating Holland
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) --The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.

Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.

Still, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said they approved of the way Bush is handling the job of president. That Bush approval rating is the lowest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The poll -- based on telephone interviews with 1,004 adult Americans between February 24 and 26 -- also found that support for sending U.S. troops to Iraq remains steady at 59 percent. Public attitudes, however, are likely to be shaped by the events of the next week or so as indicated by the respondents` answers to other questions. Nearly half of all Americans say they may change their minds on Iraq; about a third said they are committed to war.

The poll comes as Bush continues to lobby the U.N. Security Council to pass another resolution declaring that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has missed his last chance to disarm. And the president has made several speeches in recent weeks, emphasizing his concern about the economy and his administration`s determination to strengthen it.

The poll numbers suggest Bush has further to go in convincing Americans that he can turn the economy around. About 45 percent of those polled said they favor Bush`s economic plan, while 40 percent said they oppose it, and 15 percent described themselves as unsure.

On Iraq, the support for invading that country seemed to hinge on several factors. One example: Forty percent of those polled said they would support an invasion of Iraq with U.S. forces only if the United Nations approves another U.S. resolution against Iraq. And support for an invasion drops significantly if Saddam destroys missiles cited by U.N. weapons inspectors, falling from 71 percent to 33 percent.

As for Saddam`s recent challenge to Bush to join him in a debate, poll respondents left no doubt about who they thought would win. Three-quarters of respondents said Bush would win a debate.

The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

.

[Joerver]

Billionaire Soros blasts Bush, calls on President to honor world opinion


Friday, February 28, 2003

By Len Boselovic, Post-Gazette Staff Writer


Billionaire capitalist George Soros, whose shrewd speculation conquered world markets, delivered a scathing denunciation of Bush administration policies yesterday, accusing the White House of shirking its responsibility as the world`s only superpower.

In a speech before 500 at Carnegie Mellon University, Soros said the Bush administration had a "visceral aversion to international cooperation," which is why it is willing to ignore world opinion in its rush to wage war with Iraq.

"President Bush is pushing the wrong buttons when he says, `Those who are not with us, are against us,` " Soros said. "This is an imperialist vision in which the U.S. leads and the rest of the world follows."

Soros characterized some members of the Bush administration, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft, as having "an exaggerated view of their own righteousness."

Bush`s willingness to exert U.S. military power existed prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, which only served to enforce that tendency, Soros said. His solution, Soros said, is for the Bush administration to live by the rules it seeks to impose on the rest of the world.

Soros said he liked former treasury secretary Paul O`Neill, though he thought the ex-Alcoa chairman "was not terribly well qualified" for the Cabinet post.

The bigger problem at the Treasury Department, he said, was its neglect of responsibilities in regards to the international financial system. Soros added that he felt O`Neill, whose blunt and open style sometimes grated other members of the administration, was a breath of fresh air.

Soros made his billions by betting on swings in the British pound and other currencies, a single-minded strategy some countries claimed complicated their financial problems.

Soros earned investors in his Quantum Fund an average annual return of 31 percent over a 32-year period despite placing his share of losing bets during his career. He retired in 2000 after what for everyone else would have been crushing losses from Russia`s default and a premature bet on the demise of Internet stocks.

These days, the Budapest-born philanthropist who is a naturalized U.S. citizen spends his time giving his money away through the Soros Foundations, including the Open Society Institute, which supports civil liberties, education, media, public health and human and women`s rights, as well as social, legal and economic reform in more than 50 countries. The foundations distribute about $500 million annually.

Soros compared the failure of Bush policies with his success at investing, saying he had made bad investment decisions but had been willing to admit he was wrong and acted to correct his mistakes. "As a financial speculator, you have to be constantly living in the fear of being wrong,`` he said.

The visit by Soros, 72, coincided with his being named by Forbes magazine as the world`s 38th richest person with an estimated net worth of $7 billion.

A French court in December convicted the New York resident of insider trading in a case dating to a pending takeover of French bank Societe Generale 14 years ago. Soros, who was ordered to pay a $2.2 million fine, denied having any inside information when he traded his shares.

[Joerver]

Planet Bush
In the president’s version of reality, an invasion of Iraq brings democracy to the Middle East, a dividend-tax cut is a good idea and Star Wars is a viable defense plan


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE



REPUBLICANS ARE COUNTING on a quick military victory that will send the stock market soaring and restore President Bush’s aura of invincibility. Democrats are also hoping for a short war—so short that it will be forgotten by the time the 2004 presidential election approaches 18 months from now and the economy is still in the tank. Whichever scenario triumphs, the politics of Capitol Hill will be reshaped.
Until the foreign war is resolved, the domestic political armies remain in place, ready to deploy once they see how much bounce Bush gets from conquering the Iraqi Army. The experience of his father in the aftermath of a successful war drives Bush. He doesn’t want to be seen as frozen in indifference to the dormant economy. But right now he has almost no ability to attract Democrats to his economic agenda. Republicans are even balking at his proposal to eliminate dividend taxes. But the prowar wing of the GOP believes that Bush himself—along with his agenda—will be transformed by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, a dream deferred since the senior Bush left office.
In a speech this week, Bush set out his vision of a liberated and democratic Iraq setting an example for other countries in the region. It is a seductive idea, but Bush provided no road map on how to move from inspiration to reality. “Magic realism,” says Thomas Carothers, a democracy specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Carothers believes democracy is possible in the region, “but not soon.” There is no organized democratic opposition to replace the autocratic rulers; the only organized opposition in these countries is Islamic and rooted in fundamentalism. An American-led invasion of Iraq will strengthen the hand of Islam, says Carothers, who just returned from the region. Governments are already planning crackdowns on free expression in the aftermath of U.S. intervention in Iraq. “The idea of an invasion bringing about democracy makes people in these countries burst out laughing,” he says.
Bush extended his fantasy of peace all the way to Jerusalem, asserting that the removal of Saddam would clear the way for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Bush has it backwards, says Carothers. The way the administration has ignored the Arab-Israeli conflict is fueling anti-Americanism, and an invasion of Iraq will only harden the anger. Baghdad has almost nothing to do with the Palestinian uprising, and Saddam’s payments to suicide bombers are a pittance. Money is not in short supply in the Arab world; the terrorists will find another way to underwrite their actions. “The notion that invading Iraq will dry up terrorism is a pipe dream,” says Carothers.
It’s as though the inmates have taken over the asylum. Neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz, once consigned to the think-tank world, are now running the show. These mythic thinkers are more like missionaries bringing a taste of civilization to the unwashed than real-world policymakers. Democracy as a source of inspiration already exists in the Middle East. Many Arabs have lived in Europe and know what democracy is; they just don’t think it’s achieved with the barrel of a gun. “An Egyptian told me that if the road to democracy is 3,000 cruise missiles, an American invasion and an American military occupation, I’d rather not have it,” says Carothers.
Another example of Bush’s magic realism is the strategic missile-defense shield that he has promised to have up and running by 2004. The idea that a system can be put in place like an umbrella over America is fanciful at best, but that isn’t stopping Bush from pretending. Bush’s Star Wars has failed almost every test it’s been subjected to, succeeding only when the conditions were perfectly rigged and a single incoming missile had to be intercepted. To prevent reality from intruding on fantasy, Bush asks in his 2004 budget that Star Wars be exempted from further testing and congressional oversight because that would get in the way of its timely deployment.
Republicans are gambling that Bush will ride such a crest of approval coming out of Iraq that he can sell Congress anything. Lately he has claimed that his $670 billion tax cut earned the approval of “Blue Chip” economists, an endorsement that doesn’t even exist. He stood before the nation’s governors this week and said it was Congress’ fault that homeland security needs had been shortchanged around the nation when in reality it was the White House that rejected additional funding as “unnecessary,” even threatening a veto.
“It’s not body language; it’s not exaggeration; it’s flat-out lying,” fumed a House Democrat.
Bush’s swagger has worn thin with Republicans, as well. Ohio Sen. George Voinovich opposes Bush’s dividend-tax proposal, so the White House is sending members of its economic team into his state to build public pressure on him to support Bush. Those who know Voinovich say the move will only make him more entrenched in his opposition. What a contrast to last fall when Bush parachuted into several states represented by Democrats and helped defeat enough of them to return the Senate to Republican control. To recapture those heady days, Republicans are convinced Bush must take the road less traveled, the road through Baghdad.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

German lessons
Bush should not mess with history

Leader
Friday February 28, 2003
The Guardian

When America defeats its enemies, George W Bush said in his speech on Iraq this week, it leaves not occupying armies but democracy and liberty. "There was a time," he went on, "when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong."

In fact, it is Mr Bush who is wrong. Japanese men got the vote in 1925, not in 1945, as the president implied. And German men won the vote as far back as 1849, albeit subject to a property qualification, at a time when Mr Bush`s country practised legalised slavery. Bearing in mind that America only became a full democracy in 1965, and Germany in 1946, there is a case for saying that Germans have at least as strong a democratic tradition as Americans. What`s more, there is no dispute about who actually won the last German election, which is more than can be said about the means by which Mr Bush came to office. A little historical humility would do the president no harm.

[Joerver]

Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983

Video Clip von Shaking Hands zwischen Rumsfeld und Saddam: Media Player

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[Joerver]

"Bush has said..."We will not allow the world`s worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world`s worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That`s you."
- Harold Pinter


I`m going to war!

[Joerver]

Sind es es allein die Gerichte, die noch, genau wie bei uns, die Demokratie aufrechterhalten?


February 28, 2003
Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on `Under God` in Pledge
By ADAM LIPTAK


ver the vehement objections of 9 of its 24 active judges, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, essentially let stand today a decision that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

The deeply divided court declined a petition to review a 2-to-1 ruling i June by a three-judge appellate panel that had immediately prompted a huge public debate — and was stayed almost as quickly. Under that decision, schools may not require students to listen to the Pledge if it includes the words "under God."

Unless the Supreme Court takes action, that decision, amended today by the original three-judge panel to specify that it applied only to public school students, will now become the law in nine Western states, affecting 9.6 million students.

The full appeals court`s decision not to take the case surprised legal experts, with some speculating that some of the votes against rehearing the case were simply cast to hasten Supreme Court review.

In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that the Bush administration would ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

"The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," he said. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge."

Denials of petitions for full-court rehearings are generally dry, one- or two-sentence affairs. Not so here.

Judge Diarmuid F. O`Scannlain, writing for six judges who favored full-court review, called the panel`s decision "wrong, very wrong — wrong because reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is simply not a `religious act` as the two-judge majority asserts, wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent properly understood, wrong because it set up a direct conflict with the law of another circuit, and wrong as a matter of common sense."

"If reciting the Pledge is truly `a religious act` in violation of the Establishment Clause,` of the First Amendment, he continued, "then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National anthem.`

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was one of the two judges in the original majority, was the only judge to explain his vote against rehearing. Such explanations are uncommon, and Judge Reinhardt said he did so because he felt "compelled to discuss a disturbingly wrongheaded approach to constitutional law manifested in the dissent authored by Judge O`Scannlain," which had noted the exceptional "public and political reaction" to the original decision.

"We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Judge Reinhardt wrote.

"It is the highest calling of federal judges to invoke the Constitution to repudiate unlawful majoritarian action," he continued. "Any suggestion, whenever or wherever made, that federal judges should be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be firmly rejected."

Judge O`Scannlain responded that his opinion "has nothing to do with bending to the will of an outraged populace, and everything to do with the fact that Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt misinterpret the Constitution and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. That most people understand this makes the decision no less wrong."

The case arose from a suit brought by Michael A. Newdow of Sacramento, Calif., an atheist who had challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his 8-year-old daughter over the objections of the child`s mother, Sandra Banning, of Elk Grove, who has sole legal custody and has described herself as a Christian.

[Joerver]

As Bush Moralizes, Some Cringe
By DAVID LIGHTMAN
Washington Bureau Chief

March 1 2003

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has long made it clear that God is central to his value system and that much of what he does has a moral core rooted in his religious beliefs.

"True faith," he told the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast last year, "is never isolated from the rest of life."

So it`s no surprise that as the U.S. escalates its buildup for a possible war with Iraq, Bush has painted the likely conflict as more than just a war to disarm a rogue nation. It would be part of a moral, even religious, mission to do what he thinks is right.

"Faith gives the assurance that our lives and our history has a moral design. ... We know that suffering is temporary and hope is eternal," the president said at the prayer breakfast last month. "As a nation, we know that the ruthless will not inherit the earth."

As a result, he said, it is important for people to use their inherent goodness to help others. "It is always, and everywhere, right to be kind and just, to protect the lives of others, and to lay down your life for a friend," Bush said.

Such talk makes many experts and others nervous. There is a "moral absolutism" at work here that is disturbing, said Stephen Bosworth, dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

What the country should be doing, Bosworth said, is figuring out "how you manage the problem."

"You have to swallow hard and go deal" on foreign policy, said Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project. "You have to reason your way through."

Others saw Bush`s moral rationales as a refreshing way to conduct foreign policy but stressed that while the U.S. wants to spread its values around the world, it is not trying to run other countries.

A religious and moral calling is hardly a new way to conduct American foreign policy. Years ago, it was reflected more as the "white man`s burden" school of diplomacy, a feeling that America was not only morally superior, but also on a divine mission to improve the world.

Woodrow Wilson used what biographer Arthur S. Link called "missionary diplomacy." Wilson`s chief foreign policy goals, Link said, were "the ambition to do justly, to advance the cause of international peace and to give to other peoples the blessings of democracy and Christianity."

Much later in the century, President Reagan routinely called the U.S. a place that "for all mankind [would be] a shining city on a hill" and how the country was placed between "the two great oceans by some divine plan."

But Reagan`s actual policies reflected more the post-World War II blueprint of practical diplomacy. Having fought that war against nations rooted in racism and totalitarianism, the "white man`s burden" debate was finished, and the threats that loomed - communism and nuclear holocaust - called for solutions that assured survival, not military or intellectual conquest.

That view of diplomacy began to change as the Cold War ended in 1989, triggering the still ongoing debate over what philosophy should guide U.S. foreign policy. Should America be the world`s problem-solver? Police officer? Promoter of democracy and values? Or the divinely guided agent of the righteous?

Complicating the answers is the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which injected a new dose of realism. Hence, the current debate: Should the U.S. impose its values - some say its will - on the world, partly because it believes it`s right and partly for self-protection, or should it return to the days when sheer, hard-headed practicality ruled policy?

The Bush forces want both. "Core values have held us together" with like-minded nations, said Rep. Jo Ann S. Davis, R-Va.

When Secretary of State Colin Powell testified before Congress last week, he had the same thought: "We have principles we stand on, and we should not be afraid to act."

What worried others, though, was that the principles would overtake practicality and stoke the zeal to act when the country should not.

They fretted that talk about "regime change" is another way of saying the U.S. knows what`s best for another nation and will impose its will.

That`s scary, said Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa`s nonvoting delegate to Congress. "That`s the same theory we used in Vietnam. We said we know what`s best, and ignored their feelings about Ho Chi Minh. And people there resented our attitude," he said.

Bush, though, keeps insisting his campaign against Saddam Hussein, and against terrorism, is righteous.

"We face a continuing threat of terrorist networks that hate the very thought of people being able to live in freedom," he told religious broadcasters last month. "They hate the thought of the fact that in this great country, we can worship the Almighty God the way we see fit, and what probably makes [the terrorists] even angrier is we`re not going to change."

And he painted the war against Iraq as a virtual holy war. "Should we need to use troops, for the sake of future generations of Americans," Bush said, "American troops will act in the honorable traditions of our military and in the highest moral traditions of our country."

C. Welton Gaddy, president of the National Interfaith Alliance Foundation, heard those words and was appalled.

"President Bush often reminds me of a first-year seminary student who, after one course in theology, thinks his particular view of faith answers all of life`s most complex problems," Gaddy said.

Elaine Pagels, professor of religion at Princeton University, went further.

"This is actually the language of religious zealots, whether they be Christian or Muslim. It`s the language of children`s stories."

They and others worry that Bush`s message is being heard well beyond Iraq, thus promoting the idea that the U.S. is on a divine mission not just to root out terrorists, but to change the way nations are ruled.

"We have to accept the fact that on the day we go in [to Iraq], not when we win, but on the day we go in, we will have the Arab world and every bit of the media in the Arab world blaming us for everything wrong in Iraq," said Anthony H. Cordesman, analyst at the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, worried that a morally superior attitude is particularly troublesome in another part of the world: the Korean peninsula.

"My greatest worry ... is that I don`t think that [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il is as much of an imbecile as he`s made out to be," Biden said.

Administration officials and sympathizers point out that despite the Bush rhetoric, his policies have in the end been ruled by a practical streak.

Biden said Bush is acting much like other governors who become presidents. "I don`t think he ... fully appreciated that little nuances are read as messages that changed entire messages," Biden said.
Copyright 2003, Hartford Courant

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995


By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 1, 2003; Page A15


UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 28 -- A prominent Iraqi defector credited by President Bush and other senior U.S. officials with helping to reveal the full extent of Baghdad`s secret biological, chemical and nuclear weapons told U.N. inspectors in 1995 that the vast majority of Iraq`s deadliest weapons had already been destroyed, according to a confidential copy of the notes of the meeting.

Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former head of Iraq`s secret weapons program and a son-in-law of President Saddam Hussein, told a United Nations delegation in a secret meeting in Amman, Jordan, on Aug, 22, 1995, that Iraq had halted the production of VX nerve agent in the late 1980s and destroyed its banned missiles, stocks of anthrax and other chemical agents and poison gases soon after the Persian Gulf War.

However, U.N. inspectors have challenged the veracity of Kamel`s claims.

Kamel, the former director of Iraq`s Military Industrialization Corp., which oversees the country`s weapons programs, acknowledged that Iraq had preserved much of the technology and know-how required for producing banned weapons in order to reconstitute the program after U.N. inspectors left the country.

But he told the delegation, headed by then-chief U.N. weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus, that "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons -- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed."

Ekeus and other former U.N. inspectors said this week that while Kamel provided valuable information, he frequently embellished and lied to enhance his reputation or to preserve illegal weapons programs. "He was a consummate liar," Ekeus said in a telephone interview. "He wanted to return [to Iraq] at some stage and make a political comeback when Saddam Hussein moved to the side. All the more reason to preserve some of the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] secrets."

Kamel returned to Baghdad in 1996, where he was killed.

Ekeus said Kamel`s suggestions that Iraq had destroyed all of its chemical and biological weapons as early as 1991 were "absurd." The former U.N. Special Commission, which was responsible for destroying Iraq`s weapons from 1991 to 1998, carried out the destruction of more chemical, biological weapons than occurred during the Persian Gulf War, Ekeus noted. He said also that the U.N. inspectors carried out the destruction of tons of chemical weapons and agents between 1992 and 1994.

The defection of Kamel to Amman on Aug. 7, 1995, prompted the Iraqi government to turn over millions of pages of documents with new information on Iraq`s efforts to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The notes from Kamel`s interview, which were obtained by Cambridge University lecturer Glen Rangwala and first reported this week in Newsweek, suggest that Bush may have overstated Kamel`s importance in leading U.N. inspectors to the trail of tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve agent.

They indicated that the United States, which debriefed Kamel in Amman, may have ignored or dismissed his claims that many of Iraq`s deadliest agents had been destroyed. The defection of Kamel "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learn more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself," Vice President Cheney said on Aug. 26.

U.N. inspectors familiar with the Kamel meeting cautioned that the quotes from the interview, which were translated into English from Arabic and written down by a Russian weapons inspector, may contain some mistakes or misunderstandings. "You have to take what he says with a grain of salt," one U.N. inspector said.

Kamel said that Hussein had no intention of abandoning his pursuit of banned weapons once inspectors left. He said that Hussein`s special guards had hidden two Russian Scud rocket launchers and a computer disk with information on Iraq`s banned nuclear weapons program. Asked why Iraq would destroy its missiles and keep the launchers and missile molds, he said, "It is the first step to return to production. All blueprints for missiles are in a safe place."

Kamel himself suggested the U.N. inspectors were a far more useful and reliable source than Iraqi defectors. "You should not underestimate yourself," Kamel said. "You are very effective in Iraq." In the interview, he described one well-known defector, Khidhir Hamza, a nuclear scientist who participated in Iraq`s secret nuclear weapons program, as "a professional liar."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Bush`s Operation Infinite Purity, ein Beispiel für die CSU!
Americans for Purity


http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/purity/index.asp

[Joerver]

"The bogey man of `anti-Americanism`"


By Matthew Riemer
YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States)
(YellowTimes.org) – The term "anti-Americanism," like its cousin "anti-Semitism," has become the new mantra of an apologetic intelligentsia class: It`s used ritually to describe anyone or anything that does not obediently fawn at the feet of American exceptionalism. The most convenient and negative result of the term`s preponderance is its intentional blurring of the lines between ethnic and political criticism.

For example, to criticize American foreign policy is to be "anti-American." And in the case of Americans themselves, to be "self-loathing" as well. But what does the term "American" really mean when used in this manner? Everything remotely "American"?

When people gather in distant countries to demonstrate for peace or in support of their own nation`s sovereignty, which is incidentally being challenged by a hegemonic United States, it is "anti-Americanism" at work -- not people assembling of their own free will to address specific grievances.

One can see the benefit of this usage as highly specific, political criticisms and observations are misconstrued and transformed into broad and sweeping, social, ethnic, and cultural statements.

So now to criticize the actions of elite politicians in Washington is to criticize the American people and their way of life. If you have a problem with the U.S.` policy in the Middle East, you must hate baseball and apple pie. If you don`t support war with Iraq, you must not "appreciate your freedom." If you say the U.S. has no right to threaten non-nuclear countries with pre-emptive nuclear war, then you must be jealous of America`s greatness. The keepers of the status quo and enshriners of America as the holier-than-thou empire are determined to have all such criticism deflected in this manner.

South Korea is an illustrative example that comes to mind. Following an incident that involved the killing of two young South Korean girls by a U.S. military jeep being driven by military personnel stationed in South Korea, the South was accused of "anti-Americanism" for expressing displeasure with the U.S.` handling of the incident.

Many a candlelight vigil and protest have been since held in the name of the two girls and the misrepresentation of the affair continues. Radios can be heard blurting out "Massive anti-American demonstrations in South Korea today." Newsprint headlines shout the same.

Such news, of an extreme soundbite nature, can be used to sensationalize the most mundane event. The use of headlines in this way adds to the alarmist air pervading much of corporate media today. Whether it`s Fox News with their never ending scrolling bar on the bottom of the screen displaying that day`s terror warning alert system color or sensationalist claims of rampant "anti-Americanism," the media seems intent on frightening the American public as frequently as possible. Security has become the buzzword for a desperately mis-educated American public eager to cling to anything that makes them feel more secure -- including prettified illusions of what`s going on in the world perpetuated by their local press.

Cannot any criticism of the United States ever be accepted, or even faced, by the accused and those who apologize for them? The sentiment is clear in the American media: The South Korean "protesters" are young, disaffected, and jealous of the U.S.` role in the world. They have no legitimate gripe. No one middle-aged or "respected" could ever be criticizing the U.S. for anything of substance.

This is one of the U.S.` worst attributes on the global social stage and one of the greatest causes of the impression of Americans as arrogant and condescending: a complete lack of respect for others` opinions and the systematic marginalization, delegitimation, and blackballing of those opinions.

Following the attacks of September 11th, crowds gathered to publicly and collectively mourn the dead and listen to fiery speeches about American pride and retribution. Were these events described as "anti-Arab" or "anti-Muslim"? Surely not.

Americans, and, more vitally, the U.S. government, must learn to respect and pay heed to what other nations and cultures attempt to articulate through public demonstration.

[Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work, Matthew is the Director of Operations at YellowTimes.org. He lives in the United States.]

Matthew Riemer encourages your comments: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

TÜRKISCHER PARLAMENTSBESCHLUSS

Chaos nach Abstimmung zur US-Truppenstationierung

Eigentlich schien am Samstag abend zunächst alles klar. Das türkische Parlament stimmte nach mehreren Anläufen zu, dass US-Soldaten massiv an der Grenze zum Irak aufmarschieren. Doch dann stellte sich heraus, dass die Befürworter nicht die hierfür notwendige Mehrheit vorweisen konnten.


REUTERS

Setzte sich durch: Der türkische Premierminister Abdullah Gül


Ankara - Die Abstimmung über die Stationierung von US-Truppen ist nach Angaben des türkischen Parlamentspräsidenten gescheitert, wie der private Fernsehsender NTV am Freitag berichtete. Zur Begründung sagte er, die Befürworter der Stationierung seien nicht in der Mehrheit gewesen. Wie Parlamentspräsident Bülent Arinc nach der Sitzung hinter verschlossenen Türen mitteilte, wurde die erforderliche Mehrheit von 276 Stimmen verfehlt. Für den Regierungsantrag hatten 264 Abgeordnete gestimmt. 250 votierten dagegen.
Die oppositionelle Republikanische Volkspartei hatte nach der Abstimmung die Rechtmäßigkeit des Ergebnisses in Frage gestellt und eine Überprüfung gefordert.

Die türkische Regierung hätte bei einem Erfolg der Abstimmung die Stationierung von 62.000 Soldaten, 255 Kampfflugzeugen und 65 Hubschraubern genehmigt. Außerdem hätten die Abgeordneten den Weg geebnet für eine Entsendung türkischer Truppen in den Nordirak, um die "nationalen Interessen" zu sichern, sollte es zu einem Krieg kommen.

Im Gegenzug für die Stationierung der Soldaten sicherten die USA der Türkei finanzielle Hilfe in Höhe von rund 15 Milliarden Dollar zu. Dieses Abkommen war bis zum Samstagabend jedoch noch nicht endgültig unter Dach und Fach.

Die Abstimmung über einen entsprechenden Antrag der Regierung war erst am Donnerstag aufs Wochenende verschoben worden und erfolgte nach mehrstündiger Debatte.

Vor Beginn der Aussprache unter Ausschluss der Presse forderten Vertreter der Opposition Widerstand gegen den entsprechenden Antrag der Regierung. "Wir rufen Sie auf, sich nicht in diesen abscheulichen Krieg verwickeln zu lassen", appellierte Önder Sav von der Republikanischen Volkspartei an die Parlamentarier. Zehntausende Türken demonstrierten unterdessen nur wenige Kilometer vom Parlamentsgebäude entfernt gegen einen Irak-Krieg. Umfragen zufolge lehnen mehr als 80 Prozent der Türken eine militärische Lösung ab.

Die Türkei ist Mitglied der Nato und hat von den USA im Gegenzug für die Stationierung Kredite und Bürgschaften in Milliardenhöhe zugesichert bekommen.

Wie es nach dem Abstimmungschaos nun weitergeht, war am Abend noch unklar. Rund 40 Schiffe mit US-Truppen und Material sollen angeblich bereits vor der türkischen Küste kreuzen.

[Joerver]

Achtung Satire


The Saddam and George show
Ignoring the fact that George Bush declined Saddam Hussein`s challenge to a televised debate, Tim Dowling exclusively reveals what could have happened had they met

Tim Dowling
Tuesday February 25, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair, moderator: Welcome to the first televised debate between George W Bush and Saddam Hussein, live from United Nations headquarters in New York. We will begin with a brief opening statement from each of you.

Bush: First of all I would just like to welcome my evil friend to the UN, one of the great American institutions for the propulsion of freedom throughout the world.

Saddam: Thank you, Great Satan. I hope that in today`s debate we may find some common ground between the Iraqi people`s commitment to peace and human progress and America`s desire to destroy the Middle East.

Bush: Do I answer that?

Blair: No. The first question is quite simply this: do you have any links with al-Qaida?

Bush: I do not.

Blair: The question is for President Saddam.

Saddam: As I told Mr Tony Benn clearly and simply, if I had links with al-Qaida and I enjoyed those links then I would not be ashamed to tell the world, but since I am ashamed to tell the world of this, it follows that I have no such links.

Bush: Neither do I.

Blair: The second question is for Mr Bush. Mr Bush, if America and Iraq were to go to war tomorrow, who would win?

Bush: That`s easy. America, right?

Saddam: Even I knew that one.

Bush: That`s because the great United American States of America are on the side of rightliness and Americanity, against an evil Axis of Evil made up of Iraq, North Korea and... how many are in an axis? Three?

Blair: I think you`re allowed as many as you like.

Bush: OK, Iraq, North Korea and France.

Saddam: I will tell you frankly and directly that Iraq is not part of any Axis of Evil.

Bush: Who am I thinking of then? Irania?

Blair: Let`s move on. Saddam, are you willing to destroy your stockpile of Samoud 2 missiles in accordance with UN weapons inspectors` orders?

Saddam: I explain to you now that if Iraq possessed these so-called weapons, we would never destroy them, but since we do not have any such weapons, we are happy to comply, even though these non-existent weapons certainly do not exceed the proscribed range of 150 kms. I`ve tested them myself, and we don`t have any.

Blair: The final question is for George Bush. Mr President, is there any way that Saddam Hussein can avoid war, and what steps must he now take in order to reach a negotiated solution?

Bush: Listen to me. It`s very simple. First Saddam must compile 200% with the UN inspectorers, and I mean activated compilation, not passivist compilation. Second, he must disarm fully, in keeping with UN revelation 1441 and the next one coming, 1441B, which will require him to disarm even more fully that. Then he must destroy all Samoud missiles and any other weapons of mass destruction he is found, or not found, to be possessive of, without being asked. Finally, there is one more task he must perform, which I am not at liberty to revulge. And even that will not be enough.

Blair: The translator would like to take your answer home with him and work on it over the weekend.

Bush: Fine, but we require nothing less than total disarmature.

Saddam: OK.

Blair: Sorry, but I`m not sure that "disarmature" is a word. I defer to the UN Keeper of the Dictionary, Mr Richard Stilgoe.

Stilgoe: Yes, you can have disarmature. It means, "the action of disarming" according to the OED.

Bush: Exactly. He must cut his own arms off.

Saddam: If it means peace, I will do it.

Bush: Too late.

Stilgoe: Did you know that Saddam Hussein is an anagram of `Demands a Sushi`?

Saddam: Yes, I`ve heard them all.

Bush: I don`t eat sushi. Is there a fish option?

Blair: I`d like to remind everyone at home that the Monica Lewinsky-Tonya Harding fight follows after the break.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Saudi envoy in UK linked to 9/11
Riyadh`s former intelligence chief has been accused in US court documents of helping to fund al-Qaeda, report Paul Harris and Martin Bright

Paul Harris and Martin Bright
Sunday March 2, 2003
The Observer

It was another royal function on a cold February evening as Prince Charles mingled with the guests at the opening of an Oxford clinic. Among the doctors were a few celebrities, including the actress Joanna Lumley. Canapés were eaten, a few glasses of wine were drunk. `I can`t tell you all how pleased and glad I am to be here today,` Charles gushed.

Charles stopped to chat with the new Saudi ambassador to Britain, the distinguished figure of Prince Turki al-Faisal. The two friends shook hands and exchanged pleasantries.

But Turki is not what he seems. Behind him lies a murky tale of espionage, terrorism and torture. For, while Turki has many powerful friends among Britain`s elite, he is no ordinary diplomat. Turki has now been served with legal papers by lawyers acting for relatives of the victims of 11 September.

They accuse him of funding and supporting Osama bin Laden. The Observer can also reveal that Turki has now admitted for the first time that Saudi interrogators have tortured six British citizens arrested in Saudi Arabia and accused of carrying out a bombing campaign.

The revelations throw a stark light on Turki`s appointment late last year as Saudi Arabia`s new ambassador to Britain. They also cast doubt on the suitability of Charles`s relationship with senior Saudis. A year ago Charles had dinner with bin Laden`s brother, Bakr bin Laden, and regularly hosted meetings for Turki`s predecessor, Dr Ghazi Algosaibi, who was recalled after writing poems praising suicide bombers.

The US lawsuit is seeking more than $1 trillion in com pensation from a list of individuals and companies alleged to have supported al- Qaeda. The claimants` head lawyer, Ron Motley, a veteran of successful anti-tobacco suits, has already called it `the trial of the century`.

Now, after papers were served on Turki several weeks ago, the Saudi ambassador will be at the heart of it. Legal papers in the case obtained by The Observer make it clear that the allegations are serious and lengthy. Many centre around Turki`s role as head of the Saudi intelligence agency. He held the post for 25 years before being replaced in 2001 just before the attacks on New York.

Turki admits to meeting bin Laden four or five times in the 1980s, when the Saudi-born terrorist was being supported by the West in Afghanistan. Turki also admits meeting Taliban leader Mullah Omar in 1998. He says he was seeking to extradite bin Laden at the request of the United States.

However, the legal papers tell a different story. Based on sworn testimony from a Taliban intelligence chief called Mullah Kakshar, they allege that Turki had two meetings in 1998 with al-Qaeda. They say that Turki helped seal a deal whereby al-Qaeda would not attack Saudi targets. In return, Saudi Arabia would make no demands for extradition or the closure of bin Laden`s network of training camps. Turki also promised financial assistance to Mullah Omar. A few weeks after the meetings, 400 new pick-up vehicles arrived in Kandahar, the papers say.

Kakshar`s statement also says that Turki arranged for donations to be made directly to al-Qaeda and bin Laden by a group of wealthy Saudi businessmen. `Mullah Kakshar`s sworn statement implicates Prince Turki as the facilitator of these money transfers in support of the Taliban, al-Qaeda and international terrorism,` the papers said.

Turki`s link to one of al-Qaeda`s top money- launderers, Mohammed Zouaydi, who lived in Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001, is also exposed. Zouaydi acted as the accountant for the Faisal branch of the Saudi royal family that includes Turki. Zouaydi, who is now in jail in Spain, is also accused of being al-Qaeda`s top European financier. He distributed more than $1 million to al- Qaeda units, including the Hamburg cell of Mohammed Atta which plotted the World Trade Centre attack.

Finally the lawsuit alleges that Turki was `instrumental` in setting up a meeting between bin Laden and senior Iraqi intelligence agent Faruq al-Hijazi in December 1998. At that meeting it is alleged that bin Laden agreed to avenge recent American bombings of Iraqi targets and in return Iraq offered him a safe haven and gave him blank Yemeni passports.

Turki did not respond to phone calls and a letter sent by The Observer to the Saudi embassy in London.

But his lawyers will have to respond in court. The case is expected to begin in May and experts think it could go on for four of five years. If it rules against him, Turki may face enormous compensation payments and the seizure of his financial assets. It would also cost him his post as ambassador.

Coupled with the looming court case, Turki last week raised alarming questions over the treatment of six Britons jailed in Saudi Arabia when he admitted that they had been tortured. Turki was head of Saudi intelligence when the men were arrested. Saudi authorities claim the men were involved in a `bootleggers` feud`, despite the attacks continuing after their arrest and bearing the hallmarks of Islamic terrorists.

In an astonishing call-in programme, carried on the BBC World Service and unnoticed in Britain, Turki fielded a call from a British resident of Riyadh who knew some of the imprisoned men. The caller confronted him about the torture allegations. Turki said: `They were tortured and there was a complaint about it and that complaint would have been investigated.`

The revelation has angered relatives of the men and campaigners, who have accused the British Government of sacrificing their freedom in the interests of good diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Last week the relatives met Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who told them that Britain would continue its `softly, softly` approach. However, that news angered many. `His stance is the same. He said softly, softly is working. But it has been two years. How much longer?` said one relative at the meeting.

Lib Dem MP John Pugh has also tabled a series of questions about the men in Parliament, but said that Foreign Office officials had failed to answer them. `I am being blocked,` Pugh said. Diplomatic sources say Pugh has also been asked `privately` to stop his questions. Pugh has now applied to have the issue debated in the Commons.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Wer soll für Mr. Bush den Krieg führen?

Who will fight the war?
Vicki Haddock, Insight Staff Writer
Sunday, March 2, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


"It`s white people sending black people to fight yellow people to protect the country they stole from red people." -- lyric from "Hair." .

When it comes to who will do the fighting and dying for the modern U.S. military, conventional wisdom today echoes the 1967 observation of the popular musical about the Age of Aquarius. Many people simply don`t believe the Pentagon`s reassurances that today`s U.S. military represents a cross section of the American population.

At anti-war rallies, speakers rail that America`s isolated white elite has no hesitation using volunteer "cannon fodder" soldiers, mostly poor and minority, on the Baghdad battlefield. One recent San Francisco demonstrator carried a placard aimed at the Bush twins: Want war? Draft Jenna and Barbara!

On Capitol Hill, Democratic Reps. Charles Rangel of Harlem and Pete Stark of Fremont push legislation to reinstate a draft, this time with no college deferments, as pure political touche -- they figure to deter war by threatening rich white families with the prospect of having to put the lives of their children on the line.

So who`s right? Who really are the fighters who would be on the front lines,

assuming we launch an assault on Iraq? Would it really make us less likely to go to war if we had a drafted, and not a volunteer, military?

And what difference, if any, does the composition of the U.S. military make to power brokers who control where and when we wage war?

The facts show that both sides of the debate engage in some distortion. The U.S. military today is hardly an accurate reflection of American society. Aside from being heavily male and young, it differs in some surprising ways from the U.S. population. Here`s what the numbers show:

-- The wealthy are indeed almost totally absent from today`s military -- but the very poor don`t have much of a presence either. Most of today`s enlisted recruits come from the lower-middle and middle classes.

-- The troops most likely to fight and die are disproportionately not minorities, but white. While it`s true that blacks are more likely to enlist --

particularly in the Army -- than whites, they overwhelmingly gravitate to administration and to the medical, dental and communication fields. When it comes to high-risk slots, blacks make up less than 3 percent of fighter pilots and less than 11 percent of Army infantrymen. And Latinos are actually underrepresented in the military.

-- Those bearing the greatest burden of military service are Southerners -- they`re twice as likely to enlist as Westerners and do so at a rate three times that of Northeasterners.

-- The same is true for rural folks, who enlist in greater ratios than suburban kids. Ditto Republicans, who enlist at significantly higher rates than Democrats.

In short, if anybody has a right to complain about bearing an unfair burden of military sacrifice in America, it`s the Bubba community.

It`s been 30 years since we abolished the draft -- over Pentagon objections that conscription was essential to fill the ranks. After three decades of trial-and-error with an all-volunteer force, the Pentagon has pulled an about- face. It now argues that reinstating the draft would be "a call to go back to an earlier and lower standard of performance. We do not want that."

But the debate about who should fight for this country is an old, bitter and sometimes bloody one -- witness the draft riots depicted in the current Oscar-nominated film "Gangs of New York." In the Civil War, a wealthy Union slacker could evade the draft by paying $300, or by hiring some poor soul to take his place.

Probably the most egalitarian military conflict was World War II, in which so many troops were required that citizen soldiers truly came from all walks of life. Before the draft was banished at the end of the Vietnam War, it had become so riddled with escape hatches that anybody with deep pockets and connections could finagle a deferment or a post in, say, the Texas Air National Guard.

There were 2 million men and women in the all-volunteer armed forces by the time of the Persian Gulf War -- a conflict noted for its small number of U.S. casualties. Whites made up 71 percent of the deployed force and 76 percent of deaths.

Since then, the force has shrunk by one-third. It now consists of 1.4 million active-duty troops and 1.3 million reservists.

At the same time, surveys show that the number of young people saying they would never consider joining the military has risen, from 40 percent in 1980 to 64 percent by 2000. Even the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 failed to change attitudes or boost recruitment.

Critics say the very notion of an all-volunteer force is a misnomer. In reality, they say, it simply illustrates that blacks "volunteer" for the Army because it`s the only place offering affordable education. Thus, African Americans, who make up 14 percent of the U.S. population ages 18-24, comprise almost 22 percent of enlisted personnel.

But unlike white recruits, who come from families that are poorer than their civilian counterparts, black recruits come from families that actually are better off financially than nonmilitary black families. White recruits come from families with a median income of $33,500 a year -- more than $10,000 less than that of white civilian families -- while black recruits hail from families with a median income of $32,000 a year -- some $4,000 a year higher than that of black civilian families.

The Defense Technical Information Center has found that people who enlist are more likely to have parents who work in factories, law enforcement, service industries or the military than their civilian counterparts.

Their parents are more likely to have graduated from high school but not college, and they`re more likely to rent instead of own their homes.

Overall, the Pentagon doesn`t net the very poor or disadvantaged. Nine out of 10 earn a high school diploma before enlisting.

But if the poor get a pass, so do the well-to-do. The public generally presumes no Ivy League-bound rich kid would consider enlisting in the military -- and they`re right.

In fact, if those not-for-attribution Pentagon spokespeople were more forthcoming, they would acknowledge the fretting that goes on at Defense Department conclaves over the lack of suburban and upper-class officers, much less recruits.

Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman has warned repeatedly of the growing gap between "the elites and the rest of us," noting that the Yale Flying Club was key to naval aviation in world wars. Care to guess how many Yale graduates have entered the service since 1986? A measly dozen.

As recently as two years ago, an internal Defense Department study bemoaned the glaring shortage of new recruits from upper-middle and upper-class backgrounds.

In response, the Pentagon actually is trying to market upscale. The slogan "I am an army of one" is aimed to appeal to the individualism of a higher socioeconomic class. This spring the military even intends to roll out ads in high-brow publications such as the New Yorker, portraying military life as satisfying and family-friendly.

But the gap is likely to remain. Of the 535 members of Congress who voted on giving Bush authority to attack Iraq, only a handful had children who are officers in the U.S. military and just one had an enlisted son.

It is cynical to suggest that Congress and President Bush, whose twins are safely ensconced in college, are bent on war because somebody else`s kids would die. It`s insulting to suggest that privileged politicians would order frivolous military endeavors simply because they don`t have a personal "skin in the game."

And yet any parent knows, it`s different when it`s personal. What can be said for a democracy when its elite policymakers and their families are comfortably disengaged from military risk?

It`s this imbalance -- coupled with concerns that our current forces could be strained in escalating conflicts -- that`s prompting some to resurrect talk of a draft.

Nobody expects it to happen in the foreseeable future. Even Rangel admits his draft proposal, which would funnel virtually every high school graduate into a mandatory stint in military or civilian national service, is dead-on- arrival.

And there are serious doubts about its wisdom -- a mandatory national- service draft might well produce a lower caliber of soldier, and require a huge bureaucracy to oversee the 90 percent of draftees who would have to be channeled into mandatory civilian national service. Who would train them? Who would decide which draftees became gunnery privates and which became aides to Alzheimer`s patients?

And how to square forcing 4 million 18-year-olds each year into national service with the Constitution`s 13th Amendment, which prohibits "involuntary servitude?"

But there are counter-arguments worth considering as well. Despite Pentagon reassurances that we have enough troops, the services have struggled to meet recruiting goals in recent years. Nobody can say for sure what the breaking point will be if, God forbid, we end up battling Iraq, al Qaeda and North Korea at the same time.

The country`s leading military sociologist, Northwestern University`s Charles Moskos, observes that while we continue calling up reservists who work as cops, firefighters and emergency medical responders at home, we`re "being drained of precisely the people we will need when the terrorists return."

It`s not even clear that resurrecting a draft would put a damper on military adventurism. Moskos, who advocates a draft, argues that the public will support a war only if the children of the elite and powerful are dispatched to fight it.

Americans who campaigned to end conscription assumed that the country would be less likely to wage war if it couldn`t rely on an unending supply of drafted bodies. With an all-volunteer force, politicians theoretically wouldn`t risk an unpopular war for fear recruits would stop volunteering.

No less an insider than the Army Times editorialized that a new draft "would ensure that future generations of political leaders would enter office understanding the military, its strengths and weaknesses, and its culture."

Duke University researchers working with the Triangle Institute for Security Studies have concluded that the more veterans hold political office, the less likely the United States is to use military force.

Every year, fewer power brokers have any tie whatsoever to military service.

This discussion has to stop being political one-upmanship. It ought to be about exactly what the words "shared sacrifice" mean.

E-mail Vicki Haddock at [e-mail].

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

The Land of the Free. Sind solche Geschichten nicht bekannt von Hammett oder Chandler von vor über 50 Jahren, aber heute?
01.03.2003
Cited in Prostitution Sting, Cache Lawmaker Resigns

Brent Parker
BY KEVIN CANTERA and KIRSTEN STEWART
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

Republican state Rep. Brent Parker of Wellsville abruptly resigned his seat Friday after Salt Lake City police cited him earlier this week for trying to solicit sex from an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute.
House Speaker Marty Stephens, R-Farr West, read Parker`s handwritten resignation Friday evening after lawmakers had adjourned for the day.
"I felt that it was the appropriate thing to do . . . for myself and for the Legislature," Parker told The Salt Lake Tribune, adding with a sigh: "I`ve had better days."
Parker, elected to a second term by Cache County voters in November, said he planned to "clear everything up."
Stephens also informed Parker`s Republican colleagues of the arrest and resignation. Many cried as they exited the closed meeting.
"It threw us off guard," said a tearful Rep. Loraine Pace.
"I think of him first and foremost as a husband, father and a friend," said the Logan Republican. "My heart just aches for him and his family."
Rep. Craig Buttars, R-Lewiston, said: "We don`t know enough right now to make a judgment. I hope that Parker knows we are with him and his family during this difficult time."
Just before midnight Wednesday, Parker, 57, was in his Nissan Pathfinder parked on Exchange Place, an area "known for male prostitution," between Main Street and State Street in downtown Salt Lake City, according to a police report.
When an undercover officer drove by, Parker allegedly nodded at him and motioned him over. The officer parked and approached Parker, telling him he was "working" and would perform sex acts for $15 to $20, the report says.
Parker told the officer to follow, and drove to a parking lot about a block away, according to the report. There, the officer got into the passenger seat of Parker`s vehicle and Parker allegedly offered him $20 for oral sex.
Parker then "grabbed" the crotch of the officer`s pants and started to massage it, the report says. Parker later asked the officer for his phone number so he could call "every time he came into town," according to the report.
The legislator was cited for solicitation, the report says.
Soliciting a prostitute is a class B misdemeanor, carrying a potential sentence of up to 6 months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Parker said he had not seen the police report and said only that he "was approached" by the officer. "I never did get out of my car."
Just shy of three full sessions in the Legislature, Parker had sponsored only a handful of bills during his tenure. He was first elected in 2000, replacing longtime state representative and fellow Republican Evan Olsen, who sponsored the bill creating Utah`s "Porn Czar."
Parker, a father of six and grandfather of six who owns a large farming operation and is a partner in a real estate firm, expressed gratitude for his time as a lawmaker, calling his experience in the Legislature "just wonderful."
Prior to his being elected to the House, the Wellsville Republican served eight years on the Cache County Board of Education, six years as president. A graduate of Utah State University, he also was president of the Utah School Boards Association.
[e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush said he`d been `called` to seek higher office and talked openly about his faith
Bush and God
A higher calling: It is his defining journey—from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war

By Howard Fineman
NEWSWEEK


March 10 issue — George W. Bush rises ahead of the dawn most days, when the loudest sound outside the White House is the dull, distant roar of F-16s patrolling the skies. Even before he brings his wife, Laura, a morning cup of coffee, he goes off to a quiet place to read alone.


HIS TEXT ISN’T news summaries or the overnight intelligence dispatches. Those are for later, downstairs, in the Oval Office. It’s not recreational reading (recently, a biography of Sandy Koufax). Instead, he’s told friends, it’s a book of evangelical mini-sermons, “My Utmost for His Highest.” The author is Oswald Chambers, and, under the circumstances, the historical echoes are loud. A Scotsman and itinerant Baptist preacher, Chambers died in November 1917 as he was bringing the Gospel to Australian and New Zealand soldiers massed in Egypt. By Christmas they had helped to wrest Palestine from the Turks, and captured Jerusalem for the British Empire at the end of World War I.
Now there is talk of a new war in the Near East, this time in a land once called Babylon. One morning last month, as the United Nations argued and Washingtonians raced to hardware stores for duct tape amid a new Orange alert, the daily homily in “My Utmost” was about Isaiah’s reminder that God is the author of all life and history. “Lift up your eyes on high,” the prophet of the Old Testament said, “and behold who hath created these things.” Chambers’s explication: “When you are up against difficulties, you have no power, you can only endure in darkness” unless you “go right out of yourself, and deliberately turn your imagination to God.”


Later that day, the president did so. At Opryland in Nashville—the old “Buckle of the Bible Belt”—Bush told religious broadcasters that “the terrorists hate the fact that ... we can worship Almighty God the way we see fit,” and that the United States was called to bring God’s gift of liberty to “every human being in the world.” In his view, the chances of success were better than good. (After all, at the National Prayer Breakfast a few days before, he’d declared that “behind all of life and all history there is a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God.” If that’s so, America couldn’t fail.)
After his speech in Nashville, Bush met privately with pastoral social workers and bore witness to his own faith in Jesus Christ. “I would not be president today,” he said, “if I hadn’t stopped drinking 17 years ago. And I could only do that with the grace of God.” The prospect of war with Iraq was “weighing heavy” on him, he admitted. He knew that many people—including some at the table—saw the conflict as pre-emptive and unjust. (“I couldn’t imagine Jesus delivering a message of war to a cheering crowd, as I just heard the president do,” one participant, Charles Strobel, said later.) But, the president said, America had to see that it is “encountering evil” in the form of Saddam Hussein. The country had no choice but to confront it, by war if necessary. “If anyone can be at peace,” Bush said, “I am at peace about this.”

Every president invokes God and asks his blessing. Every president promises, though not always in so many words, to lead according to moral principles rooted in Biblical tradition. The English writer G. K. Chesterton called America a “nation with the soul of a church,” and every president, at times, is the pastor in the bully pulpit. But it has taken a war, and the prospect of more, to highlight a central fact: this president—this presidency—is the most resolutely “faith-based” in modern times, an enterprise founded, supported and guided by trust in the temporal and spiritual power of God. Money matters, as does military might. But the Bush administration is dedicated to the idea that there is an answer to societal problems here and to terrorism abroad: give everyone, everywhere, the freedom to find God, too.
Bush believes in God’s will—and in winning elections with the backing of those who agree with him. As a subaltern in his father’s 1988 campaign, George Bush the Younger assembled his career through contacts with ministers of the then emerging evangelical movement in political life. Now they form the core of the Republican Party, which controls all of the capital for the first time in a half century. Bible-believing Christians are Bush’s strongest backers, and turning them out next year in even greater numbers is the top priority of the president’s political adviser Karl Rove. He is busy tending to the base with pro-life judicial appointments, a proposed ban on human cloning (approved by the House last week) and a $15 billion plan to fight AIDS in Africa, a favorite project of Christian missionaries who want the chance to save souls there as well as beleaguered lives. The base is returning the favor. They are, by far, the strongest supporters of a war—unilateral if need be—to remove Saddam.
Now comes the time of testing. The war is controversial, more so every day, and the nuclear crisis in North Korea intensifies. The president hasn’t played his diplomatic hand well, and is tied down by the likes of Hans Blix, the Philippine military and the Turkish Parliament, which late last week denied American troops transport rights through the country. Bush advisers know that many Americans—and much of the world—see him as a man blinded by his beliefs (and those of his most active supporters) to the complexities of the world as it is. He makes a point of praising Islam as “a religion of peace.” But to many Muslims, especially Arabs, he looks sinister: a new Crusader, bent on retaking the East for Christendom.
Aides say the president’s quiet but fervent Christian faith gives him strength but does not dictate policy. He’s only seemed like preacher in chief, they say, because of what one called “a confluence of events”: the horrors of 9-11, the terror alerts and the Columbia shuttle explosion. Still, belief gives him something more than confidence, says his closest friend, Commerce Secretary Don Evans: “It gives him a desire to serve others and a very clear sense of what is good and what is evil.”
How did he get that way? Consider this a “faith portrait” of the president, the story of the power of belief to save a life and a family—and to shape a political career and a national government.

GROWING UP—‘God’s Frozen People’
The story begins in Connecticut. Protestants there long ago were a fiery breed, with Jonathan Edwards’s (Yale ’21—as in 1721) warning sinners to avoid the wrath of an “angry God.” But by 1946, when George W. Bush was born there, the old-line Episcopalians—Bushes among them—spoke in quieter voices. His dad was a “duty, honor, country” guy, a World War II hero and a punctilious churchgoer. But he was uncomfortable with public testimonies of faith, especially his own. The hoary joke among Episcopalians seemed apt: we’re “God’s Frozen People.”
The Bible belt was another story, but not for the Bushes. Moving in 1948 to the oil patch of west Texas, they joined other Ivy League immigrants from back East at the Presbyterian church in Midland. (Barbara Bush had been reared in the denomination.) It was staid compared with other churches there, more madras than denim. Dad raised money for the building fund, and taught in Sunday school. “Georgie” was a dutiful son and churchgoer. Years later, in an excess of spin, his mother claimed that he’d always shown an interest in reading the Bible. George smilingly said he was unable to remember such a fact. Sent back East to prep at Andover, he became a school “deacon.” But that role had long since lost any true religious significance; Bush used it to engineer pranks, not minister to the student flock.
Come-to-Jesus stories are more dramatic if the sinner is a pro. Bush was a semipro, a hardy partyer—his Triumph convertible was famous in Houston—until he married Laura in 1977. They joined her Methodist church. In most respects, he became what his father was, a respected member of the congregation. But he was a drinker, and a serious one. Only after work and at night, he told himself. But sometimes the nights were long. He could be famously obnoxious at parties, and, worse, a bore to his patient wife. The birth of his twin daughters in 1982 brought him joy. But, friends say, Laura grew increasingly fed up with his drinking. By 1985, as he approached 40, he needed to fix his relationship with the women in his life. “Nothing was broken,” Evans said. “But he wanted it to be better.” Mostly, he had to leave alcohol behind.

BORN AGAIN—Walking ‘The Walk’

In campaign biographies, ghostwriters highlight the role that Billy Graham played in launching Bush on what he and Evans call his “Walk.” The truth is more prosaic, and explains far more about Bush’s evolving views, not only of faith but of government. Evans, married to a Bush elementary-school chum, was the key. He had been the golden boy of Midland, a handsome straight arrow, a “Cowboy” at the University of Texas (the Skull and Bones of Austin). He had gone home to climb the ladder of Tom Brown Oil Co., a booming concern in a booming economy. But in 1984 the oil business caved in. “It was the worst industrial collapse in the history of the American economy,” says Evans, who was left with the task of plowing through piles of corporate debt. Personal life was hard, too. By that time, he’d learned that a daughter, born severely handicapped, would need lifetime care.

As a west Texan, Evans did what came naturally in a storm: he joined a nondenominational Bible-study group. He coaxed his friend George to come along. The program was called Community Bible Study—started, ironically, in the Washington, D.C., area in 1975 by a group of suburban women. By the time it got to Midland, it was a scriptural boot camp: an intensive, yearlong study of a single book of the New Testament, each week a new chapter, with detailed read-ing and discussion in a group of 10 men. For two years Bush and Evans and their partners read the clear writings of the Gentile physician Luke—Acts and then his Gospel. Two themes stood out, one spiritual, one more political: Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, and the founding of the church. Bush, who cares little for the abstract and a great deal for people, responded to the conversion story. He liked the idea of knowing Jesus as a friend.
The CBS program was a turning point for the future president in several ways. It gave him, for the first time, an intellectual focus. Here was the product of elite secular education—Andover, Yale and Harvard—who, for the first time, was reading a book line by line with rapt attention. And it was ... the Bible. In that sense, Bush is a more unalloyed product of the Bible belt than his friends, who may have deeply studied something else in earlier days. A jogger and marathoner for years, Bush found in Bible study an equivalent mental and spiritual discipline, which he would soon need to steel himself for his main challenge in life to that point: to quit drinking.
Bush says he never considered himself to be an alcoholic, and never attended an AA meeting. But it turned out he didn’t have to. CBS was something akin to the same thing, part of what has since come to be called the “small group” faith movement. It’s a baby-boomerish mix of self-help, self-discipline, group therapy (without using what, for Bush, is a dreaded word) and worship. Whatever, it worked. As the world knows, Bush did quit drinking in the summer of 1986, after his and Evans’s 40th birthday. “It was ‘goodbye Jack Daniels, hello Jesus’,” said one friend from those days.

THE POLITICS—Making New Friends
Bush turned to the bible to save his marriage and his family. But was he also thinking of smoothing his path to elective office? We’ll never know for sure. But he knew the political landscape of his near-native Texas. He knew that, by 1985, the South had risen to take control of the GOP, and that evangelical activism and clout was rising with it—indeed had been instrumental in making it possible. He also knew that his father’s way—Episcopalian reserve, moderation on cultural issues, close ties to back East—was a tough sell, to say the least. Bush the Younger had experienced it firsthand, in 1978, when he impetuously ran for Congress in Midland. He was a proud alumnus of Sam Houston Elementary and San Jacinto Junior High. But he had been clobbered as an Ivy League interloper nonetheless.
When Bush moved to Washington in 1987 to help run his father’s campaign, he seized the main chance: to take over the job of being the “liaison” to the religious right. He quickly saw that he could talk the talk as well as walk the walk. “His father wasn’t comfortable dealing with religious types,” recalled Doug Wead, who worked with him on evangelical outreach. “George knew exactly what to say, what to do.” He and Wead bombarded campaign higher-ups with novel ways to reach out. Wead slipped Biblical phrases—signals to the base—into the Old Man’s speeches. Dubya, typically, favored a direct approach. He wanted to feature Billy Graham in a campaign video. Dad nixed the idea.
Bush and Rove built their joint careers on that new base. Faith and ambition became one, with Bush doing the talking and Rove doing the thinking on policy and spin. In 1993—the year before he ran for governor—Bush caused a small tempest by telling an Austin reporter (who happened to be Jewish) that only believers in Jesus go to heaven. It was a theologically unremarkable statement, at least in Texas. But the fact that he had been brazen enough to say it produced a stir. While the editorial writers huffed, Rove quietly expressed satisfaction. The story would help establish his client’s Bible-belt bona fides in rural (and, until then, primarily Democratic) Texas. As a candidate, Bush sought, and got, advice from pastors, especially leaders of new, nondenominational “megachurches” in the suburbs. His ideas for governing were congenial to his faith, and dreamed up in his faith circles. The ideas were designed to draw evangelicals to the polls without sounding too church-made. “Compassionate conservatism”—mentoring, tough love on crime, faith-based welfare—was in many ways just a CBS Bible study writ large. The discipline of faith can save lives—Bush knew it from personal experience—and undercut the stale answers of the left.
The presidential campaign was Texas on a grander scale. As he prepared to run, in 1999, Bush assembled leading pastors at the governor’s mansion for a “laying-on of hands,” and told them he’d been “called” to seek higher office. In the GOP primaries, he outmaneuvered the field by practicing what one rival, Gary Bauer, called “identity politics.” Others tried to woo evangelicals by pledging strict allegiance on issues such as abortion and gay rights. “Bush talked about his faith,” said Bauer, “and people just believed him—and believed in him.” There was genius in this. The son of Bush One was widely, logically, believed by secular voters to be a closet moderate. Suddenly, the father’s burden was a gift: Bush Two could reach the base without threatening the rest. “He was and is ‘one of us’,” said Charles Colson, who sold the then Governor Bush on a faith-based prison program.
For his public speeches, he hired Michael Gerson, a gifted writer recommended to him by Colson, among others. A graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois (“the Evangelical Harvard”), Gerson understood Bush’s compassionate conservatism. More important, he had a gift for expressing it in stately, lilting language that could appeal, simultaneously, to born-agains and to secular boomers searching for a lost sense of uplift in public life.
The Bush campaign conducted its more-controversial outreach below radar, via letters and e-mail. Only once was it forced to reach out in a raw public way. After John McCain won the New Hampshire primary, Bush made his infamous visit to South Carolina’s Bob Jones University, the ultrafundamentalist and officially anti-Roman Catholic school. Strategists were opaque in public, unapologetic behind the scenes. “We had to send a message—fast—and sending him there was the only way to do it,” said one top Bush operative at the time. “It was a risk we had to take.” Bush won.

THE RECKONING—Forged in the Fire
Faith didn’t make Bush a decisive person. He’s always been one. His birthright as a Bush gives him a sense of obligation to serve, and a sense of an entitlement to lead. West Texas, where dust storms and the gyrating economy buffeted the locals, left him with a love of straight shooters and a come-what-may view of life. A frat man at Yale in an increasingly radical time—the late 1960s—he came to loathe intellectual avatars of complexity and doubt—especially when they disparaged his dad. He is a Pierce, too: a quick-to-judge son of a quick-to-judge mother.

Still, faith helps Bush pick a course and not look back. He talks regularly to pastors, and loves to hear that people are praying for him. As he describes it, his faith is not complex. In recent weeks he has added a new note to his theme of the personal uses of faith, drawn from CBS. Now there is a sense of destiny that approaches the Calvinistic. “There is a fatalistic element,” said David Frum, the author and former Bush speechwriter. “You do your best and accept that everything is in God’s hands.” The result is unflappability. “If you are confident that there is a God that rules the world,” said Frum, “you do your best, and things will work out.” But what some see as solidity, others view as a flammable mix of stubbornness and arrogance. “No one’s allowed to second-guess, even when you should,” said another former staffer.
The atmosphere inside the White House, insiders say, is suffused with an aura of prayerfulness. There have always been Bible-study groups there; even the Clintonites had one. But the groups are everywhere now. Lead players set the tone. There is Gerson, whose office keeps being moved closer to the Oval. Chief of staff Andrew Card’s wife is a Methodist minister. National-security adviser Condi Rice’s father was a preacher in Alabama.
The president is known to welcome questions about faith that staffers sometimes have the nerve to share with him. But he’s not the kind to initiate granular debates about theology. Would Iraq be a “just war” in Christian terms, as laid out by Augustine in the fourth century and amplified by Aquinas, Luther and others? Bush has satisfied himself that it would be—indeed, it seems he did so many months ago. But he didn’t do it by combing through texts or presiding over a disputation. He decided that Saddam was evil, and everything flowed from that.
The language of good and evil—central to the war on terrorism—came about naturally, said Frum. From the first, he said, the president used the term “evildoers” to describe the terrorists because some commentators were wondering aloud whether the United States in some way deserved the attack visited upon it on September 11, 2001. “He wanted to cut that off right away,” said Frum, “and make it clear that he saw absolutely no moral equivalence. So he reached right into the Psalms for that word.” He continued to stress the idea. Osama bin Laden and his cohorts were “evil.” In November 2001, in an interview with NEWSWEEK, he first declared—blurted out, actually—that Saddam Hussein in Iraq was “evil,” too.
The world, and the Bush administration, are focused on Iraq. But as a matter of politics and principle, the president knows that he needs to deliver on his faith-based domestic agenda, especially since his party controls Congress. The wish list compiled by Rove is a long one. It includes conservative, pro-life judicial nominations; new HUD regulations that allow federal grants for construction of “social service” facilities at religious institutions; a ban on human cloning and “partial birth” abortion; a sweeping program to allow churches, synagogues and mosques to use federal funds to administer social-welfare programs; strengthened limits on stem-cell research; increased funding to teach sexual abstinence in schools, rather than safer sex and pregnancy prevention; foreign-aid policies that stress right-to-life themes, and federal money for prison programs (like the one in Texas) that use Christian tough love in an effort to lower recidivism rates among convicts.
While Rove and Hill leaders work the domestic side, Bush is dwelling on faith-based foreign policy of the most explosive kind: a potential war in the name of civil freedom—including religious freedom—in the ancient heart of Arab Islam. In the just-war debate, he has strong support from his base. Leading advocates for the moral virtue of his position include Richard Land, the key leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s political arm. Another supporter is Michael Novak, the conservative Catholic theologian. Novak recently journeyed to Rome to make his case at the invitation of the U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Jim Nicholson, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. All politics is local.
But the president is facing a mighty force of religious leaders on the other side. They include the pope (Bush will meet with a papal envoy this week, NEWSWEEK has learned), the Council of Bishops, the National Council of Churches, many Jewish groups and most Muslim leaders. “People appreciate his devotion to faith, but, in the context of war, there is a fine line, and he is starting to make people nervous,” says Steve Waldman, the editor and CEO of Beliefnet, a popular and authoritative Web site on religion and society. “They appreciate his moral clarity and decisiveness. But they wonder if he is ignoring nuances in what sounds like a messianic mission.”
Muslims are especially wary. Bush has gone to great lengths to reassure them that he admires their religion. He has hosted Ramadan dinners, and periodically criticized evangelicals, including Franklin Graham, who denounce Islam as a corrupt, violent faith. Still, evangelical missionaries don’t hide their desire to convert Muslims to Christianity, even—if not especially—in Baghdad. If one of the goals of ousting Saddam Hussein is to bring freedom of worship to an oppressed people, how can the president object?
For Bush, that’s a nettlesome question for another time. If he’s worried about it or other such weighty matters, it wasn’t obvious at dinner upstairs in the private quarters of the White House the other week. He and Laura had invited close friends and allies such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Bush, as usual, was a genial, joshing host. Also, as usual, he didn’t want the evening to last too long. “He tends to rush through cocktail hour,” says a friend. “One quick Coke and he wants to eat.” The president asked Rumsfeld to say grace. (“Can you help us out here, Mr. Secretary?”) As 10:30 p.m. approached, the commander in chief seemed eager to turn in. Knowledgeable guests understood that he wanted to catch at least a few minutes of his beloved “SportsCenter” on ESPN. But he also needed to get up early, very early. He had some reading to do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With Tamara Lipper, Martha Brant, Suzanne Smalley and Richard Wolffe

© 2003 Newsweek, Inc.
Mehr über Bush und Gott:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?0bl=-0#BODY

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 03. März 2003, 6:13
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238355,00.html
Nachkriegsvisionen

Bush, der Dominospieler

Von Dominik Baur

Es klingt so wunderbar einfach: George W. Bush lässt seine Soldaten in Bagdad einmarschieren, Saddam stürzt, und dann kippt ein Domino-Steinchen nach dem anderen. Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten werden Stück für Stück demokratisiert. Das bestechende Gedankengebäude des US-Präsidenten hat nur einen Fehler - es steht im luftleeren Raum.

Die Theorie klingt zu schön, um zu funktionieren. Ist es wirklich so einfach? Sitzen in Saudi-Arabien, Syrien, Iran, Jordanien und den anderen Staaten, die Bush bei seiner Rede vor dem American Enterprise Institute vorgeschwebt haben mögen, wirklich lauter Völker, die nur darauf warten, von ihren autoritären Regimen befreit zu werden?

Unsinn, meint Udo Steinbach, Direktor des Deutschen Orient-Instituts in Hamburg. Nur weil im Irak ein Diktator aus dem Amt gebombt werde, habe das noch lange keine Demokratisierung der gesamten Region als Folge. Dabei hält Steinbach die Thesen Bushs noch gar nicht mal für naiv. Es sei eine "bewusste Verzeichnung der Situation mit dem Ziel, den Krieg zu rechtfertigen". Nichts lasse derzeit darauf schließen, dass es den USA tatsächlich um einen Regimewandel und eine Demokratisierung über den Irak hinausgehe. "Und selbst im Irak", sagt Steinbach, "kann ich beim besten Willen nicht erkennen, dass nach dem Zusammenbruch des Saddam-Regime unmittelbar etwas Demokratisches entstehen könnte."

"Wir dürfen Bush nicht unterstellen, er meine es nicht ernst"

So neu ist das Versprechen einer Neuordnung des Nahen und Mittleren Osten nicht. Schon George Bush senior hat seinen Golfkrieg von 1991 in diesen Kontext gestellt. Es gehe um eine neue Weltordnung, hieß es damals. Und was ist davon geblieben? Nichts, meint Orientexperte Steinbach. Nachdem sich der Staub in der irakischen Wüste gesetzt habe, sei man wieder zum business as usual übergegangen. "Und das wird auch diesmal nicht anders sein. Die Amerikaner haben Interessen in der Region und die suchen sie auf die beste Art und Weise zu wahren. Und dafür sind nach wie vor die an der Macht befindlichen Regime die geeignetsten Partner."
Amr Hamzawy, Politikwissenschaftler an der Freien Universität Berlin, sieht das anders: "Wir dürfen Bush nicht von vornherein unterstellen, er meine es nicht ernst." Sicher, was die kurzfristige politische Realität anbelange, sei auch er misstrauisch gegenüber den amerikanischen Plänen. Der übliche Vorwurf, die USA verfolgten am Golf nur strategische Interessen und missbrauchten dazu das Schlagwort Demokratie, sei zwar eine unzulässige Vereinfachung; aber die große Frage sei tatsächlich inwieweit der Demokratisierungswillen der USA mit ihren strategischen Interessen Hand in Hand gehe. Gegenwärtig hat auch der ägyptische Politologe den Eindruck, dass es Präsident Bush zunächst vor allem um eines gehe: den Irak als nationale Einheit zu erhalten.

Und langfristig? Inwieweit der Irak hier tatsächlich eine Signalwirkung für die Region entfalten kann, ist ebenfalls umstritten. Dominoeffekte werde ein Krieg und ein Regimewechsel im Irak in der Tat hervorrufen, schreibt Volker Perthes von der Berliner Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in der "Süddeutschen Zeitung". Die Frage sei bloß, in welche Richtung die Dominosteine fallen. Das wisse doch jetzt noch niemand.

"Stimmung, dass es so nicht weitergehen kann"

Natürlich sei ein Szenario "amerikanischer kontrollierter Neuordnung" denkbar, so Perthes. In diesem Szenario würde sich die Bush-Regierung nach einem Sturz Saddams daran machen, die israelischen und palästinensischen Streithähne durch sanften Druck zu einer vernünftigen Lösung zwingen. Das von der Baath-Partei getragene Regime in Syrien wäre nach dem Niedergang des irakischen Baath-Flügels auf amerikanische Hilfe angewiesen und könnte sich einer Friedenslösung mit Israel nicht mehr entziehen. Auch die saudischen Ölquellen verlören an Bedeutung, sobald dass das Öl aus dem Irak wieder auf den Weltmarkt sprudelt. Ergebnis: Auch die dortige Regierung würde dann einen Amerika-freundlicheren Kurs einschlagen und Reformen im Inneren zulassen. Und ähnlich ginge es auch in Ägypten und, und, und... Ein denkbares Szenario? Durchaus. Aber unwahrscheinlich, das gibt auch Perthes zu. Vielmehr Wunschdenken. Die historische Erfahrung spreche nicht dafür, dass sich von außen beförderte Ordnungsprojekte im Nahen und Mittleren Osten widerstandslos durchsetzen ließen.

Bleiben Reformen von innen. Hamzawy hält diese auch für eine realistische Möglichkeit. In den meisten arabischen Ländern herrsche eine breite Stimmung, dass es so nicht weitergehen könne. Optimismus schöpft er vor allem daraus, dass einige der Völker wie Tunesien, der Sudan, Ägypten, Marokko, Jordanien und der Jemen bereits Erfahrung mit Demokratie gesammelt haben. Dort sei das Potenzial für demokratische Reformen sehr hoch. Die Menschen dort erachteten Demokratie sehr wohl als etwas Erstrebenswertes. Die Diskussion um Demokratie als ein westliches Exportgut, das in der arabischen Welt wie alles, was aus Amerika komme, abgelehnt würde, sei längst passé. "Das waren die Debatten der achtziger und neunziger Jahre."

Für diese Länder könnte ein demokratisierter Irak auch tatsächlich eine Vorbildrolle einnehmen. "Man wird dann sehen: Es klappt doch; es ist möglich, in einem sehr autoritären Land Demokratie einzuführen." Hamzawy betont zwar, dass dies eine mittel- bis langfristige Perspektive sei - er spricht von fünf bis zehn Jahren -, aber selbst mit dieser Prognose ist er noch deutlich optimistischer als viele seiner Kollegen.

"Das wird Jahrzehnte dauern"

Der amerikanische Demokratie-Experte Thomas Carothers etwa ist der Ansicht, dass ein Krieg gegen Saddam zunächst vor allem dem Antiamerikanismus in der arabischen Welt Auftrieb geben werde. Die Machthaber würden sich in dieser Situation jeglichen Reformen verweigern, um keinen Stein ins Rollen zu bringen. "Das heißt natürlich nicht, dass sich die arabische Welt nie demokratisieren wird", schreibt Carothers in dem Fachmagazin "Foreign Affairs". "Aber dieser Prozess wird noch Jahrzehnte dauern."

Auch der Hamburger Orientexperte Steinbach sieht skeptisch in die Zukunft. Ein Sturz Saddams werde vor allem Instabilität in die Region bringen. "Der Druck der Öffentlichkeit im arabischen Raum wird stärker werden, und zwar mit einer doppelten Stoßrichtung: zum einen mit Gewalt gegen alles, was aus dem Westen kommt, und zum anderen gegen die eigenen Regime."

Dabei wäre Washington nach Steinbachs Ansicht durchaus in der Lage, gestaltend auf eine Neuordnung in der Region einzuwirken. Wenn es ernst gemeint wäre, hätte es dafür auch die Unterstützung breiter Teile der Öffentlichkeit. Aber: Unterstützung könnte Bush hier nur bekommen, wenn es auch Druck auf beide Parteien im Nahostkonflikt ausüben würde. "Bush müsste Scharon einen palästinensischen Staat abtrotzen. Nur so könnte er bei den Arabern Vertrauen gewinnen. Dann könnte es tatsächlich sein, dass die Massen mit ihm gehen."

Bevor es dazu käme, müsste jedoch zunächst einmal das Experiment einer Demokratisierung des Irak gelingen. Um den nach dem Krieg neu aufzubauen und - wie es das der erklärte Ziel der USA ist - in den bestehenden Grenzen zu erhalten, bräuchten die Amerikaner einen langen Atem, meint Steinbach. "Und den traue ich Bush nicht zu."

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

POLL ANALYSES
March 3, 2003


Economy May Be Hurting Bush Popularity More Than Iraq
Approval rating at lowest level since 9/11


by David W. Moore
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The popularity of President George W. Bush has slipped over the past several months amid lower public ratings of the economy and uncertainty over when a war with Iraq might begin. But his declining popularity would appear to be related more to the economy than war, as support for a U.S. invasion of Iraq has remained fairly steady over this period, while public ratings of the economy have plummeted. In that time, Bush`s approval rating has dropped by about 10 percentage points. The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll also shows that for the first time since 9/11, support for Bush`s re-election against an unnamed Democratic candidate has fallen below the 50% mark among registered voters.

The poll, conducted Feb. 24-26, finds 57% of Americans expressing approval of Bush`s overall performance in office, just a point lower than a week ago, but 10 points below the average approval rating he received in September of last year and the lowest since 9/11. Bush`s current rating is exactly the same as the average rating he received in the first 7 months of his administration, although his ratings had been falling just prior to the terrorist attacks. A Sept. 7-10, 2001 Gallup Poll showed Bush with an approval rating of 51%.



The poll also finds that 59% of Americans support an invasion of Iraq, little changed from the readings Gallup has taken over the past 6 months -- which have averaged 57% in favor of war, varying from a low of 52% to a high of 63%. But over the same period, the public`s rating of the economy has plummeted


Six months ago, in September, Americans thought the economy was good rather than poor by a margin of 54% to 46%. In October and December, the majorities were reversed, with more people giving a poor than a good rating by 58% to 41%, and 55% to 44%, respectively.

The latest readings show an even worse assessment. By close to a 2-to-1 margin, 65% to 34%, the public says the economy is in poor shape.

Public Dubious About Bush Economic Plan

This past January, the news media reported on Bush`s economic plan, designed to jump-start the economy and allay the public`s fears about a worsening situation. But the public has reacted with less than overwhelming support.



Initially, the public was mostly divided, leaning in support of the plan by a slim margin, 42% to 37%, with 21% uncertain. After Bush`s State of the Union address on Jan. 28, the public seemed to rally somewhat around Bush`s ideas, expressing support by 51% to 39%. But the latest ratings show the public almost evenly divided again, leaning in favor by just 45% to 40%.

Bush Re-Election Indicator Falls

The declining ratings of the economy appear to be having an effect not only on Bush`s overall approval rating, but on the president`s potential electoral support.
Election 2004:
Bush or Democratic Candidate?
(Among Registered Voters


More:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030303.asp

[Joerver]

Banging the drum for the market state is a loser if voters listen to a different music
Larry Elliott
Monday March 3, 2003
The Guardian

George Bush had something of a hell raising youth, but he was probably a bit too old for the release of the first Ramones album in the summer of 1976. Pity. Line one, track one on this seminal punk album goes: "Hey ho, let`s go" and has the appropriate title of Blitzkrieg Bop.

A Blitzkrieg Bop is what the markets are banking on. A lightning strike, a week-long conflict, the ousting of Saddam Hussein and seizure of the oil fields will be just what the global economy needs to lift it out of torpor. If the campaign goes according to plan, there may have to be a remix of the Edwin Starr classic, which goes: "War! Huh, what is it good for?" It`s good for oil prices.

Like the three-minute single, the "war as catharsis" argument has a compelling simplicity but lacks depth. Stage one is for the war to be over in double-quick time. Stage two is for the price of crude to come down to $20 a barrel. Stage three is for share prices to leap and consumer confidence to recover. Stage four is full-scale global recovery. Stage five is the arrival of the economic nirvana that the proponents of the new world order have been promising since - well, since the last Gulf war, as it happens.

There are three big holes in this thesis. The first is that an easy victory is taken for granted, and while that may be understandable, the risks are that the war will be longer, bloodier and costlier than the markets are confidently predicting.

The second drawback with "war is good for business" is that the problems of the global economy predate the Iraqi crisis and will still be there whatever happens over the next few months. It is entirely possible that even if the military strategy works to the letter, there will be a short term rally followed by the realisation that the problems of financial fragility, deflation, excessive indebtedness and weak corporate profitability have not been washed away. This is a subject I intend to return to next week.

Finally, it is worth taking the predictions of the new world order people with a large pinch of salt. These are the people who told us that the demise of communism would lead to a golden age of peace and prosperity in which a more efficient market allocation of resources would lead to higher investment, growth and living standards for all. This is the world as seen by a tiny elite of policymakers, academics and entrepreneurs, not the one that actually exists.

A classic example of this genre is Philip Bobbitt`s tome, The Shield of Achilles*, which argues that in the age of globalisation the nation state has been supplanted by the market state. This process has been lubricated by what Bobbitt calls the final victory of liberal democracy in the long war conducted first against fascism and then against communism.

The market state, he says, depends on the international capital markets and the modern multinational business network to create stability in the world economy, in preference to management by national or transnational political bodies. "Whereas the nation state justified itself as an instrument to serve the welfare of the people, the market state exists to maximise the opportunities enjoyed by all members of society ... for the nation state, full employment is an important and often paramount goal, whereas for the market state, the actual number of persons employed is but one more variable in the production of economic opportunity and has no overriding intrinsic significance. If it is more efficient to have large bodies of persons unemployed because it would cost more to the society to train them and put them to work at tasks for which the market has little demand, then the society will simply have to accept large unemployment figures."

Bobbitt may be right when he says we have witnessed the triumph of the market state over the past decade, but there is scant evidence, if any, to suggest that the market state is better at delivering the goods than the nation state. Living standards have grown less - not more - quickly; financial deregulation has led to an explosion in speculation rather than more productive investment; the past decade has been beset by financial crises and a ratcheting up of insecurity and inequality. Governments have found that all those policies that were considered judicious during the cold war - generous welfare provision, job protection, final salary pension schemes - are seen as no longer affordable. The demolition of the iron curtain may have been good news for the countries of eastern Europe but a a mixed blessing for workers in the west. The technocracy that runs the new world order is blind to these trends - it faces few of the pressures encountered by most people. Final salary pensions may have been phased out for new entrants into the labour market but they are still there in the boardroom. Would-be policymakers move from think-tanks to governments and back again, dreaming up plans for an "opportunity society" that involves making labour markets more flexible - the sack - and making welfare systems more affordable - cutting your pension.

One upshot of all this is decay in the political process. It has led in the UK to a Conservative party that has lost the ability to conserve and a Labour party where there is the possibility of a fight to the death between those led by the prime minister who want a market state and those led by the chancellor who believe a modern nation state can deliver on traditional promises. Tony Blair set out his stall last month in Progressive Politics, a journal published by Peter Mandelson. "We should be far more radical about the role of the state as regulator rather than provider, opening up healthcare, for example, to a mixed economy under the NHS umbrella and adopting radical approaches to self-health."

Given that perhaps the most popular acts by the government since the last election were the increases in funding for the NHS and the decision to pull the plug on Railtrack, the believers in a market state face an uphill struggle. And this is not just because the world that was supposed to be safe for all of us to get rich in has proved economically unstable, riven by inequality and culturally barren. It is also because the failings of the new world order have resulted in ideology making a comeback. Ideology has always been the bane of the technocrats; it threatens the smooth running of the machine - ideology is bad, capital B.

It`s true that there are plenty of examples of ideology being bad. But we are also seeing a stirring of interest in green, social democratic and Marxist interpretations of the global economy. That`s what happens when the economy doesn`t deliver and policymakers don`t listen. It`s the clash of the market state and democracy in a mass media age.

Bobbitt may be right. Market states may be all that`s on offer. But if governments can no longer deliver what their electorates expect, big trouble is on the horizon. The message from the new world order brigade is that people had better wise up to the realities of what the system can deliver. But there is an argument for changing the system to one that more of us prefer, even if that means rolling back the "gains" from market liberalisation. Otherwise the first decade of the new world order could turn out to be the equivalent of the years running up to 1914. The calm before the storm.

*Philip Bobbitt; The Shield of Achilles; Allen Lane

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Überall wo man hinschaut nur dankbare Menschen voll Gottvertrauen in Liebe verbunden mit ihrem Präsidenten.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Hippie Crap Saves The World
Can better orgasms and upping your personal vibe really thwart BushCo idiocy?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, February 28, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



Wanna know what conservatives really hate?


What makes everyone from harmless GOP dittoheads to ultra-right-wing nutjobs full of rage and hiss and homophobia and blind jingoism roll their eyes and throw up their hands and scamper for their Bibles for reassurance that life is still repressed and we`re still going to war and Dubya is still smackin` `round the envurment along with them wimmin and homosekshuls and furriners?

Why, hippie crap, of course. New-age babble about love and peace and godless pagan prayer, organic foods and sustainable trees and chakras, divinity and luscious goddesses and soul paths and upping your personal vibration to counter all the venomous hatred slinging about the culture like some sort of conservative, fearmongering weapon of mass depression. Man, they just hate that.

The incessant drive to war, the blank-eyed young soldiers, the drab oil fields, the terse U.N. debates, Rumsfeld`s ink-black eyes, the violence and 9/11 and Osama in hiding, Saddam`s sneering and Shrub`s smirking and Dick Cheney`s defibrillator cranking on 11 -- these events are considered "real," they are tangible and raw and ugly and happening right now and we`ve got the pictures to prove it, all over the media, grainy and grim and mean, CNN and Fox News and frowning pundits and 100-point newspaper headlines, so you know it must be true.

Then there`s you, walking through your daily life right now, eating and laughing and screwing and paying rent and thinking for yourself, filtering the onslaught and trying to remain connected to something divine and universal and authentic, all while straining to put this national trend toward violence and warmongering into some sort of acceptable frame.

You are not "real" in this same way. This is the feeling. Your experience is somehow irrelevant; what you do and how you maneuver this daily treachery is an insignificant side note to the big ugly daily political machinations because hey, it`s war. It`s the Big Boys. Angry White Men with very serious penis issues. All that matters is the machine, and the money, and the oil, and the WMD and the drumbeat rhetoric.

Which is, of course, utter BS. Here is what conservatives hate most: the idea that you really can, and do, make a difference. That you, hopefully working to align yourself with something deeper and more informed and perhaps not exactly Christian, or corporate, not exactly lockstep mainstream flag-waving God-fearing asexual consumer drone, you can affect the world, directly, right now, in ways you might not even realize, in ways that make them tremble and wince, in how much you laugh and love and eat and sleep and screw and breathe and in how deeply you penetrate into the soul`s raison d`etre. But you gotta work at it. And it ain`t easy. See? Fluffy new-age crap. They really hate that.

Here is the great fallacy of the American ethos, the one that powers SUV purchases and spawns a billion McDonald`s franchises and gun purchases and Adam Sandler movies: it is the notion that Americans exist in a freewheelin` vacuum, that our daily choices don`t, in fact, affect the world, and our neighbors, and our children, and the environment and our own bodies.

It is the idea that those very choices -- foods you eat, cars you drive, shows you watch, personal relations you have, waste you create, choices you make -- can`t, in a very real and immediate way, erode your divine links, spit on your spiritual spark, taint your mystical meat. Every single one, every single time.

In other words, in buying that gun, smacking that child, abusing that spouse, screaming at that neighbor, buying that thuggish SUV, supporting that war, wishing death upon all them damn furriners, you may think you`re exercising your God-given all-`Murkin right to do/say/drive whatever the hell you want because you`re an American goddammit and no one will tell you how to live so back off.

Not quite. Rather, you are also injecting a deliberate dose of bitter bile straight into the cultural bloodstream, actually -- and quite literally -- lowering the general vibration of the human collective cause, casting your vote for small-mindedness and solipsism and violence. Yep, you are. And yes indeed, your vote counts.

Here is the gist: The world consists of energy, billions of swirling masses of it contained in living vessels -- that`s you -- and aimed out to the world, often radiating at random, intermingling, interacting, often uncontrolled and unaware, an enormous dizzying gorgeous complex kaleidoscopic organism of human interaction and interplay. We are abuzz. We are electric. We possess actual psychic and electromagnetic force. Duh. It`s a fact.

It comes down to simple physics. Negative begets negative. Positive begets positive. War begets war, peace begets peace, Britney begets Christina begets N`Sync begets People magazine begets "Joe Millionaire" begets 10 million Prozac prescriptions begets a billion dumbed-down mind-sets, embittered souls. In a nutshell.

ShrubCo blindly steers the nation like a giant careening Hummer toward the history-mauling notion of preemptive violence, of attacking anyone who might somehow threaten the U.S. even before such a threat is tangible. He beats the war drum, staffs his administration with enough hawks to start 1,000 wars, slams the environment, cuts women`s rights, etcetera and so on -- this all turns that swirling mass of energy that much more dark, vicious, angry, dumb.

And the world begins to follow. The culture darkens, people run scared, reactionary, depressed. The negative feeds upon itself, the tide turns, you are hit more and more frequently with that overwhelming feeling that we are in dire and ugly and powder-keg times, worse than ever, emotionally raw, politically appalling, spiritually hollow. Sound familiar?

Whereas notions of peace, individual thought, reason, simple acts of attuned mindfulness, of buying products and foods that sustain the planet, of making really good messy enthusiastic generous love, of regular laughter in the face of scowling Ashcroft or Cheney`s corporate henchmen, of reading deeply and recalling wisdom people like the Dalai Lama talk about all the time -- these things literally up your anima`s vibration, add positive energy back in, turn the collective volume back up.

That postcoital buzz? That post-party feel-good vibe? That genuine laughter? That gratuitously kind thing you did for that stranger? That celebration of your body and your sex and love and spirit in spite of mainstream religious puling and finger wagging? That deep meditative solitude? Bingo. That`s the vibe you want. That`s the vibe we all need. That`s the vibration that makes all the difference.

But it`s also the one that takes serious work and determination and you gotta do it every single day and it can only come from you. This sort of luminous divine power is messy and raw and hot and attaining more of it can be the most difficult thing you`ve ever done. But really, what else is there?

Look. Mystics and healers and sages and scientists and philosophers across the spiritual spectrum have known it for millennia: More advanced and enlightened souls -- and cultures -- vibrate at a higher level, a more bright and rigorous pitch. It`s true. Bliss and joy and notions of peace and healing and laughter and personal choice, these things crank up the vibe. War and angst and fear and self-fulfilling prophecies of war and preemptive strikes and Jenna Bush, these things slam it down.

So then. You want to really annoy the conservative warmongering powers that be? Work your ass off to pump up the vibration. It`s deeply personal. It`s hard work. It means re-evaluating what you do and how you do it and how you treat others, the planet, what you buy and what you eat. It means learning. And it also means loving harder, more raw and real, minimal BS, minimal waste, figuring out true messy ugly slippery gorgeous divinity for yourself, on your own terms, and then sharing it with the world.

Man, they really hate that.

[Joerver]

Noch jemand der mit seiner Verwandtschaft nichts mehr zu tun haben will.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Please bomb Seattle
Geov Parrish - workingforchange.com

02.28.03 - Dear President Bush, I write as a proud American and a resident of one of its many great cities: Seattle. You`ve probably heard of us; Space Needle, mountains, trees, salmon. Microsoft. When you owned the Texas Rangers baseball club, your team was in the same division as our Mariners. We stunk back then. We hope you remain grateful. Oh, and Boeing sends its deepest love.

Mr. President, I have an enormous favor to ask of you.

Could you bomb us?

Not just once or twice for show; I mean really bomb the city of Seattle, hard, like what you`re planning for Baghdad, and probably for Pyongyang and Teheran and Damascas and whatever other 50 or 60 major world cities are on your Pentagon planners` current lists. I mean blast us back to the stone age. Make it hurt. Send us a message.

I`d prefer that you not hesitate or think too much about this; I wouldn`t want you getting migraines or anything. But if you do, consider that we, too, are under the rule of a power-hungry leader we never voted for, one that`s using torture and investigating political and religious minorities and disappearing people off our city streets and into a prison system from which they never re-emerge. That government has unthinkable numbers of nasty weapons and seems anxious to use them.

As for Seattle itself, well, Mr. President, we`re in the "red" part of the country, the part that went for Gore, so I`m sure you`ll understand that we`ve contributed more than our share of terrorists over the years. Those domestic terrorists arrested a few weeks ago for stealing top-secret plans from the military? Those were ours. We`ve been breeding them for years, from the D.C. snipers back through the Green River Killer and Ted Bundy and beyond. We "harbored" every single one of `em. To your talented staff, making the case that we`re an international menace should be a breeze. Just take some fuzzy satellite photos of our city and circle a couple of the cars. You`ll find them sitting on I-5 in rush hour, any day now, once the clouds break for your cameras. Then let Colin do his thing.

In all seriousness, Mr. President, let`s face it: the biggest threats to global security tend to come from the wealthiest and biggest countries, not the smallest. And if you have any hope of pulling them into line, you`ll need to convince them that you`d take anyone out, even your own mother. Even your own city.

Hit us, say, with one of those big new post-daisy-cutter MOAB bombs, the ones whose name Edward Abbey would recognize as grimly appropriate, the ones that kill just like Hiroshima`s nuke except with less radiation. Maybe drop a few hundred or thousand cruise missiles first to soften us up, or alongside to make sure the fireball extends all the way out past the suburban sprawl. Dumb, smart, whatever.

Doing this would give all Americans a far healthier respect for the new American empire that you are embarking upon. You see, the problem with obliterating Baghdad and its five million people is that they`re just too far away. For most Americans, the handiwork of your genius is simply too abstract to fully appreciate. However, take out a place like Seattle -- a city they`ve probably visited, a place where they might have service memories or an old friend or two -- and it becomes much more real. What with the proximity -- only three time zones away from the networks! -- an attack upon Seattle will attract far more media than attacking some vowel-starved dictator`s playpen. Then, you wouldn`t need to rely on "embedded" war correspondents pestering your soldiers, and you could get the flashiest displays on live in prime time. Just ask; I`m sure the networks will cooperate. (Sorta like the shots they do of the football stadium, with the sun setting over the Pacific, but with big explosions! It`d be perfect for May sweeps.)

Even better, viewers will be able to more fully appreciate what your weapons do, because the survivors will look like them (except for the burns), even speak the same language (mostly), value human life just as much as they do. All of us here are just trying to get by each day as best as we can. But if you bomb here, our dilemmas will seem so much more vivid to our fellow Americans than the fate of 23 million stage props to Saddam Hussein. It`ll make for some amazing reality TV shows.

Our proximity to you will make it easier for aid organizations, too, and for the shipments of medical supplies and relief workers and all that. And, of course, a wealthy First-World city like Seattle, with its big skyline and modern infrastructure, will mean trillions of dollars in rebuilding contracts after the war -- enormous windfalls that you can hand out to your corporate buddies as party favors at your next 2004 fundraising dinner.

Best of all, it`s not like we have any way to fight back or anything. We could ask our local police, I suppose, but anything past pepper-spraying black motorists is out of their league. So if you ever get bored, you can just bomb us again! Bomb, rebuild, bomb, rebuild... now that`s putting our economy to work!

All in all, Mr. President, I think it`s a perfect fit for the new American empire you`re constructing. It`s an unprovoked attack upon a defenseless civilian population, based on crimes committed by either unaccountable leaders or psychotic individuals who, at one time or another, passed through town. It`ll make your friends even richer, and it`ll contribute, in a much more direct way than any overseas campaign could, to your re-election success next year. It`s 12 less Electoral College votes for you to worry about. And we get a new freeway out of the deal.

Now that you`ve thought about it, Mr. President, I`m sure you realize that you can`t back down. I trust Powell will be making the necessary presentations to foreign powers shortly. I think you`ll be surprised at how many nations will be willing, even eager, to sign up to help with this one. Trust me.

Your patriotic friend,

Geov Parrish

P.S. I`m moving to Phoenix. Soon.

P.P.S. Damn! I just remembered! We don`t have any untapped oil reserves. I guess that calls this whole thing off, huh? Never mind.

[Joerver]

The US is on the right wavelength
Liberalism doesn`t get a hearing on American radio or television

Matthew Engel in America
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian

You are white, male, and old enough to vote but probably too young to have been forced into combat. You are most likely somewhere west of New Jersey but east of California. You may well be driving a pick-up truck while imagining it is one of those tank-like things known as Hummers. You are not very well-educated and certainly not well-travelled. You don`t harbour doubts. You are the target audience for American talk radio.

De Gaulle wondered how you could govern France when it has 246 kinds of cheese. You might more pertinently wonder how you govern a country like the US that has 13,000 radio stations. The answer is that it`s simple, provided they all say the same thing. Of the 1,000 or so commercial stations in the US that actually deal in words rather than music, the overwhelming majority rely on a handful of syndicated hosts, all rightwing, all skilful, all ferocious.

Some of the names are familiar, led by Rush Limbaugh, who defined the genre in the late 1980s and early 1990s and soared to glory the moment Bill Clinton became president and gave him an irresistible target. But Limbaugh, who supposedly reaches 20 million listeners a week, now has many rivals, like G Gordon Liddy (the ex-Watergate burglar-in-chief), Bill O`Reilly (the star of Fox News on TV), Sean Hannity (the only man who can say "I gotta tell you" five times in a single minute) and Michael Savage, who defines liberalism as "Trojan-horse fascism without the jackboots".

There is a sub-genre of family-oriented hosts, whose programmes are aimed more at stay-at-home women. The leaders here are the Christian conservative Dr James Dobson, and the bleak advice-giver, Laura Schlessinger, a doctor unpleasant enough to empty a crowded NHS waiting-room.

Despite all these rivals, Limbaugh has no opponents. Rich pinkos are trying to put together a scheme to start a liberal talk-show, but it is doomed because the essence of liberalism is that it does not deal in the slashing handed-down certainties of the radio shows. More thoughtful people listen instead to the quiet debate of the non-commercial and small-beer PBS stations. Only last week, Phil Donohue, who had been trying to run a much publicised "liberal" TV show in opposition to O`Reilly, was finally euthanased by his bosses at MSNBC after being crushed in the ratings.

Obviously there are consequences of this for the alleged debate over war in Iraq. ("You disagree? Too bad. We`re invading.") But in fact the Limbaugh-demographic represents the one group in the US which is unhesitatingly pro-war. And in any case the secret of media influence is far more complex and insidious than is often believed.

It doesn`t actually matter which side of the Iraq fence the New York Times leader writers (who have spent months impaling themselves) land on. No one will change their minds as a result. What makes a difference is a slow drip-drip-drip, seeping into the body politic and ultimately flooding it. Neil Kinnock`s leadership of the Labour party was destroyed because, over a nine-year period, Britain`s top-selling paper, the Sun, successfully portrayed him as an inadequate.

American talk radio`s great achievement is more general than that. With individuals, the hosts have not yet had a major success. In spite of everything, they could not quite get rid of Bill and Hillary. They tried to demonise the mild-mannered Tom Daschle, the Democrats` leader in the Senate (the word "demonise" is used advisedly - Limbaugh calls him "El Diablo"), but it was his opposite number, the Republican Trent Lott, who fell. No, the Limbaugh gang`s real triumph is altogether more breathtaking, something that makes one want to rewrite the ancient explanation of the Yiddish word chutzpah (traditionally defined as the boy who murders his parents and begs for mercy because he`s an orphan).

These guys have taken over the airwaves and persuaded America that the media are dominated by lefties. If that were ever true, it is emphatically untrue now. Radio obviously belongs to the right. So, by default, does TV, because the agenda is set by the White House, and Bush, Rumsfeld, Fleischer etc get massively more exposure to promote their agenda than anyone gets to counter it - especially at a time when there is no clear, credible and confident opposition leader. And the same applies in the newspapers, where the rigid notions that govern mainstream journalism demand "objectivity".

Effectively that means that the front pages are dominated by government assertions, uncritically relayed. Hannity said on his Friday show that three-quarters of Americans believe the left dominate the media. That was a little lie: the poll he quoted showed that 45% believe that and 15% don`t, which is not the same thing. The idea itself is a much bigger lie - I gotta tell you.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Speaking in Tongues
A Guide to Gibberish in the Age of Bush
By BEN TRIPP

When interim President Bush traveled to Europe in May of 2001, he didn`t realize people spoke gibberish in many of the European countries. This led to some embarrassing moments, such as when he upbraided a reporter for asking the French President, Jacques Chirac, a question in French. The excuses were many-- Bush had jet lag, his brain tumor was acting up--but the reality of the situation is that Bush is no different from most Americans (I mean no offense). He is ignorant of other languages. "But he speaks Spanish," you cry, and I am forced to make my weary explanations. Of course he speaks Spanish (at least he did so in front of Jacques Chirac). In Texas, you need a little Spanish, if you want the lawn mowed right and the hay bales stacked in the barn instead of the garage. But Bush doesn`t speak the kind of Spanish that Spanish-speaking people speak. Bush speaks a little Spanish and a little English. Not much of either. Do you want to be like that? Of course not, especially now that international tensions are at a fever pitch and the slightest wrong word could spark a global holocaust. In the interests of public service, I aim to teach my fellow Americans some foreign language skills. Attendre.

Let`s start with French, which is a useful language if you are in France, non? (Isn`t it cute the way I use actual foreign words?) We will begin with a few simple phrases that you might need once you`ve expatriated to Paris rather than put up with this crap a minute longer.

"Bonjour, je m`apelle est Mike."

("Hello, my name is Mike.") If your name isn`t Mike, skip this one.

"J`ai acheté récemment un chat d`empaillage sur le marché aux antiquités."

("I recently purchased a taxidermied cat at the flea market.") If you bought a ceramic octopus or a nice little Louis XIV side table, simply substitute for the words "récemment un chat".

"J`ai peur d`araignées. Tenez-moi dans vos bras, Marcelle."

("I am afraid of spiders. Hold me in your arms, Melvin.") If Melvin is not around (au loin), lock yourself in the bathroom (pissoir) and call the police (tel.17 in Paris).

"Colin Powell est un Uncle Tom."

("May I please have a glass of water.") This is a useful phrase if you like water.

With just these few simple phrases, you will be able to get by in France, or as they say in Paris, "Va t`faire enculer chez les Grecs!"

Italian is another useful language, or so the Italians would have you think. I`m not so sure. But here are a few bon mots that will help you make amici in Italia.

"L`odore cattivo me uccide."

("Hello, my name is Mike.") You might want to change your name to Mike for simplicity`s sake.

"Il culo del Papa sono fermo e paffuto."

("Please help me. My passport photograph is unattractive.") Try this one around the Vatican.

"Piaccio del che i guardando film ed il ciucciami il cazzo."

("Would you like to go to the movies?") Italians love movies, because most of them can`t read.

Let`s not forget German! Unfortunately, my name means `gonorrhea` in German, so I have difficulty finding sexual partners there. Perhaps for this reason I have received criticism from Germans on a number of occasions for making fun of them more than other European people. I hope these nützliche phrasen will make up for this, and help me pull the birds (Vögel).

"Arbeit macht frei."

("Hello, my name is Cohen.") Just because everybody can`t be named Mike, can they?

"Bush will von seinen innenpolitischen Schwierigkeiten ablenken. Das ist eine beliebte Methode. Das hat auch Hitler schon gemacht."

("Is there a pharmacy nearby?") You can buy all kinds of things over the counter in Europe that are prescription-only in America. How cool is that?

"Wassöp Mutterficker, gettdohn wit chobaddseff."

("Hello, Mike, how are you today?") This is a common greeting in Germany, originally coined by Jakobus Braun, der Gottvater von Seele.

These are but a few of the many languages enjoyed throughout Europe. It is always wise to have a phrase or two in any language, as people are both flattered and impressed when you can say something even as simple as "hello" in their own tongue. So here is "hello" in a few more languages. The next time you see Mike, say them to him.

In Norway one says "De er dum." In Portugal try "Siento-me doente." Polish people say "Ty masz mal/y hujek". In Austria, a hearty cry of "schleich dich" is appropriate. But wherever you go in Europe, remember there is no substitute for a smile, or pulling out of the United Nations. Que bueno?

Ben Tripp is a screenwriter, political satirist and cartoonist. He can be reached at: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

The palace of the end
The first war of the Age of Proliferation will not be an oil-grab so much as an expression of pure power

Martin Amis
Tuesday March 4, 2003
The Guardian

We accept that there are legitimate casus belli: acts or situations "provoking or justifying war". The present debate feels off-centre, and faintly unreal, because the US and the UK are going to war for a new set of reasons (partly undisclosed) while continuing to adduce the old set of reasons (which in this case do not cohere or even overlap). These new casus belli are a response to the accurate realisation that we have entered a distinct phase of history. The coming assault on Iraq may perhaps be the Last War of the Ottoman Succession; it will certainly be the first War of the Age of Proliferation - the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The new casus belli are also shaped by September 11.

September 11 has given to us a planet we barely recognise. In a sense it revealed what was already there, largely unremarked, since the collapse of the Soviet Union: the unprecedented preponderance of a single power. It also revealed the longstanding but increasingly dynamic loathing of this power in the Islamic world, where anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are exacerbated by America`s relationship with Israel - a relationship that many in the west, this writer included, find unnatural. In addition, like all "acts of terrorism" (easily and unsubjectively defined as organised violence against civilians), September 11 was an attack on morality: we felt a general deficit. Who, on September 10, was expecting by Christmastime to be reading unscandalised editorials in the Herald Tribune about the pros and cons of using torture on captured "enemy combatants"? Who expected Britain to renounce the doctrine of nuclear no-first-use? Terrorism undermines morality. Then, too, it undermines reason.

Osama bin Laden is an identifiable human type, but on an unidentifiable scale. He is an enormous stirrer - a titanic mixer. Look how he`s shaken us up, both in the heart and in the head. One could say, countervailingly, that on September 11 America was visited by something very alien and unbelievably radical. A completely new kind of enemy for whom death is not death - and for whom life is not life, either, but illusion, a staging-post, merely "the thing which is called World". No, you wouldn`t expect such a massive world-historical jolt, which will reverberate for centuries, to be effortlessly absorbed. But the suspicion remains that America is not behaving rationally - that America is behaving like someone still in shock.

The notion of the "axis of evil" has an interesting provenance. In early drafts of the President`s speech the "axis of evil" was the "axis of hatred", "axis" having been settled on for its associations with the enemy in the second world war. The "axis of hatred" at this point consisted of only two countries, Iran and Iraq. whereas of course the original axis consisted of three (Germany, Italy, Japan). It was additionally noticed that Iran and Iraq, while not both Arab, were both Muslim. So they brought in North Korea.

We may notice, in this embarras of the inapposite, that the Axis was an alliance, whereas Iran and Iraq are blood-bespattered enemies, and the zombie nation of North Korea is, in truth, so mortally ashamed of itself that it can hardly bear to show its face. Still, "axis of hatred" it was going to be, until the tide turned towards "axis of evil". "Axis of evil" echoed Reagan`s "evil empire". It was more alliterative. It was also, according to President Bush, "more theological".

This is a vital question. Why, in our current delirium of faith and fear, would Bush want things to become more theological rather than less theological? The answer is clear enough, in human terms: to put it crudely, it makes him feel easier about being intellectually null. He wants geopolitics to be less about intellect and more about gut-instincts and beliefs - because he knows he`s got them. One thinks here of Bob Woodward`s serialised anecdote: asked by Woodward about North Korea, Bush jerked forward saying, "I loathe Kim Jong II!" Bush went on to say that the execration sprang from his instincts, adding, apparently in surprised gratification, that it might be to do with his religion. Whatever else happens, we can infallibly expect Bush to get more religious: more theological.

When the somnambulistic figure of Kim Jong II subsequently threw down his nuclear gauntlet, the "axis of evil" catchphrase or notion or policy seemed in ruins, because North Korea turned out to be much nearer to acquiring the defining WMDs, deliverable, nuclear devices, than Iraq (and the same is true of Iran). But it was explained that the North Korean matter was a diplomatic inconvenience, while Iraq`s non-disarmament remained a "crisis". The reason was strategic: even without WMDs, North Korea could inflict a million casualties on its southern neighbour and raze Seoul. Iraq couldn`t manage anything on this scale, so you could attack it. North Korea could, so you couldn`t. The imponderables of the proliferation age were becoming ponderable. Once a nation has done the risky and nauseous work of acquisition, it becomes unattackable. A single untested nuclear weapon may be a liability. But five or six constitute a deterrent.

From this it crucially follows that we are going to war with Iraq because it doesn`t have weapons of mass destruction. Or not many. The surest way by far of finding out what Iraq has is to attack it. Then at last we will have Saddam`s full cooperation in our weapons inspection, because everything we know about him suggests that he will use them all. The Pentagon must be more or less convinced that Saddam`s WMDs are under a certain critical number. Otherwise it couldn`t attack him.

All US presidents - and all US presidential candidates - have to be religious or have to pretend to be religious. More specifically, they have to subscribe to "born again" Christianity. Bush, with his semi-compulsory prayer-breakfasts and so on, isn`t pretending to be religious: "the loving God behind all life and all of history"; "the Almighty`s gift of freedom to the world." "My acceptance of Christ", Bush has said (this is code for the born-again experience of personal revelation), - "that`s an integral part of my life." And of ours, too, in the New American Century.

One of the exhibits at the Umm Al-Maarik Mosque in central Baghdad is a copy of the Koran written in Saddam Hussein`s own blood (he donated 24 litres over three years). Yet this is merely the most spectacular of Saddam`s periodic sops to the mullahs. He is, in reality, a career-long secularist - indeed an "infidel", according to Bin Laden. Although there is no Bible on Capitol Hill written in the blood of George Bush, we are obliged to accept the fact that Bush is more religious than Saddam: of the two presidents, he is, in this respect, the more psychologically primitive. We hear about the successful "Texanisation" of the Republican party. And doesn`t Texas sometimes seem to resemble a country like Saudi Arabia, with its great heat, its oil wealth, its brimming houses of worship, and its weekly executions?

The present administration`s embrace of the religious right also leads, by a bizarre route, to the further strengthening of the Israel lobby. Unbelievably, born-again doctrine insists that Israel must be blindly supported, not because it is the only semi-democracy in that crescent, but because it is due to host the second coming. Armageddon is scheduled to take place near the hill of Megiddo (where, in recent months; an Israeli bus was suicide-bombed by another kind of believer). The Rapture, the Tribulation, the Binding of the Antichrist: it isn`t altogether clear how much of this rubbish Bush swallows (though Reagan swallowed it whole). VS Naipaul has described the religious impulse as the inability "to contemplate man as man", responsible to himself and uncosseted by a higher power. We may consider this a weakness; Bush, dangerously, considers it a strength.

Even a cursory examination of Saddam`s character suggests that he will never fully disarm, any more than he would choose to revisit his childhood and walk shoeless and half-naked through the streets of Tikrit. He started as he meant to go on when, in 1991, he appointed his younger (and less feral) son Qusay to the chairmanship of the Concealment Operations Committee. The assault on Iraq is expected to cost America 0.5 per cent of its GDP; Saddam`s wars, and the subsequent sanctions, have cost Iraq about 20 years of GDP, according to The Economist. Such are his priorities. It has been in Saddam`s power to alleviate the immiseration of his people. Instead a pattern of paranoia, gangsterism and chronic kleptomania, has established itself.

It is important to remember that Saddam, despite his liking for medals and camouflage outfits (and for personally mismanaging his armies), was never a military man. He came up through the torture corps in the 1960s, establishing the Baath secret police, Jihaz Haneen (the "instrument of yearning"), and putting himself about in the Qasr al-Nihayah ("the Palace of the End"), perhaps the most feared destination in Iraq until its demolition, after an attempted coup by the chief inquisitor, Nadhim Kazzar, in 1973.

Saddam`s hands-on years in the dungeons distinguish him from the other great dictators of the 20th century, none of whom had much taste for "the wet stuff". The mores of his regime have been shaped by this taste for the wet stuff - by a fascinated negative intimacy with the human body, and a connoisseurship of human pain. One is struck, too, by how routinely Saddam`s organs have used familial love as an additional instrument of torture. Here, in moral terms, we decisively enter the palace of the end, as the interrogator consigns your child to a sack full of starving cats.

I said earlier that America`s war aims remain partly undisclosed. The frank answer to the question "why now?", for instance, would be the usual jumble, something like: a) to pre-empt Saddam`s acquisition of more WMDs; b) in good time for the next election; and c) before the weather gets too hot. Without his war, Bush is an obvious one-term blowhard; and he listens to his political handler, Karl Rove, at least as keenly as he listens to Donald Rumsfeld. The supplementary motivation, hatched at the thinktank and prayer-breakfast level, is, I fear, visionary in tendency. It has been noticed that a great deal of the world`s wealth is in the hands of a collection of corrupt, benighted and above all defenceless regimes. The war, as they see it, will not be an oil-grab so much as a natural ramification of pure power: manifest destiny made manifest, for the good of all.

Tony Blair must have known that war was inevitable more than a year ago, when Bush started talking, with vulgar levity, of "taking Saddam out". In the past Blair has been consistently tough on the Iraq question, just as France has been consistently, and venally, lenient (as early as the mid-1970s Jacques Chirac was known as "Monsieur Iraq"). More generally, perhaps, he feels that British interests are better served by continuing to ride on the American elephant, even as it trumpets its emancipation from the influence of Europe; and that the total isolation of Washington would only heat Bush`s internal brew of insecurity and messianism.

There are two rules of war that have not yet been invalidated by the new world order. The first rule is that the belligerent nation must be fairly sure that its actions will make things better; the second rule is that the belligerent nation must be more or less certain that its actions won`t make things worse. America could perhaps claim to be satisfying the first rule (while admitting that the improvement may be only local and short term). It cannot begin to satisfy the second.

We contemplate a kaleidoscope of terrible eventualities: a WMD attack on Israel, and a WMD response (conceivably nuclear); civil war in Iraq. and elsewhere, together with all manner of humanitarian disasters; fundamentalist revolutions in Egypt and Jordan; and, ineluctably, an additional generation of terror from militant Islam. Meanwhile, common sense calmly states that an expanded version of the present arrangement (inspectors, monitors, full exposure to world opinion) is sufficient to contain and emasculate Saddam until pressure builds for a coup; and that the "war on terror" can start only with the dismantling of the settlements in the territories occupied by Israel.

But the necessary momentum has already been achieved, and the first humanitarian disaster will of course be the war itself.

"O people of Iraq... By God, I shall strip you like bark, I shall truss you like a bundle of twigs, I shall beat you like stray camels... By God, what I promise, I fulfil; what I purpose, I accomplish; what I measure, I cut off." You could imagine Saddam Hussein muttering these words when he assumed the presidency in 1979. It is with weariness and shame that we hear them from our own leaders, in various encryptions - echoing al-Hadjadj, the newly arrived governor of Iraq, in the year 694. And what he measured, he cut off.

© Martin Amis 2003


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Der Krieg ist billiger als der Frieden?
Fox News
Study: Costs of Inaction Against Iraq Add Up

Monday, March 03, 2003



WASHINGTON — Much discussion lately has been centered on the expenses a war with Iraq will incur, but some analysts are pointing out that the cost of not making war may be greater than the cost of a conflict.

Some estimates have put the cost of war beyond $100 billion, causing groans from anti-war lawmakers.

With Saddam Hussein building and hiding weapons, President Bush repeated to members of a conservative think tank last week a theory he frequently paraphrases.

"This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country," the president said.

The Brookings Institution said the number of lives lost in another attack on the United States could be phenomenal.

Their recent study shows that as many as 10,000 people could perish in a successful attack on a U.S. chemical or nuclear power plant; a nuclear bomb detonated in a major U.S. city could claim the lives of 100,000 people.

The study also contends that a biological attack against a U.S. city could cause $750 billion in economic damage; attacks against malls or movie theaters could cost the economy $250 billion and if weapons of mass destruction were used against the shipping industry, the economy could take a $1 trillion hit.

Cleaning up just two ounces of anthrax in the House and Senate office buildings more than a year ago cost American taxpayers $42 million.

U.S. consumer confidence is now at a 10-year low. However, if Saddam remains in power, the economy may sag much longer, say market analysts.

"If this isn`t resolved, if things are still up in the air in terms of weapons of mass destruction, I think that would cast a cloud over the stock market and over the U.S. economy," said Greg Valiere of Schwab Washington Research.

Some fear an unrestrained Saddam Hussein might get big ideas and that could mean trouble for the United States, particularly as the Bush administration struggles with a new energy policy.

"He would most likely try to interject himself into the free flow of oil. He would be a threat to Saudi Arabia, he would be a threat to Kuwait, he would be a threat to Jordan. He is bent on regional domination," said Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation.

Not only that, Brooks said Saddam may try to wipe out the Kurd and Shiite minorities in his country. By some estimates he has already killed 1 million of his own citizens, leaving some to say that it`s impossible to put a value on life.

Fox News` Brian Wilson contributed to this report.

[Joerver]

Are you ready?

U.S. Presses for Force to Disarm Iraq

BARRY SCHWEID
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - With no assurance of the outcome, the Bush administration says it is time for the 15 nations on the U.N. Security Council to "stand up and be counted" on using force to disarm Iraq.

As President Bush and senior American diplomats labored to round up votes at the United Nations and in world capitals, Secretary of State Colin Powell said "nobody really knows who has the votes until the votes are taken."

Bush also called in congressional leaders for breakfast on Wednesday.

But Powell told RTL television of Germany on Tuesday that "the United States feels it is appropriate to move forward with a vote in the absence of compliance on the part of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime."

Bush talked by telephone to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India and President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt while Powell directed his telephone diplomacy toward Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico and also talked to two supporters, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw of Britain.

Powell`s spokesman, Richard Boucher, said meanwhile, that "we have emphasized the importance for members of the Security Council to stand up and be counted" and to reaffirm the resolution adopted last November that warned Iraq of serious consequences if it did not disarm.

The Army`s oldest armored division, "Old Ironsides," got orders to head for the Persian Gulf as the total of U.S. land, sea and air forces arrayed against Iraq or preparing to deploy neared 300,000.

The commander who would lead the war, Gen. Tommy Franks, met at the Pentagon with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and was to consult with Bush at the White House on Wednesday.

American war planners still hope the Turkish parliament will reverse itself and permit the deployment of 62,000 U.S. troops to pave the way for an invasion of Iraq from the north.

The payoff for Turkey would be a say in northern Iraq, a stronghold of the Kurds, and a $15 billion aid package from the United States.

Still, Powell said if the parliament remained opposed "we have alternative plans that will allow us to conduct any military operations that the president might order.

"We`ll still be able to accomplish our mission," he declared.

While U.S. officials are not attempting a head count, a majority of the Security Council appears to prefer extending U.N. weapons inspections.

The White House and Powell left open the possibility that the administration would not seek a U.N. vote if the measure appeared to be doomed.

"The vote is desirable. It is not necessary," presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

And Powell said that after weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei report on Friday he would consult with other nations over the weekend.

"And then early next week we`ll make a judgment on what we have heard and whether it`s time to put the resolution up to a vote."

One option under serious consideration was Bush giving Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a final ultimatum, perhaps with a short-term deadline, in an address next week, two senior White House officials said.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, stressed that a variety of options were under consideration and that they depended on the outcome of the debate in the council.

Among them is Bush`s oft-stated option of using force to disarm Iraq with a "coalition of the willing" alongside the United States if the council does not adopt the U.S-British-Spanish resolution.

[Joerver]

ALBANY, N.Y., March 4 - A Selkirk man says he was arrested Monday for expressing his objection to possible war with Iraq at Crossgates Mall. He says all he did was wear a T-shirt bearing a message of peace, which he actually purchased in the mall.


STEPHEN DOWNS AND his son, Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back. The men paid about $23 for each of the shirts and then wore them in the mall.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren`t handing out leaflets, we weren`t saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
They may not have been saying anything, but they were creating enough of a disturbance to one employee, who called security.
Security asked Downs and his son to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn`t, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested.
"This struck me as a powerful way of expressing myself. I wanted to do something peaceful," he said.
Roger Downs says he is proud of his father.
"I`m impressed that he`s refused to have his civil rights violated," Roger Downs said.
New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen Gottlieb says he can`t believe the peaceful T-shirts could lead to Downs` arrest.
"We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we believe that protects the freedom to speak. Well, if there`s a freedom of speech, where do we get to do it?" Gottlieb asked.
Gottlieb says he believes there is a law protecting peoples` rights to free speech, even in shopping malls.
Guilderland police say they arrested Downs because he refused to leave private property. That, they say, is trespassing.
Representatives for Crossgates did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.


Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a `Peace` T-Shirt
March 4
— NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

When Downs refused the security officers` orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

"I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment.

Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17.

He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.


Copyright 2003 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

BUSH POLICIES, RHETORIC OF WAR AND PEACE TOE EVANGELICAL LINE "Nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans. That`s the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe to the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in this administration. It`s impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the centrality of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and "remake" the Middle East.President Bush has said that he doesn`t believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren`t sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution....I tend to disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing religious influence. For example, evangelicals` discomfort with condoms and sex education has led the administration to policies that are likely to lead to more people dying of AIDS at home and abroad, not to mention more pregnancies and abortions." 3.05.03

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Students pencil in Iraq protest
Organizers hoping for crowds, even if only between classes
By Bryan Long
CNN


ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --Amanda Crater, 20, will start Wednesday with butterflies in her stomach.

She`s one of many student organizers of "Books not Bombs," a countrywide campus war protest put on by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, and she admits she`ll be nervous.

But before Crater joins the University of California-Berkeley`s local demonstrations and before she calls several regional radio shows, Crater will attend an 11 a.m. class for her minor.

"I`m going to walk out of my dance class, which is kind of a big deal," she said. "I will go to class and leave early. Most of the activities begin at noon."

Call it appointment protesting, a modern spin on taking to the streets.

On Wednesday, students from more than 360 colleges and high schools will participate in a daylong strike. Although it`s unknown how many students will participate -- or to what degree they`ll take part -- organizers expect a wide range of activities for a diverse group of students.

Max Sussman, 20, has helped organize a daylong teach-in at the University of Michigan, where he`s a sophomore. There will also be a rally at noon that`s scheduled to last an hour.

More than 300 students in Ann Arbor have signed Sussman`s Anti-War Action pledge vowing some sort of participation.

"If people feel like they can attend one talk but they have one exam to take, then we consider them a participant," he said.

Protests, full schedules conflict
Unlike memorable protests of the Vietnam War, in which students skipped days of classes or shut down campuses for weeks, today`s collegiate activists pencil in their anti-war activities much like corporate executives plan for meetings.

David Davenport, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank associated with Stanford University, is familiar with both approaches.

"Back in the `60s and `70s, you know, they didn`t run on that kind of schedule. Protests might go on all afternoon," he said.

Today, fliers around college campuses -- and Internet sites, too -- announce when and where each protest will begin and end.

"Now it`s something you squeeze in as an extracurricular activity along with your classes and other projects," he said.

There are good reasons for the differences, Davenport said.

At the top of the list is that war with Iraq is still a theory. Americans were fighting in Vietnam for years before war protests reached a critical mass.

Also, because there is no draft, students are not as personally involved with a possible war as students were during Vietnam. And the vast majority of college students were less than 10 years old when the United States fought Iraq in 1991.

"The main war of their lifetimes has been the Gulf War, which was over in less than a week, so the kind of horror of body bags mounting up is just not of their experience," Davenport said.

Even collegiate supporters of the Bush administration aren`t immune from looking to the calendar to find time for rallies.

Erik Caldwell, 23, is chairman of the California College Republicans and a student at California State University San Marcos. Although there are no plans for "support our troops" rallies Wednesday, he has organized monthly pro-Bush events for about a year.

On most campuses, events start at noon, and "normally the university limits how long we can be out there," he said. Some last for half an hour.

`They want to do something`
Sara Ahmed, another organizer of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition protest, is not deterred by a full schedule.

"Most of the people that I`ve talked to on campuses really do have a good idea of how things work," Ahmed said. "I think that as far as they`re concerned, they want to do something."

Ahmed and the peace coalition are asking students to leave class for the day and attend war protests on campus.

"Obviously some students will not be able to do that, and that`s asking a lot," Ahmed said. "We`re not asking them to risk punishment on their own behalf if they don`t have to."

Many groups have chosen to demonstrate for a few hours, or only in the morning or afternoon. Some are working around midterm schedules, Ahmed said.

Although Davenport calls modern protests "neat, orderly and dispassionate," they still serve a purpose, he said.

Ultimately, Crater said, the peace coalition wants to send the message to the Bush administration and to educators on college and high school campuses that war can be avoided.

"We don`t want this [war] to be a cowboy fight," Crater said. "Every building we bomb in Baghdad will be another September 11. There will be innocent people dying in them."








Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/04/sprj.irq.college.protest/in…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Exclusive! What George Bush read this morning
Catherine Bennett
Thursday March 6, 2003
The Guardian

This morning, shortly after he got up, President Bush considered how to get away from "pettiness and paltriness of mind". What did his spiritual guide advise? "Ask God to keep the eyes of your spirit open to the Risen Christ, and it will be impossible for drudgery to damp you." Thus fortified, Bush resumed hostilities against Iraq.

That the president is a devout, born-`again leader of a crusading administration is well known. An article in Newsweek goes into much more detail about his religious practices, evoking the scene "ahead of the dawn", when "even before he brings his wife, Laura, a morning cup of coffee, he goes off to a quiet place to read alone". Bush`s chosen text, Newsweek discloses, is My Utmost for his Highest, a book of devotional readings by Oswald Chambers, an evangelical bible teacher who died in 1917. It provides a biblical text, along with Chambers` commentary, for every day of the year.

Assuming Newsweek is correct, we can all of us, each day, accompany Bush on his spiritual journey. Tomorrow, for example, he is due to contemplate a passage headed Undaunted Radiance, in which Chambers reminds the sinner that "the experiences of life, terrible or monotonous, are impotent to touch the love of God..."

The calendar format allows us to look back at key moments in this conflict and identify the spiritual text which might have informed the president`s day. On January 20, when he announced that he was "sick and tired of games and deception", Bush would have begun with a pre-dawn reflection on Isaiah`s response to God`s call, "Here am I; send me". On February 20, the day Bush agreed, with Blair, on a "final ultimatum" he would have considered Chapman`s exhortation to action, "always beware of giving over to mere dreaming once God has spoken". And if, as was reported then, concerted military attack is still fixed for March 14, then that morning Bush will have his mind on higher things: "There is no release in human power at all, but only in the Redemption".

Transcribed by Chambers` wife, Gertrude, after his death from appendicitis, My Utmost for His Highest is less concerned with tips on appropriate conduct, than with the forging of an intimate relationship with God: "If the crisis has come to you on any line, surrender your will to Him absolutely and irrevocably."

Spiritually, Chapman is a challenging, relentlessly demanding teacher; in worldly terms, he suggests an almost fatalistic surrender to God`s purpose (to be disclosed by the God-given outcome of things), which apparently made Chapman popular among troops in Egypt, where he volunteered as an army chaplain during the first world war. At his funeral, according to Oswald Chambers Publications Association Ltd, the charity which holds world rights in his work, 100 men escorted the gun carriage. The charity`s general manager, Mary Hutchison, suggests that his purpose was to impart faith to the soldiers, "so they could be seen through the crisis".

Today, with both the Pope and the Anglican church condemning war with Iraq as unjust, you can see how Chapman`s message of resolute submission to the Almighty might have considerable appeal for America`s commander-in-chief, as he confronts the "axis of evil". "Rise to the occasion, do the thing," Chapman urges, "May God not find the whine in us any more, but may he find us full of spiritual pluck and athleticism, ready to face anything he brings".

To Hutchison`s regret, such reflections have never been as popular here as in the US, where "Utmost", as she calls it, has sold two million copies since 1991. In Britain it sells 500 copies a month. Thanks to George Bush, that might change. "I can`t tell you how pleased I am", she says, "we`re so pleased, we`ve been praying for years that there would be some kind of revival". Sometimes, God moves in a most mysterious way.

But what about snake oil?

Imagine the excitement of Mark Field`s London constituents when, for the first time anyone could recall, the Conservative MP wrote asking for comments "on three issues of national importance". At last - an MP who really cared what they thought about the war, foundation hospitals, climate change, or similar.

But it seems Field is kept awake, of a night, by more pressing questions relating to licensing hours, broadcast communications, and perhaps dearest to his heart, snake oil.

"I am a regular taker of vitamin supplements", confessed Field, asking his constituents if alternative medicine should be "embraced more actively".

Although, with a war almost on, some constituents find Field`s investigations faintly superfluous, such democratic commitment, extending, he stresses, to those who are anxious "about the harmful health effects of dogs defecating in the streets", is surely exemplary. And besides, maybe he knows of a good alternative smallpox remedy.

Cull New Labour

Critics of the impending ruddy duck cull argue that it sets an alarming precedent, and certainly if duck-purity principles were to be applied to British political fauna the consequences would be devastating. Given the similarities between the plight of the rare, white-headed duck and that of the endangered British Tory, now vigorously interbreeding with New Labour to produce a probably sterile hybrid, there is every reason, following ruddy duck logic, to carry out a cull of the American intruder. With some scientists concerned that there may be only one native Tory breeding pair left in the country (Mr and Mrs Nicholas Soames), time is short.

True, at £915 per bird - or politician - the cost of such intervention is high and might outrage the British public. On the other hand ducks are widely preferred to MPs; in the absence of any politician welfare groups, the ruthless extermination of New Labour might be seen for what it is, a well-meaning attempt to give nature a helping hand.

Torygraph goes gothic

Readers of the Daily Telegraph, which has just been subjected to an amusing redesign, are divided on the merits of its gothic-style masthead. Is the heavy typeface once chosen by David Beckham to memorialise the birth of his son in a buttock-skimming tattoo, really up-to-the-minute enough for a happening young paper like the Telegraph? After all, Brooklyn has just celebrated his fourth birthday.

But a new Heineken advertising campaign featuring similar lettering on the stomach of the young singer Craig David, confirms that the redesign was worth every penny: in the tattoo parlours that presumably contain its target audience of goths, football fans and connoisseurs of fine lagers, the brand new Telegraph will be a must-have.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Christlicher Fundamentalismus Gefahr Für die USA?

The Relationship Between Religion and Identification With the Republican Party

About 8 in 10 Americans (79%) identify with the Christian faith in one way or the other, and about half of all Americans (47%) are Protestants. Forty-one percent of Americans say they are "born again," which is a New Testament term that evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants routinely use to signify a significant conversion experience. About one in six Americans (18%) go so far as to identify with the religious right. About one in four Americans routinely tell interviewers that they have attended worship services within the last week, and 60% say that religion is very important to them in their daily lives.

Most black Americans are Protestant (largely Baptist), and the vast majority identify with the Democratic Party. For that reason, some of the analysis that follows will focus on the attitudes of white Protestants in order to provide a clearer picture of the relationship between religion and politics, without the complicating factor of race.

Since Bush took office in January 2001, Gallup has asked Americans about their religious attitudes in five different polls.

One basic finding: Protestants are somewhat more likely to be Republicans than Catholics are and substantially more likely to be Republicans than are those who claim no religious preference. The relationship between identifying with a Protestant denomination and being Republican is particularly strong among whites:

Mehr unter:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030306.asp

[Joerver]

Kinder als Geiseln?

HE`LL SPILL HIS GUTS, OR ELSE

By NILES LATHEM and BRIAN BLOMQUIST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE WE COME:
U.S. B-52 bombers arrive at Royal Air Force base Fairford in western England.

March 4, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - A CIA team will use "all appropriate measures" to convince the just-captured mastermind of the 9/11 attacks to talk - including dangling freedom for his two young sons, who are in U.S. custody.
Law-enforcement sources told The Post that the CIA has had the 7- and 9-year- old sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in custody since September, and plans to use them as leverage to get the No. 3 man in al Qaeda to disclose Osama bin Laden`s whereabouts and details of future terror operations.

Mohammed, arrested Saturday in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, has undergone three days of questioning by the same team of CIA and FBI agents who have handled other high-profile terror war detainees.

Sources said the English-speaking Mohammed has refused to cooperate with interrogators - and instead has spent hours in a trance-like state, chanting passages from the Koran.


Die Meldung kommt von der Ney York Post einer Murdock Zeitung.
Gesamter Text:
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/69950.htm

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 06. März 2003, 12:29
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,238801,00.html
US-Gesetzesentwurf

Vom "Land of the free" zum Überwachungsstaat

Von Lutz Kleveman in New York

In den USA wächst der öffentliche Widerstand gegen den "Patriot Act", mit dem die Bush-Regierung seit Herbst 2001 ihre Bürger massiv überwacht und ausspioniert. Derweil strickt das US-Justizministerium unbeeindruckt an einem neuen, weitaus schärferen Gesetz, mit dem terrorverdächtige Amerikaner nun sogar heimlich verhaftet und ausgebürgert werden können.


Lutz C.Kleveman

Bürgerrechtler Jaffer: "Die Regierung ist besessen vom Drang nach Geheimhaltung"


Tiefschwarze Balken bedecken fast jede Seite, die Jameel Jaffer in dem Aktenordner vor sich aufschlägt. "Alle wichtigen Absätze haben sie unleserlich gemacht", sagt der Bürgerrechtler entgeistert. "Das ist eigentlich nur in Fragen der nationalen Sicherheit erlaubt, aber diese Regierung ist besessen vom Drang nach Geheimhaltung." Erst vor ein paar Tagen traf der Ordner im Hauptquartier der angesehenen Bürgerrechtsorganisation American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) im Zentrum von Manhattan ein. Absender: das US-Justizministerium.

"Ende letzten Jahres haben wir das Ministerium vor einem Bundesgericht verklagt, damit es uns Auskunft darüber gibt, wie viele US-Bürger es unter Terrorverdacht überwachen lässt und verhaftet hat", erklärt Jaffer und blickt aus seinem Bürofenster über den Hudson River, bis zur Freiheitsstatue. Nach ernstem Zureden des Richters lenkten die Anwälte des Ministeriums damals scheinbar ein. "Und jetzt haben sie uns das hier geschickt! Die Justizorgane können vom Volk nicht mehr zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Gleichzeitig ist diese Regierung aggressiver an Informationen über ihre Bürger interessiert als jede andere in der Geschichte der USA."

Der 32-Jährige und Dutzende weitere Aktivisten in der ACLU haben den Kampf aufgenommen gegen den "Patriot Act". Mit dem wenige Wochen nach den Terroranschlägen des 11. September 2001 hastig verabschiedeten Gesetz weitete der US-Kongress radikal die Befugnisse von Sicherheitsorganen aus, US-Bürger und Amerika-Besucher zu überwachen und auszuspionieren.

Schon arbeitet das Justizministerium allerdings an einem Gesetz für den "Patriot Act II", dessen 83-seitigen Entwurf das "Center for Public Integrity" Anfang Februar im Internet veröffentlichte. Darin drohen Amerikanern, die eine von der Regierung als terroristisch bezeichnete Gruppe unterstützen, der Entzug der Staatsbürgerschaft und die Abschiebung ins Ausland. Außerdem sollen US-Bürger erstmals heimlich festgenommen und in Haft gehalten werden können - ohne dass der Staat jemals Angehörige informieren muss. Auch eine nationale DNS-Datenbank für Terrorverdächtige gehört zu den Plänen der Beamten von Justizminister John Ashcroft.

Terrorkampf gegen Amerikaner

"Schon der erste Patriot Act ging viel zu weit und hat die demokratischen Kontrollmechanismen in unserem Land völlig ausgehebelt", empört sich Jaffer. "Der zweite Patriot Act soll uns nun noch mehr Bürgerrechte nehmen, ohne uns wirksam gegen Terroristen zu schützen. Das ist verfassungswidrig." Die ACLU will die Regierungspläne durchkreuzen: Vergangene Woche schaltete sie ganzseitige Anzeigen in der "New York Times", die die Leser zum Widerstand aufriefen. "Keep America safe and free" ist das Motto der 3,5 Millionen Dollar teuren Kampagne, die Bushs Kurs in Richtung Überwachungsstaat mit den antikommunistischen Verfolgungen unter Senator Joseph McCarthy in den fünfziger Jahren vergleicht.

Tatsächlich spiegelt die wachsende Opposition gegen den "Patriot Act II" die Angst vieler Amerikaner wider, dass sich die Heimatfront im "Krieg gegen den Terror" bald gegen sie selbst richten könnte. So heißt es in Absatz 501 des geplanten Gesetzes, dass einem Amerikaner die Staatsbürgerschaft entzogen werden kann, "wenn er, mit der Absicht, seine Staatsangehörigkeit aufzugeben, einer Gruppe beitritt oder ihr konkrete Unterstützung bietet, die die Vereinigten Staaten als eine `terroristische Organisation` bezeichnet hat". Das gelte auch, wenn der Bürger von den vermeintlich terroristischen Aktivitäten der Gruppe nichts gewusst und selbst nur legal gehandelt hat.

Entzug der Staatsbürgerschaft


Während ein US-Bürger einen Verzicht auf die Staatsbürgerschaft bisher offiziell erklären muss, soll dies nunmehr aus seinem "Verhalten rückgeschlossen" werden. Über die Ausbürgerung von Amerikanern hätte in Zukunft allein der US-Präsident zu entscheiden - unanfechtbar. Zu diesem in der US-Geschichte unerhörten Schritt wird das Justizministerium der Fall des Kaliforniers John Walker Lindh motiviert haben, der sich den afghanischen Taliban anschloss und während "Enduring Freedom" gegen US-Streitkräfte kämpfte. Dafür wurde der 21-Jährige inzwischen zu zwanzig Jahren Haft verurteilt, doch der vermeintliche Landesverrat und die Debatte über Lindhs religiöse Gründe dafür waren für US-Regierung hochpeinlich. Das könnte sie sich in Zukunft ersparen, indem sie "unamerikanische" Mitglieder der Gesellschaft schlicht desavouiert und ausbürgert - so wie es Saudi-Arabien mit Osama Bin Laden getan hat.

Einmal ihrer Staatsbürgerschaft beraubt, könnten US-Bürger als Staatenlose ins Ausland deportiert werden. Kurzfristig würde der Schritt allerdings wohl eher dem Entzug der Bürgerrechte dienen, damit Terrorverdächtige ohne rechtsstaatlichen Schutz behandelt werden können. Schon jetzt verlegen die CIA und das FBI eingestandenermaßen Verhöre vermeintlicher Mitglieder von Osama Bin Ladens Terrornetz al-Qaida in rechtsfreie Räume wie den US-Militärstützpunkt Guantanamo Bay auf Kuba oder in verbündete Staaten wie Ägypten, in denen regelmäßig angewandte Foltermethoden bessere "Ergebnisse" versprechen. Dass den jüngst in Pakistan verhafteten Top-Terroristen Chalid Scheich Mohammed genau dieses Schicksal erwarte, äußern dieser Tage ehemalige Regierungsbeamte offen in US-Fernsehsendern.

Was "Patriot Act II" in den Augen von Rechtsexperten besonders fragwürdig macht, ist die äußerst unklare Definition dessen, was eine terroristische Organisation ist. Darunter könnten, je nach Belieben der Regierung, auch militante Tierschutzgruppen fallen. Ihre Mitglieder könnten - so sieht es der Gesetzesvorschlag vor - schnell von der ebenfalls geplanten Ausweitung der Todesstrafe betroffen sein: Sollte etwa auf einem Protestmarsch ein unbeteiligter Passant gewaltsam ums Leben kommen, wäre die Todesstrafe auf Demonstranten anwendbar.

Das US-Justizministerium war für eine Stellungnahme nicht erreichbar. Nachdem der Gesetzesvorschlag durchsickerte, versicherten Ministeriumssprecher jedoch, bei dem Dokument habe es sich lediglich um einen ersten Entwurf gehandelt. Sie bemühten sich um politische Schadensbegrenzung: weder Minister Ashcroft noch das Weiße Haus hätten bisher Kenntnis von den Plänen erhalten.

Derweil regt sich auch im Kongress erster Widerstand gegen "Patriot Act II". "Wir täten der Nation keinen Dienst, wenn wir dieses Gesetz so verabschieden würden", sagte der demokratische Senator Patrick Leahy vergangene Woche. "Alle suchen nach einer schnellen Lösung, um uns sicherer zu machen, aber dieses Gesetz macht uns nicht sicherer." Gleichzeitig legten Leahy und sein republikanischer Kollege Arlen Specter, beide Mitglied des Justiz-Ausschusses, einen Bericht vor, der erstmalig Machtmissbrauch und ungesetzliches Vorgehen des FBI unter dem "Patriot Act" kritisiert und mehr parlamentarische Kontrolle einfordert. "Leider haben es das Justizministerium und das FBI mitunter abgelehnt, auf völlig legitime Fragen der Aufsicht zu antworten", heißt es in dem Bericht. Beide Senatoren unterstützen ein neues Gesetzesvorhaben, das die Justizorgane zwingen soll, wieder wie früher Rechenschaft über ihr Handeln abzulegen.

Demokratie wird abgegraben

Bislang können die Behörden unter dem "Patriot Act" alle polizeilichen Maßnahmen geheim halten. Er wendet nämlich kurzerhand ein Gesetz aus dem Jahre 1978 an, das damals der Abwehr ausländischer Spionage galt. Ein seinerzeit geschaffenes streng geheimes Gremium erteilt dem FBI heute problemlos Tausende Durchsuchungsbefehle, auch wenn die Zielobjekte schon lange keine sowjetischen Agenten mehr sind - sondern amerikanische Bürger selbst. Längst nutzt die Polizei diese einfache Methode auch nicht mehr nur bei Terrorverdacht, sondern in ganz regulären Strafverfahren. Das hat für Staatsanwälte den großen Vorteil, dass heimlich erlangte Beweise vor Gericht verwandt werden dürfen, ohne die Quelle preisgeben und die Stichhaltigkeit prüfen lassen zu müssen.

Selbst Verhaftungen an sich sollen in Zukunft geheim zu halten sein, geht es nach den Autoren des "Patriot Act II". Wie in südamerikanischen Militärdiktaturen in den siebziger Jahren würden FBI-Agenten dann US-Bürger auf bloßen Verdacht hin nachts aus ihren Wohnungen oder von der Arbeit abholen und auf unbestimmte Zeit einsperren dürfen. Weder ihre Familien noch Anwälte hätten ein Recht darauf, von ihrem Verbleib zu erfahren. Menschen würden einfach verschwinden. So wie die vermutlich etwa 900 Einwanderer aus muslimischen Ländern, die die US-Polizei nach dem 11. September 2001 landesweit in wochenlange Untersuchungshaft steckte - ohne konkrete Anklage und zum Teil ohne Rechtsbeistand. Fast alle wurden inzwischen entlassen, weil sich der Terror-Verdacht nicht erhärtete.

Bürgerrechtler hoffen, dass ausreichend Opposition den neuen "Patriot Act" noch stoppen kann. Am Dienstag gab es vor dem Justizausschuss des Senats eine Anhörung von Justizminister Ashcroft, in der er Aufklärung über Einzelheiten des durchgesickerten Entwurf des "Patriot Act II" erklären sollte. Er lehnte das ab, weil der Entwurf "noch nicht endgültig ausgearbeitet" sei. Die Senatoren Patrick Leahy und Russ Feingold waren sichtlich verärgert darüber. Feingold ist der einzige Senator, der damals gegen den ersten "Patriot Act" gestimmt hat. "Sie wollen den habeas corpus aufheben, das ist seit dem Bürgerkrieg nicht geschehen", schimpft Feingold, und Leahy urteilt: "Dieser Patriot Act ist nicht sehr patriotisch, wenn er heimlich ausgearbeitet wird."

Immerhin sind bereits zwei Regierungsprogramme an öffentlicher Empörung gescheitert: das Total Information Awareness, mit dem das Internet kontrolliert werden sollte, und das so genannte TIPS, mit dem die Regierung im Stasi-Stil Tausende Spitzel rekrutieren wollte, um Nachbarn und Verwandte auszuspionieren. Für Bürgerrechtler Jaffer ist die Sache eindeutig: "Die Bush-Regierung nutzt die Terrorgefahr, um den Menschen Angst zu machen. Die Demokratie wird Stück um Stück abgegraben, bis keine Demokratie mehr da ist."

[Joerver]

Es geht abwärts mit Mr.Bush

Poll: `Unnamed Democrat` leads President Bush

Thursday, March 6, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/20…


(03-06) 09:51 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.

Almost half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among those identified as independents, 46 percent favored the Democratic Party nominee while 39 percent chose the Republican president.

Bush fared better when matched head-to-head against Democratic candidates in a national poll last month, running almost 10 points ahead of some of the better known candidates such as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, as well as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said repeatedly that she is not running in 2004.

Among the Democrats questioned in the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton received the strongest support -- 37 percent. That was more than the next three candidates -- Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry -- combined.

Without Clinton in the race, Lieberman was at 21 percent, followed by Gephardt at 17 percent, Kerry at 12 percent and all others in single digits.

Overall, Bush`s job approval was at 53 percent, with 39 percent disapproving. Only 9 percent said they were "very satisfied" with the country`s direction, while 26 percent were "very dissatisfied."

©2003 Associated Press

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

`Toon ist aus der "Nevada Sun", ein äußerst konservatives Blatt.

[Joerver]

Begeisterung überall!

$2.50 a gallon for gas? Thank you, George!

"My God! Gas is now $2.50 a gallon!" I exclaimed to a resigned-looking gas station attendant last night. "It is a great tribute and credit to the American economy that it has survived thus far with the Global Village Idiot at the helm!" The attendant nodded and grinned. I bet his rent had just gone up and his wages had just shrunk like everyone else`s -- thanks to our very own Uncle George.

Here is a typical example of GVI economics: Taxpayers now pay 50 billion dollars a year to give oil companies access to the Middle East. Oil companies in turn sell it back to us taxpayers for only 19 billion dollars. "Can oil companies do that?" asked the horrified ghost of John Maynard Keynes.

"Of course they can," I replied. "Big Oil hasn`t paid a cent for any of the troops we`ve kept stationed in the Middle East, solely for their benefit, for the last 50 years. Taxpayers pay all that. Taxpayers pay $79,000,000,000, the oil companies pay pennies to be able to sell it back to us -- and guess who gets to wear the Armanis?"

Do the math, America. Get a solar-powered car. Bring our troops home. Save us from carpetbaggers, scalawags, terrorists and asphyxiation from duct tape! Evict George Bush.

"Sounds economical to me," mused Mr. Keynes.

Sincerely, Jane Stillwater, Berkeley, CA, 02.28.03

[Joerver]

Bush`Motto: "Sie mögen uns ruhig hassen, wenn sie uns nur fürchten!

March 7, 2003
Let Them Hate as Long as They Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN


Why does our president condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials? Has `oderint dum metuant` really become our motto?" So reads the resignation letter of John Brady Kiesling, a career diplomat who recently left the Foreign Service in protest against Bush administration policy.

"Oderint dum metuant" translates, roughly, as "let them hate as long as they fear." It was a favorite saying of the emperor Caligula, and may seem over the top as a description of current U.S. policy. But this week`s crisis in U.S.-Mexican relations — a crisis that has been almost ignored north of the border — suggests that it is a perfect description of George Bush`s attitude toward the world.

Mexico is an enormously important ally, not just because of our common border, but also because of its special role as a showcase for American ideals. For a century and a half Mexico has — often with good reason — seen its powerful neighbor as an exploiter, if not an outright enemy. Since the first Bush administration, however, the United States has made great efforts to treat Mexico as a partner, and Mexico`s recent track record of economic stability and democracy is, and should be, a source of pride on both sides of the border.

But Mexico`s seat on the U.N. Security Council gives it a vote on the question of Iraq — and the threats the Bush administration has made to get that vote are quickly destroying any semblance of good will.

Last week The Economist quoted an American diplomat who warned that if Mexico didn`t vote for a U.S. resolution it could "stir up feelings" against Mexicans in the United States. He compared the situation to that of Japanese-Americans who were interned after 1941, and wondered whether Mexico "wants to stir the fires of jingoism during a war."

Incredible stuff, but easy to dismiss as long as the diplomat was unidentified. Then came President Bush`s Monday interview with Copley News Service. He alluded to the possibility of reprisals if Mexico didn`t vote America`s way, saying, "I don`t expect there to be significant retribution from the government" — emphasizing the word "government." He then went on to suggest that there might, however, be a reaction from other quarters, citing "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people."

And Mr. Bush then said that if Mexico or other countries oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline."

These remarks went virtually unreported by the ever-protective U.S. media, but they created a political firestorm in Mexico. The White House has been frantically backpedaling, claiming that when Mr. Bush talked of "discipline" he wasn`t making a threat. But in the context of the rest of the interview, it`s clear that he was.

Moreover, Mr. Bush was disingenuous when he described the backlash against the French as "not stirred up by anybody except the people." On the same day that the report of his interview appeared, The Financial Times carried the headline, "Hastert Orchestrates Tirade Against the French." That`s Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives. In fact, anti-French feeling has been carefully fomented by Republican officials, Rupert Murdoch`s media empire and other administration allies. Can you blame Mexicans for interpreting Mr. Bush`s remarks as a threat to do the same to them?

So oderint dum metuant it is. I could talk about the foolishness of such blatant bullying — or about the incredible risks, in a multiethnic, multiracial society, of even hinting that one might encourage a backlash against Hispanics. And yes, I mean Hispanics, not Mexicans: once feelings are running high, do you really think people will politely ask a brown-skinned guy with an accent whether he is a citizen or, if not, which country he comes from?

But my most intense reaction to this story isn`t anger over the administration`s stupidity and irresponsibility, or even dismay over the casual destruction of hard-won friendships. No, when I read an interview in which the U.S. president sounds for all the world like a B-movie villain — "You have relatives in Texas, yes?" — what I feel, above all, is shame.






Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Der ultimative Leitartikel!

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

The Lie Of The U.S. Military
Tough gritty American soldiers protect freedom of liberal S.F. columnist? Or the other way around?
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
Friday, March 7, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



I get this a lot: Hey Mark, you know what you should do, you pathetic piece of liberal S.F. scum? You should kneel down right now and thank our angry God there`s a hard-ass non-pussified non-wimpy U.S. military out there protecting your pathetic little butt, baby. Isn`t that thoughtful?

You should be damn grateful, they scowl, that these fine men and women are risking their lives to ensure your right of free speech, your contemptible ability to scribble these pansy liberal words, to call Shrub a smirking daddy`s boy, to suggest that God doesn`t exist or that Lynne Cheney frightens small children and makes paint peel, all while remaining safe and cozy in your little hippie-happy tofu-licking gay-friendly S.F. cocoon, all protected and insulated and smug.

I get this a lot, too, in response to columns about, say, alternative religion, or spirituality, or progressive politics, or sex, or open mindedness or anything that rubs conservatives the wrong way, which is, of course, just about anything: How can you write such typical lefty liberal drivel while "real" men and women are out there making "real" decisions about "real" issues?

When people are dying from poison gas and are having their fingernails ripped out by evildoers, and you just wait until your pathetic little faggy S.F. and granola Berkeley get "hit" and your family and friends are screaming and burning to death and we`ll see how you feel then, won`t we, when Dubya tried to warn you and where will your hippie crap be then huh? Huh?

It`s touching, truly.


And there are many more, most filled with flaming bile, with a rabid pro-military lust, homophobia like a calling card, aimed at me, at S.F, at progressives, at gays -- anyone, really, who is not in blind lockstep support of everything ShrubCo spins their way, and never failing to leverage the rather inane "be grateful you live in this country" argument, much like saying, be grateful you weren`t born in 1347 and suffered serfdom and had boils all over your face and died toothless at age 24. Yes, I am grateful. Every day. Thank you.

Let us now speak blasphemy. Let us point up something no one seems to be mentioning, as Shrub sends in 300,000 of our youth to blast a cheap thug who is, by every account, no serious threat to the U.S., and never has been, and who had nothing to do with 9/11, and whose ties to terrorism are tenuous at best, all while rabid North Korea happily buys more nuke technology from desperate Pakistan and sells the finished product to the highest bidder.

Here it is: The military does not protect my freedom. Our soldiers are not out there right now safeguarding me, or you, or us, from some sort of total, `50s-era, Red Scare-esque dictatorial overthrow of our nation; nor is the military guaranteeing I have the right to write this column any more than it is protecting your right to read it, or to protest the war and speak freely and smoke imported French cigarettes and watch porn and drive really fast. Not anymore, they`re not. Not this time.

More than ever before in recent history, the otherwise worthy U.S. military is right now in service not of the people, not of the national security, but of the current government regime and its corporate interests. Has it always been this way? Of course. But this time, with our smirky Enron president and cash-hungry CEO administration, it`s never been so flagrant, or insulting, or invidious.


Our soldiers are not protecting our freedoms. They are not preventing more terrorism. They are not guaranteeing continued free speech. Because the only true threat to such freedoms is coming from within.

There is every indication that our own government, more than any other in the Western world, is the one that would like our free speech quelled, dissenting voices silenced, proofs of wrongdoing or proofs of corporate greedmongering that are used as a cheap excuse to massacre an estimated half-million Iraqis, eliminated.

There is every indication that John Ashcroft would love nothing more than to shut down independent thought and snuff out all those dirty pictures and turn off the whole gol-durn Internet once and for all.

There is every flagrant sign that Rummy and Ari Fleischer think the media would do good to shut the hell up and be grateful they`re even allowed on the White House grounds. "If you`re not with us, you`re with the terrorists," they glower, as if everyone were 5 years old, and drugged, and stupid.

There is every indication that BushCo would love nothing more than to fire truckfuls of tear gas into those crowds of 11 million protesters a few weeks ago, clamp down all those millions of negative voices causing him such a global headache, brainwash the media and the populace, continue to turn attention away from that pesky unfindable Osama to that evil easily annihilated Saddam, make you think the two are somehow connected, one and the same, and that if you disagree you are a traitorous baby-killing communist, how dare you, don`t you value your freedom?

Of course I do. Which is exactly why this war is so inane, and vile.

This war was never about your safety, or the safety of this nation, or protecting freedom. It is about strategic power bases, oil reserves and control. It is about regional supremacy first, petroleum and military supply industries second, humanitarian and domestic-security concerns, well, about 147th.

It was never about WMD. It was never about terrorism. It was never about Saddam, except insofar as Saddam is a threat to those same corporate concerns. The U.S. military is right now serving ExxonMobile. And Lockheed Martin. And is protecting, unbeknownst to it, our grip on power brokering in the Middle East.

Which naturally might raise the question, What, then, is actually protecting America`s freedom? What forces are guaranteeing free speech? Protecting your civil liberties?

It`s you. It`s millions of independent, resistant voices, in chat rooms and e-mail boxes and magazines and on Web sites all over the nation and the world.

It is staggering and potent protests like the all-time largest global rally of Feb. 15. It is artists and actors and musicians, writers and renegades and thinkers, professors and pundits and op-ed columnists and daring newspaper editors.

Do you see? It is these people, these voices, that are right now keeping the doors of personal freedom from swinging shut. It is those who push back, refusing to be misled, resisting the crackdown. What is keeping America free is not the military -- it is independent thought. It is the progressive provocative evil "hippie vibe" that refuses to let Bush completely molest the nation.

Because BushCo would love nothing more than for everyone to shut the hell up so it can bomb in peace. And they are trying. E-mail snooping, Homeland Security, the draconian Patriot Act, new wiretap laws, the (failed) Total Information Awareness mega-database, expanded powers for the police and FBI, immigrant detention, a raging international blanket campaign to forcibly convince everyone of their warmongering cause, as most of the world just stands there, appalled, insulted, and says no way.

Here`s another irony: Major newspapers and TV and magazines, despite regular GOP puling about the "damn liberal media," is largely in lockstep support of the war, giving scant coverage to ongoing world protests, painting Chirac like the ogre Shrub wants you to think he is, hyping up biotoxic threats and downplaying the pathetic meagerness of the Iraqi military, or the hundreds of thousands of estimated civilian casualties and refugees this war will generate, the hundreds of billions it will cost us.

Look. We possess a potent, world-class military. Dedicated and serious and no one questions their ability, their commitment, despite how the vast majority of wary soldiers signed up during peacetime, for the quick money, to help pay for college, or because they couldn`t find decent jobs, and not for some noble patriotic cause. But no matter.

Was I supportive of quick, aggressive military action against the largely fragmented and untraceable al Qaeda? Was I glad to see undercover air marshals on civilian aircraft shortly after 9/11? Do I support our military in times of true crisis and need, when there is an actual viable threat? Absolutely. Is this one of those times? No way. Here`s how I support them now -- get them out before a single one is killed.

Because here is the freedom our military is currently protecting: The freedom of cheap gas for the next decade. The freedom of expanded power in the Middle East. The freedom of continued American gluttony abroad, of a foreign policy that reeks of isolationism and corporate greed and preemptive fist-to-face threats. It ain`t worth it.

Is the military protecting us from terrorism? Doubtful. By most every estimate, Shrub`s war will only ignite more anti-U.S. hatred, spark more countries to fuel up and prepare for America`s random attack. We are not pouring water on the dying embers of U.S. revulsion -- we are kicking them. As hard as we can.

I understand and value the need for a strong military. I appreciate the necessity. But the war in Iraq does nothing but denigrate the value and integrity of our military. Note to conservatives: Those soldiers aren`t out there dying for you, they`re dying for strategic political power, for some oil exec`s portfolio. They`re protecting the American oligarchy. Does that make you feel proud?

This war, then, is a direct slap in the face, an insult not just to progressives and liberals but to the country, and to the very soldiers themselves. I hereby kneel down in my liberal hippie gay-friendly S.F. cocoon and pray to my godless tofu-lovin` universe that they don`t die in oily vain.


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

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

Subscribe to Mark`s deeply skewed, mostly legal Morning Fix newsletter.
Mark Morford`s Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate, unless it appears on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which it never does. He also writes the Morning Fix, a deeply skewed thrice-weekly e-mail column and newsletter. Subscribe at sfgate.com/newsletters.

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

Bush brüskiert namhafte Journalisten.

Press Irony at the White House


President George W. Bush broke precedent at his press conference last night by not calling on either the senior correspondent present, Helen Thomas of Hearst Syndicate, or on the White House correspondent of the Washington Post, Mike Allen. No doubt the snub to Thomas, who at age 84 is pridefully grumpy, results from her outspoken support for the president`s Middle East opponents, her insistence that he means to kill innocent Iraqis to steal that nation`s oil and her well-paid tours of college campuses where she has attacked his Iraq policy and called Bush "the worst president ever," indeed "the worst president in all of American history."
Any snub to the Washington Post might be understood in terms of its consistently anti-Republican and anti-Bush editorial policy. But to snub the gentlemanly and intelligent Allen, so scrupulously professional and fair in his reporting that many of his editors do not know he is a conservative whose late father, Stanford-educated Gary Allen, ranks with Ayn Rand and William F. Buckley among the best-selling conservative authors of the postwar era, is ironic if not darkly humorous. The senior Allen`s 1972 book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, sold well over 6 million copies and, with other Gary Allen books raking the liberal establishment, helped to create the middle-class reaction that laid the groundwork for the election of Ronald Reagan.

The younger Allen is a graduate of Washington and Lee University and worked his way up the ladder of political journalism in Virginia before reaching one of the top rungs as White House correspondent of the Washington Post just as Bush came to the presidency.

Thomas was White House bureau chief for United Press International from 1974 to 2000, when the venerable wire service was bought by the company that owns Insight and the Washington Times. She then joined Hearst but continued to cover the White House. It is she who by custom had for years been allowed to ask the first question at presidential press conferences and to end them on behalf of the press corps by saying, "Thank you very much."



http://www.insightmag.com/news/388890.html

[Joerver]

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html

[aekschonaer]

http://www.weiter-so.de

[Joerver]

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen03062003.html
Dies ist eine US-Web-Side

CounterPunch

March 6, 2003

Time for Sanctions Against the Bush Administration
Boycott America?
By WAYNE MADSEN

The international political system has a method for dealing with regimes that flout the United Nations Charter -- sanctions. Sanctions come in different flavors. Sanctions like economic boycotts have teeth, others like travel bans are more symbolic but are more easily imposed and relatively effective. It is time for the United Nations and its individual members to consider political and other sanctions against the Bush administration. After all, other countries and regimes that have snubbed their noses at international norms of behavior have been on the receiving end of sanctions. The United States heartily supported such measures against regimes in South Africa, Rhodesia, Iran, Iraq, Burma, Libya, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Taliban-run Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, Angola`s UNITA, Cuba, and Sudan.

But now it is the United States, governed by a coterie of war hawks, which threatens international order and stability. The Bush administration is threatening to bombard Iraq with a volley of bombs and missiles that will "shock and awe" the Iraqis into surrendering.

The Bush administration is severely in need of a demonstration of international will that will "shock and awe" Washington back into some semblance of rationality and sanity. That can best be done by imposing wide sweeping political sanctions on the Bush administration. By targeting the Bush administration and not the general American public, the international community can put key members of the Bush administration on notice that their behavior has consequences, even for officials of the "world`s only remaining superpower."

The concept of international sanctions against the Bush administration are nothing new. The idea was first floated by the European Union in March 2001 when the United States pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, while saying trade sanctions against the United States were premature, warned of other broad implications stemming from America`s withdrawal from the treaty.

The international community should begin with a ban on visits by the top U.S. political leaders who support flouting the United Nations and other regional international organizations. For starters, the list of Americans who could be refused visas, including transit visas, might include Donald Rumsfeld, his top deputies - Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, Dov Zakheim, and Peter Rodman, Vice President Cheney`s chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Strategy John Bolton and his deputy David Wurmser, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her assistants Elliott Abrams and Otto Reich and consultant Michael Ledeen, Attorney General John Ashcroft, and UN ambassador John Negroponte.

The travel ban should also be extended to such key administration advisers and propagandists as Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle, Center for Security Policy director Frank Gaffney, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, America`s ayatollah of morality William Bennett, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and DPB members Kenneth Adelman and Newt Gingrich.

The European Union has already imposed such a travel ban on 72 officials of Zimbabwe`s government. The United States also imposed a travel ban on President Robert Mugabe and 19 of his top officials. The UN Security Council has imposed travel bans on Iraqi`s top military leaders and top leaders of Angola`s UNITA rebel movement. Travel restrictions were also imposed by the Clinton administration on Burma`s military leadership and their families from visiting the United States.

In addition to the European Union and national governments imposing a travel ban on top Bush administration officials, national, regional, and municipal legislatures could also pass symbolic resolutions stating that key members and supporters of the Bush administration are "not welcome" to visit their countries, provinces, and cities. What would be more valuable for the court of public opinion than a city mayor or a regional leader informing a visiting Bush administration official or political loyalist that he or she is not officially "welcome" by the host government? That sort of bad press is every public relations person`s worst nightmare. It is a tactic worth seriously considering.

Travel bans or "unwelcome" resolutions could also be extended to members of the U.S. Congress who stand in lockstep with the Bush administration. Considering the number of overseas congressional junkets that take place on an almost weekly basis, it would not be long before GOP loyalists and their Democratic quislings would begin to realize what their administration has wrought in severely damaging U.S. relations with the rest of the world.

Another sanction option could be the boycotting of official U.S. diplomatic functions and cultural events by local government and business leaders, as well as celebrities. Considering Canada`s strong opposition to Washington`s unilateral policies, a boycott by Canadian politicians and dignitaries of social and other official events surrounding Bush`s upcoming May 5 state visit to Canada would appear to be in tall order.

People abroad have already started their own grass roots sanction program against the Bush administration by canceling or curtailing pleasure trips to the United States. European travel industry insiders report that hundreds of thousands of Europeans have decided to cancel trips to the United States, opting instead to spend their vacations in Europe, Asia, Latin America, or Canada. Many European air travelers object to being cajoled into providing personal information to the U.S. government, including bank account data, credit information, and even dietary habits. Traveling within Europe or to countries that do not impose such draconian screening measures appeal more to the average European traveler. As a result, America`s tourist destinations are feeling the economic pinch.

Focusing a sanctions campaign against key members of the Bush administration and their more rabid supporters in the private policy laundering sector would serve notice that the world`s patience has its limits and the Bush administration has pushed the envelope on that patience. It is clearly time to build upon the successes of the global anti-war movement and ratchet up the pressure on the Bush regime through a sanctions and boycott process. To the American Revolutionaries in Boston, economic boycotts against the British served as an important catalyst in the successful rebellion against another mad King George. They worked then and they should be tried now.

[Joerver]

Hans Blix
BuzzFlash is proud to bring you original sociopolitical cartoons by Eric Harrison.



http://www.buzzflash.com/cartoons/03/03/07.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Big Penis Monologues Hitch


Eve Ensler`s fabulously-successful THE VAGINA MONOLOGUES so affectionately – and warmly – embraced by Oprah Winfrey, Jane Fonda, Glenn Close, Calista Flockhart, Marisa Tomei, Rosie Perez, Teri Hatcher, Lisa Gay Hamilton, Queen Latifah, Brooke Shields, Julie Kavner, Amy Irving among hundreds of others has been performed in over 40 countries along with two North American touring companies, is currently booked in over 160 cities in the US & Canada and has been translated into over 35 different languages.

George W. Bush’s THE PENIS MONOLOGUES so provocatively – and demonstratively – swallowed by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Ari Fleischer, Condoleezza Rice (yes, her too!), Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, William Safire, Rupert Murdoch and, apparently 59% of the “American People” has been unable to win support from 9 countries including its two American neighbours and is blocked in 4 key cities in China, Russia, France and Germany, despite being translated into over 135 different languages and dialects by a crack Madison Avenue guru who resigned – what else? – “to devote more time to my family” on Wednesday.


_________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The lavishly expensive and spectacular world premiere of the eagerly-awaited The Penis Monologues will now not take place next Wednesday March 12, in Baghdad, Iraq as widely promoted and advertised.

This is the only conclusion to be drawn from the unprecedented more-rigidly-stage-managed-than-a-state-funeral-eulogy prime time televised ‘news conference’ by President George W. Bush last evening.



During which, answering carefully pre-selected reporters’ softball questions, instead of confirming the ‘curtain-up’ time and date as everyone expected, he restricted himself to regurgitating word-for-word everything he and others in the administration have been saying over-and-over-and-over (and still nobody’s buying it) and over-and-over-and-over again, for over 18 months when he first announced a determined, concerted and unstoppable thrust to get The Penis Monologues off the ground and into the cool dry Arabian desert air.

Before it becomes the very hot dry Arabian desert air.

This shock decision came especially hard for Mave O’Darsden, Executive-Editor-in-Chief of The Penis Monologues Inc. (An AOL Time Warner Company) who has invested much of his own money and time in the project and was looking forward to next Wednesday’s launch and a rare pre-taped appearance on Larry King Live.

“We’ve all been working so hard to get The Penis Monologues staged on March 12. At first no-one was interested or took me seriously. But after much cajoling and guaranteeing conditions of strict anonymity and promising not to use a tape recorder or even a pen, pad, laptop, hairy Palm or hand-held BlackBerry I persuaded the key players to let everything hang-out about their penis,” O’Darsden said “to do penis interviews, which became penis monologues.

“In all I talked with over ninety men -- and yes, one woman -- individually, holding together the nub of this administration.

“I talked to older men, young men, married men, single men, gays, African American men, Hispanic men, Asian American men, Native American men, Caucasian men, Jewish men. At first the men were reluctant to talk. They were a little shy. But once they got going, you couldn’t stop them.

“To protect these high individuals sticking-out so prominently in the public eye – and the occasional Beverly Hills rest room – from repercussions by their outraged immediate families and close friends or, in two cases, even loved ones, I originally deliberately resisted identifying participants directly.

“But now with the whole shooting match in jeopardy I’m coming way-out and have no compunction pointing my fickle finger of fate at the originators of some of the more juicy Penis Monologues monologues.

“I vividly remember the frosty morning when Mr. Bush himself, carrying the heavy burdens of a legal re-election in 2004 on his shoulders peered through the bullet-and moth-proof Oval Office curtains at his shiny new dark-green Marine Corps XP helicopter, its stationary semi-erect rotor blades throbbing gently above the hoar-covered lawn and told me, ‘If that doesn’t force a son to compare his own with his father’s I don’t know what does. After all, this is a guy that tried to kill my dad at one time. I lay awake alone at nights wondering, like many men in my position, just how big is Saddam’s Al Samoud 2 exactly?’

“He looked around in that peculiar way he does,” O’Darsden continued, “seeking fawning approval from his assembled peers. But there was no-one.


“Then,” O’Darsden said, “in a scene eerily reminiscent of John Wayne’s college football locker-room epics of the 1940’s when millions were away overseas performing on real gridirons, in the White House Oval Office oval men’s room Donald Rumsfeld, even more crotchety than most 72-year-olds, grunted and clutched his crotch and buttocks, alternately.

“‘If his father had thrust ever further and deeper in 1992 as I told him to,’ Rumsfeld muttered, ‘maybe we wouldn’t have-to today. Classical Greek theatre is littered with powerful men and their sons reduced to desperate measures – even committing political suicide – at the last minute when the Turks about-face and ass. But that’s not the problem. We just can’t let the swarthy dictator of a third-rate fabulously-oil-rich nation have a bigger missile than our president’s. The ‘American People’ demand no less. Or more.’”

Obviously shocked and taken aback, O’Darsden continued apace, “Perhaps the most chilling penis monologue of all came when, in his private men’s room in the back of his stretched limo, Dick Cheney opened his shirt, clutched his Compaq XP Pacemaker and confessed, ‘Hans Blix believes it’s roughly eight feet six inches long when fully primed. But no-one ever got that close. And lived to tell.’

Condoleezza Rice, yes her too, has a significant part in The Penis Monologues.

O’Darsden says he asked her, “Madame, what’s your considered military opinion as the token minority woman member of the Cabinet clutched from a relatively-undistinguished career in academia? Can you allow the world’s worst leader with an eight foot six missile sitting astride the world’s largest untapped oil reserves, holding the mighty United States in abject bondage? However pleasurable..?”

“She hastily removed her own hand from her own crotch,” O’Darsden went on, “and completed the question herself. ‘Let me complete your question myself, by adding…however pleasurable...with a collection of the world`s worst instruments of mass pain and hurting?’

“‘The war on terror between consenting adults straining to video themselves suffering pain in private involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorise himself and scandalise his own people in his dingy palaces and darkest dungeons as the world watches in abject fascination…’

“Her voice tailed-off into the muggy Washington night and she never did finish this particular penis monologue,” O’Darsden said, “but we kept it in the show anyway.

“Tommy Franks willingly contributed many of the penis monologues. In his own particularly charming crisp military fashion,” O’Darsden admitted.

“‘Once, I vividly remember, fully be-medalled and be-uniformed crossing the Kuwait desert in his stretched Humvie’s men’s room he ordered himself uncrotched and said, ‘Myths are floating around. And much as I like a floating myth just like the next 5-Star General this has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil. No matter where on your body you apply it rigorously and vigorously.

“‘Our intelligence – that we can’t share with the public to protect Saddam’s only still-virgin and still-beautiful 18-year-old great-great-granddaughter – indicates he has hidden video equipment surreptitiously watching as he primes his Al Samoud 2 before groups of identical moustached uniformed military men and women. But since we can’t know what the duration and trajectory will be, we can’t predict, using some formulation, some mathematical model, what the objects of his wildest desires might look like.’”



O`Darsden`s temples throbbed passionately as he continued, “Meanwhile, if this unfortunate cancellation weren`t enough, from China we’re told the Beijing State Opera, to coincide with the original planned March 12 launch, is already selling pirated DVD’s of The Penis Monologues with high-voiced female impersonators playing the roles of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Tommy Franks, Ari Fleischer, Condoleezza Rice (yes, her too!), Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.

“And British generally-reliable crack spokespersons thought to be very close to trusted sources indicate Prime Minister Tony Blair finally wet his trousers and told Foreign Minister Jack Straw to get a Penis Monologue postponement after admitting to an MTV interviewer that opponents in his own party are gathering steam in their quest to force him to perform long excerpts from The Penis Monologues with Kylie Minogue at their Conference in Blackpool in September.”



Senior overseas asticle* crack bureau heads Dr. Doudelle Bangomosphère (Paris), Professor Traugott Schimpansen (Berlin) and staff writer Zeke Chesterton Jr. contributed to this report.

© The New Tork Yimes Company MMIII. All rights unpreserved. This material may be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Joerver]

Hinweis: #197 ist eine Satire! Als Hinweis für die 18%, die keine Tagesschau verstehen und für die, die für den Krieg sind (lt.Deutschlandtrent nur 13% zuzügl. die unentschlossenen) oder beides.
Hier im Board scheinen es allerdings viel mehr zu sein von beidem.

Anbei noch den Link:

http://www.asticles.com/asticles/penis.htm

[Joerver]

4 Jahre sind zu viel!

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Some Evidence on Iraq Called Fake
U.N. Nuclear Inspector Says Documents on Purchases Were Forged

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A01


A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations` chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq`s secret nuclear ambitions.

Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council.

ElBaradei also rejected a key Bush administration claim -- made twice by the president in major speeches and repeated by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell yesterday -- that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Also, ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

"There is no indication of resumed nuclear activities," ElBaradei said.

Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The documents had been given to the U.N. inspectors by Britain and reviewed extensively by U.S. intelligence. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

"We fell for it," said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.

A spokesman for the IAEA said the agency did not blame either Britain or the United States for the forgery. The documents "were shared with us in good faith," he said.

The discovery was a further setback to U.S. and British efforts to convince reluctant U.N. Security Council members of the urgency of the threat posed by Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction. Powell, in his statement to the Security Council Friday, acknowledged ElBaradei`s findings but also cited "new information" suggesting that Iraq continues to try to get nuclear weapons components.

"It is not time to close the book on these tubes," a senior State Department official said, adding that Iraq was prohibited from importing sensitive parts, such as tubes, regardless of their planned use.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pursued an ambitious nuclear agenda throughout the 1970s and 1980s and launched a crash program to build a bomb in 1990 following his invasion of neighboring Kuwait. But Iraq`s nuclear infrastructure was heavily damaged by allied bombing in 1991, and the country`s known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war.

However, Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for nuclear weapons, and kept key teams of nuclear scientists intact after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. Despite international sanctions intended to block Iraq from obtaining weapons components, Western intelligence agencies and former weapons inspectors were convinced the Iraqi president had resumed his quest for the bomb in the late 1990s, citing defectors` stories and satellite images that showed new construction at facilities that were once part of Iraq`s nuclear machinery.

Last September, the United States and Britain issued reports accusing Iraq of renewing its quest for nuclear weapons. In Britain`s assessment, Iraq reportedly had "sought significant amounts of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil nuclear program that could require it."

Separately, President Bush, in his speech to the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 12, said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy-high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Doubts about both claims began to emerge shortly after U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq last November. In early December, the IAEA began an intensive investigation of the aluminum tubes, which Iraq had tried for two years to purchase by the tens of thousands from China and at least one other country. Certain types of high-strength aluminum tubes can be used to build centrifuges, which enrich uranium for nuclear weapons and commercial power plants.

By early January, the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion: The 81mm tubes sought by Iraq were "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, but appeared intended for use as conventional artillery rockets, as Iraq had claimed. The Bush administration, meanwhile, stuck to its original position while acknowledging disagreement among U.S. officials who had reviewed the evidence.

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Bush said Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Last month, Powell likewise dismissed the IAEA`s conclusions, telling U.N. leaders that Iraq would not have ordered tubes at such high prices and with such exacting performance ratings if intended for use as ordinary rockets. Powell specifically noted that Iraq had sought tubes that had been "anodized," or coated with a thin outer film -- a procedure that Powell said was required if the tubes were to be used in centrifuges.

ElBaradei`s report yesterday all but ruled out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. The IAEA chief said investigators had unearthed extensive records that backed up Iraq`s explanation. The documents, which included blueprints, invoices and notes from meetings, detailed a 14-year struggle by Iraq to make 81mm conventional rockets that would perform well and resist corrosion. Successive failures led Iraqi officials to revise their standards and request increasingly higher and more expensive metals, ElBaradei said.

Moreover, further work by the IAEA`s team of centrifuge experts -- two Americans, two Britons and a French citizen -- has reinforced the IAEA`s conclusion that the tubes were ill suited for centrifuges. "It was highly unlikely that Iraq could have achieved the considerable redesign needed to use them in a revived centrifuge program," ElBaradei said.

A number of independent experts on uranium enrichment have sided with IAEA`s conclusion that the tubes were at best ill suited for centrifuges. Several have said that the "anodized" features mentioned by Powell are actually a strong argument for use in rockets, not centrifuges, contrary to the administration`s statement.

The Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington-based research organization that specializes in nuclear issues, reported yesterday that Powell`s staff had been briefed about the implications of the anodized coatings before Powell`s address to the Security Council last month. "Despite being presented with the falseness of this claim, the administration persists in making misleading arguments about the significance of the tubes," the institute`s president, David Albright, wrote in the report.

Powell`s spokesman said the secretary of state had consulted numerous experts and stood by his U.N. statement.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

The German Angst, oder weshalb habe ich so ein ungutes Gefühl.


Congress urged to permit `low-yield` atomic weapons
Pentagon`s bid to roll back nonproliferation policy makes U.S. a hypocrite, Tauscher says
Washington Post
Saturday, March 8, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2003%2F03…


Washington -- The Pentagon has asked Congress to lift its restriction on the development of smaller "low-yield" nuclear warheads, a move critics say would encourage other countries to develop their own stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Such a device would be used to attack facilities holding chemical or biological weapons. In principle, the heat or radiation of the low-yield weapon -- one below 5 kilotons -- would destroy the toxicity of the agents before they were spread by the force of the blast. This week, the Pentagon sent language to Capitol Hill that would, if approved, drop the 8-year-old restriction.

The Pentagon also is about to take the first public step toward obtaining a high-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapon that could be aimed at North Korea`s underground nuclear and missile production facilities, according to senior Bush administration officials.

Within a week, an Air Force report is to be delivered to the House and Senate Armed Services committees stating the military requirements for the "robust nuclear earth penetrator" -- a device designed to dig into the ground before it explodes and crushes any facility buried beneath it. Five times more powerful than the device detonated at Hiroshima, the bomb would have an even greater impact, because a nuclear weapon`s force is multiplied when its shock wave penetrates the rocky crust of the Earth.

These moves drew criticism after Energy Department officials were questioned at a House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.

Noting the Bush administration`s standoff with North Korea over its plans to build nuclear weapons, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, a senior member of the committee, said, "I don`t see how we look at all the nuclear wannabes in the face when we have announced a halfhearted attempt to take down half our own big nuclear weapons, and we are going to now launch ourselves into a whole series of new weapons."

David Albright, a physicist who is president of the Institute for Science and International Security and an expert on North Korea, said, "It is a bad idea to develop these things, which probably would never be used, and do so openly. It develops a lot of paranoia among proliferating states who believe the U.S. is planning to attack them."

When the "earth penetrator" was first discussed in the 1990s, it was conceived as having a low yield -- a relatively small output of radiation, heat and explosive force -- so that if it exploded in the basement of a palace on the outskirts of Baghdad, it would not create much fallout.

Today, however, the goals are different. Potential enemies are burying their war-making facilities, said Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, and there is a need for developing a weapon whose nose cone could penetrate frozen soil or rocks.

One of the suspected sites for North Korea`s covert uranium enrichment plant is a uranium milling facility built underneath a mountain. Three other suspected nuclear production sites also are thought to be hidden near or in large sites carved out of mountains.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Es gibt im Augenblick viele lesenswerte Artikel in der englischsprachigen Presse, zu viele um diese alle zu kopieren. Einen Link möchte ich empfehlen, in dem alles gesammelt wird, was an bushkritischem in den Zeitungen erscheint.
Trotz des Namens sind die Quellen seriös, soweit ich es beurteilen kann.
J.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

Das Motto der Seite:
Ask not at whom the chimp smirks- he smirks at you.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Bruce Hammond by Bruce Hammond



http://www.ucomics.com/brucehammond/


yer = you are ?
J.

[Joerver]

Der Krieg fordert Opfer

[Joerver]

Die Versteigerung geht weiter.


Firm linked to Cheney wins oil-field contract
Hussein may destroy facilities in event of war
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, March 8, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archiv…


Washington -- A company tied to Vice President Dick Cheney has won a Pentagon contract for advice on rebuilding Iraq`s oil fields after a possible war.

The contract was disclosed in the last paragraph of a Defense Department statement on preparations for Saddam Hussein`s possible destruction of Iraq`s oil fields in the event of a U.S.-led invasion. The statement calls for proposals on how to handle oil well fires and for assessing other damage to oil facilities. The contract went to Kellogg Brown & Root Services, which is owned by Halliburton Co., of which Cheney was chairman until his election in 2000.

The Houston company is a respected name in petroleum industry construction and one of a few companies capable of large-scale oil field reconstruction. But its ties to Cheney arouse suspicions among those who believe that a primary motive for a U.S. war in Iraq is oil.

"I certainly don`t think this comes as much of a surprise," said Michael Renner, a researcher at WorldWatch Institute, commenting on the Halliburton contract, "There are lots of business opportunities embedded in this war. It represents the larger oil and energy issues at stake."

The White House wouldn`t comment on how the contract might fuel such suspicions. "I deal with the reality of situations," said spokesman Ken Lisaius. "The president has made it abundantly clear about the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to us and our friends. We stand by to help rebuild a liberated Iraq."


NO COMMENT FROM CHENEY
Cheney`s office declined comment, but a Halliburton spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal that Kellogg Brown & Root has been doing government contracting since the 1940s. The Pentagon wouldn`t discuss the exact size of the contract, nor how it was rewarded, saying the information is classified.

The initial Kellogg Brown & Root contract doesn`t mean it has an inside track on later contracts potentially totaling billions of dollars to rehabilitate Iraq`s oil fields, explore new ones and pump the increased supply.

Even if they emerge unscathed, Iraq`s oil fields will need work performed by companies like Kellogg Brown & Root. Daily production has slumped during the past two decades, worn down by wars and, since 1991, by United Nations sanctions that barred imports of equipment. Daily output capacity is about 2 million barrels, down from 3.5 million barrels before Hussein took power in 1979.

With enough investment, it`s thought Iraqi production could surge to 10 million to 12 million barrels a day within a decade.

Iraq`s proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels are the world`s second- largest behind only Saudi Arabia. And there might be large untapped fields in Iraq ripe for exploration.

Renner is convinced that U.S. multinational oil industry firms would strike it rich in post-war Iraq. "Regime change in Baghdad would reshuffle the cards and give U.S. (and British) companies a good shot at direct access to Iraqi oil fields for the first time in 30 years -- a windfall worth hundreds of billions of dollars," he said.

Administration supporters say past history refutes claims that a war with Iraq is about oil.

"This bumper sticker mentality about oil was wrong in the 1991 Gulf War, and it`s wrong now. We gave the oil back to Kuwait back then, and this war, at root, is about the nature of Saddam Hussein`s regime," said James Phillips, foreign policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.


REBUILDING TOOL
Administration officials have said they view Iraq`s petroleum wealth as a tool for rebuilding. "Iraq`s natural resources belong to all the Iraqi people and -- after decades of being used to build palaces and weapons of mass destruction -- will finally be used for their benefit, not Hussein`s," wrote deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley in a recent op-ed article in the Washington Post.

In saying that, the White House is following international law, said David Caron, a professor at UC Berkeley`s Boalt Hall School of Law. Under the 1907 Hague Convention, the United States would be present in Iraq as an occupying power and would hold the country`s resources in trust.

It could rebuild Iraq`s oil infrastructure, but probably would have to recognize contracts that oil companies from France, China and Russia have signed with Hussein`s regime, even though their governments oppose a war.

"I don`t think the United States would get into breaching contracts, but there would be room for new contracts to be let," Caron said.

Using an open bidding process that wouldn`t favor American firms "would be wise politically," he added.


EXPERIENCE IN KUWAIT
In San Francisco, anti-war activists have accused the Bechtel Corp., the engineering firm that rebuilt Kuwait`s oil fields after Hussein destroyed them in the 1991 Gulf War, of waiting to profit from a new conflict. Bechtel officials discount that assertion as nonsense.

Spokesman Jonathan Marshall said that while the company is proud of the work it did rebuilding Kuwait`s fields, "Bechtel has never lobbied to create a political crisis there. We`re not even at war yet, so it`s premature to speculate."

But Marshall added that "I`m sure the United States government will consider Bechtel if there is work to be done."

A report by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, a think tank created by the former secretary of state to the first President George Bush, warns the current administration not to show favoritism for American firms in rebuilding Iraq`s oil industry.

"There should be a level playing field for all international players to participate in future repair, development and exploration efforts," the report said. "A heavy-handed American approach will only convince them (the Iraqis) . . . and the rest of the world that the operation against Iraq was undertaken for imperialist, rather than disarmament, reasons."

E-mail Edward Epstein at [e-mail].

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Kein Fake

http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=12713…


BUSH: CLAP ME OR NO EU SPEECH

By Paul Gilfeather


GEORGE Bush pulled out of a speech to the European Parliament when MEPs wouldn`t guarantee a standing ovation.

Senior White House officials said the President would only go to Strasbourg to talk about Iraq if he had a stage-managed welcome.

A source close to negotiations said last night: "President Bush agreed to a speech but insisted he get a standing ovation like at the State of the Union address.

"His people also insisted there were no protests, or heckling.

"I believe it would be a crucial speech for Mr Bush to make in light of the opposition here to war. But unless he only gets adulation and praise, then it will never happen."

Mr Bush`s every appearance in the US is stage-managed, with audiences full of supporters.

It was hoped he would speak after he welcomed Warsaw pact nations to Nato in Prague last November. But his refusal to speak to EU leaders face-to-face is seen as a key factor in the split between the US-UK coalition and Europe.

The source added: "Relations between the EU and the US are worsening fast - this won`t help."

[Joerver]

03/07 07:29
U.S. Public Divided on War With Iraq, CBS News Poll Shows
By Tamra Santana


Washington, March 7 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. public is divided on whether the Bush administration has presented enough evidence to justify a war with Iraq, with 47 percent saying the administration has made the case for war and 44 percent saying it still hasn`t, according to a new CBS News poll.

The poll showed the 48 percent think the main goal in Iraq is to disarm the country, while 27 percent say it is removing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Of those polled, 68 percent said they believe the Bush administration has already decided to take military action, and 59 percent said the U.S. should wait for United Nations approval before doing so, while 36 percent said the U.S. should take action without UN backing.

The poll of the 723 people taken March 4 and March 5 has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, CBS News said.




©2003 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Trademarks.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Mal was anderes:


http://www.takebackthemedia.com/free.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
George Bush and the Words of War


By Ken Ringle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2003; Page F01



The challenge is one of achieving the proper oratorical tone. How does a leader like President Bush address a crisis in such a way that he inspires and unites his people while sowing fear in his enemy?

Whatever one thinks of his Iraq policy, even the president`s supporters concede that he has been less than Churchillian in employing his speeches effectively to marshal national and international opinion against Saddam Hussein. In fact, the more he talks, the more support around the world appears to slip away. Why?

"Every president has his own oratorical style," says Stephen Wayne, a presidential scholar and professor of government at Georgetown University. "Bush`s is concrete and conversational, much the way he talks. It suits him . . . but it lacks the idealistic language of a Kennedy . . . the sort that seizes the imagination."

Bush`s oratory has "improved since he`s been in office," says James C. Humes, a professor of language and leadership at the University of Southern Colorado and a former speechwriter for Presidents Nixon and Ford. "But he`s not happy with artifice" and "tends to avoid the sort of imagery that made Churchill`s speeches so memorable."

Bush has sent our armed forces to root out al Qaeda and the menace of terrorism, and he has told us it will be a long fight. But he`s spent more time telling us what we have to fear than he has summoning us to what John F. Kennedy called the "long twilight struggle" against "those who would make themselves our adversaries."

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, by contrast, cultivated an attitude of confident and lofty disdain for their enemies, whether those enemies were economic, like the Great Depression, or military, like Adolf Hitler.

As Kennedy said of Churchill, "He mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."

Churchill didn`t just exhort the British people ("We shall fight on the beaches . . .") and denounce Hitler (". . . every stain of his infected and corroding fingers will be . . . blasted from the surface of the earth"). He also marshaled humor into defiance ("They thought they would wring our neck like a chicken. Some chicken! Some neck!") and even made a point of pronouncing the word "Nazi" with a drawn-out nasal "a" and a soft, slushy "z" that made it sound like something disgusting discovered beneath a toilet seat.

When FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," he made the economic meltdown of the 1930s appear suddenly inconsequential -- almost dismissible. Everyone knew it was still there -- a quarter of the work force was unemployed -- but it suddenly appeared tiny next to the courage and resolution the new president affirmed in the American people.

Ours is not an age given to the cultivation of great oratory or its devices, and presidents as disparate as Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman have struggled with the same problem as George W. Bush.

But even today some leaders have shown themselves profoundly gifted in using words and demeanor to marshal the collective spirit with both strength and reassurance. Think of New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in the darkest moments of 9/11. Not noted previously as a great orator, and denounced throughout his mayoralty as a divisive figure in New York, he nonetheless held the nation together almost single-handedly with his words and bearing immediately after the terrorist attacks, even as the World Trade Center was falling around him.

How did he do so? He spoke with quiet confidence of "we" New Yorkers and "we" Americans and the continuity of the city and the nation. He denounced the terrorists as criminals, but he spent more time praising the courage of the police and firefighters doing their heroic but dangerous and horrifying work. There was a stoical quality to his oratory. He summoned us to be more than victims. And so we were.

The president seems not to grasp how much might be accomplished by comporting himself as a man of stature who views Hussein as a lower form. Instead he harries the Iraqi dictator with accusations much the way a terrier shakes a rag toy: After a while the continued existence of the toy becomes more noteworthy than the ferocity of the terrier. Hussein grows in stature by consequence.

To make these observations is not to demean the president, whose powers of focus and persuasion in private have been attested by far too many people to ignore. But one puzzle of his oratory is that he invokes religion so often in his speeches but rarely employs the language, cadence and metaphors of the King James Bible, which even less spiritual leaders have used to such powerful effect.

For example, Humes says, in writing perhaps the most famous presidential speech in American history -- the Gettysburg Address -- Abraham Lincoln "sought language that would be both stately and familiar to his audience. When he said, `Four score and seven years ago,` he was echoing the `three score and 10` that the Old Testament portrays as man`s allotted span of life. When he said, `Our fathers brought forth on this continent,` he was echoing the language used in both Matthew and Luke to describe the birth of Jesus, and thus suggesting something holy in the founding of the United States."

Such language worked on both the imagination and the emotions of his listeners, Humes says, "because even the unlettered in his audience in those days went to church and heard the Bible read. Their ears were conditioned to those phrases and those rhythms."

Although few of our leaders are Churchills or Lincolns, Humes says, many of their rhetorical techniques can be learned and adapted by those who recognize the extraordinary power the well-spoken word continues to convey. But he and other presidential scholars concede that many politicians have become skeptical of that power in the television age and impatient with the dedication necessary to hone their oral presentation skills, as well as their visual ones.

Historian Edmund Morris, biographer of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, says George W. Bush is actually a better speaker than his father. The elder Bush, Morris says, "is a strong, intelligent and attractive man" when encountered in person or in small groups. But when speaking to large groups, especially on television, "he appeared somehow insubstantial" and his presidency suffered because of it.

In his book "Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln," published last year, Humes suggests a reason taken from two decades ago: "Once when I was drafting remarks for him, President Bush told me, `All speeches are [bull]!` He didn`t understand the appeal of Reagan, who had mastered the art."

Ronald Reagan was no Churchill, but the 40th president was a great communicator, Humes says, partly because as an actor he understood that the power of spoken phrases derives not just from what they mean but also from how they sound. "He worked his speeches over and over and often wrote better than his speechwriters," Humes says. "His oratory was highly individualistic."

Reagan was attacked and stereotyped as a war hawk every bit as savagely as George W. Bush is today, Morris says. "Time has romanticized the reception of his speeches quite a bit because phrases like `the evil empire` turned out to be true, and he turned out to be right about the way to defeat communism.

"But he was caricatured as a reckless cowboy, particularly in Europe, exactly the way Bush is now. The difference is he had that magnificent look to him. He really was a gentle man, and the gentleness of his demeanor contrasted with the harshness of his rhetoric in a way that caused people to take what he said very seriously. And he had a whole arsenal of gestures, like that way of cocking his head, that underlined what he was saying."

With war in the air today, however, it is the speeches of Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt that want comparison with George W. Bush`s. Both men used the spoken word to coax divided, isolationist nations toward military confrontations that they recognized as vital but from which their electorates shrank.

The times were different, certainly, and the power of their words was emphasized by the medium of radio, which in those pre-TV days imbued them with a formality and seriousness free of visual distractions.

Both men were patricians, with a lofty sense of history and destiny and a keen sense that the civilized world was often riding on their decisions and their words. Both had a flair for the dramatic that might be suspect in our more cynical age.

But Humes, whose five books on Churchill include three just on Churchillian oratory and phrasing, points out that as speakers, FDR and Churchill were confident enough and skilled enough to employ humor in subversive ways to both raise their rhetorical stature and devastate their opponents.

Roosevelt once managed the neat trick of diminishing his most bitter Republican opponents merely by archly cataloguing them under the names of three GOP leaders: Martin, Barton and Fish.

Would it be possible now for President Bush to describe the predatory nature of Saddam Hussein by adapting Churchill`s famous parable of the duplicitous peace-mouthing Nazis?

It seems, the prime minister would say, that the zoo in Berlin featured a cage where a lion and a lamb lived together in peace and harmony. It was a great drawing card for visitors.

One visitor asked the zookeeper, "How did you find such a lion?"

"The lion isn`t the hard thing," replied the zookeeper. "It`s the lamb. Every morning we need a new lamb."

Often Churchill could make his point with a single line. In the darkest days of 1940, with the victorious German army poised just across the English Channel, he announced: "We are waiting for the invasion. So are the fishes."

Humes quotes Churchill as saying that the "scaffolding" of a great speech is built with contrast, rhyme, echo, alliteration and metaphor. The use of those tools is evident in two of the images Churchill made popular in the English language -- "Iron Curtain" and "summit conference," as well as his assertion that the British victory at El Alamein "is not the end . . . not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." But just as important, Humes says, was the studied employment of an unusual word for dramatic effect.

Roosevelt`s description of the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor as "a date which will live in infamy" was highly deliberate, Humes says. "Infamy" is a word easily understood but rarely employed. FDR`s use of it has linked it forever with Pearl Harbor.

President Bush`s use of the phrase "axis of evil," however, has been widely criticized as both melodramatic and counterproductive -- an overblown attempt to compare the regimes in Iraq, Iran and North Korea to the Germany, Japan and Italy "axis" of World War II.

There`s no question, says Georgetown`s Wayne, that Bush`s oratory "lacks the eloquence of a Churchill, the idealism of a JFK, the Americanism of a Reagan or the emotional empathy of a Clinton."

But, he says, the larger challenge of a leader is to have his oratory "capture the needs and mood of his country." Two of President Bush`s speeches have risen to that challenge, Wayne says: his first speech from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and his speech to Congress nine days later. For better or worse, he says, presidents have to deal with their own stereotypes, and he thinks many Churchillian flourishes in Bush`s speeches would strike people as false.

Were he to advise the president about speechifying, Wayne says, he would suggest that Bush make his more important speeches less conversational with injections of "tight but elegant" language to inspire the American people. "But it may be that the time for that is after a war starts. Right now the president is still making his argument for going to war. And he obviously feels more comfortable making that argument with a minimum of rhetorical devices."



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Kinder in Geiselhaft seit September 02.


CIA has 2 sons of the 9/11 architect
Olga Craig
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH

Published March 9, 2003


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

KUWAIT CITY — Two young sons of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being held by the CIA to force their father to talk, interrogators said yesterday.
Yousef al-Khalid, 9, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, 7, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided an apartment in Karachi where their father had been hiding.
He fled just hours before the raid, but his two young sons, along with another senior al Qaeda member, were found cowering behind a clothes closet in the apartment.
The boys have been held by the Pakistani authorities, but this weekend they were flown to America, where they will be questioned about their father.
CIA interrogators confirmed last night that the boys were staying at a secret address where they were being encouraged to talk about their father`s activities.
"We are handling them with kid gloves. After all, they are only little children," said one official, "but we need to know as much about their father`s recent activities as possible. We have child psychologists on hand at all times, and they are given the best of care."
Their father, Mohammed, 37, is being interrogated at the Bagram U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He is being held in solitary confinement and subjected to "stress and duress" interrogations.
He has been told that his sons are being held and is being encouraged to divulge future attacks against the West and talk about the location of Osama bin Laden, officials said.
"He has said very little so far," one CIA official said yesterday. "He sits in a trancelike state and recites verses from the Koran. But while he may claim to be a devout Muslim, we know he is fond of the Western-style fast life.
"His sons are important to him. The promise of their release and their return to Pakistan may be the psychological lever we need to break him."
The Kuwaiti-born Mohammed named his older son after Ramzi Yousef, his nephew, who was convicted of masterminding the 1993 attack on New York`s World Trade Center. After the attack, Yousef fled to the Philippines with his uncle.
When bomb-making chemicals set fire to their Manila apartment, Yousef fled to Pakistan, where he was captured in an Islamabad hotel room in 1995.
Mohammed was in the next room and, audaciously, gave an eyewitness account of the arrest to a reporter. By the time the Pakistani authorities found out his true identity, he had fled the country.
He was eventually arrested March 1 in a house in Rawalpindi, two miles from the home of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. Among the items found in the house was a photograph of a smiling Mohammed with his arms around his two sons.
Known as "the Engineer," he is suspected of being the mastermind of the Oct. 12, 2002, Bali bombings in Indonesia that killed more than 180 people, and the man who slashed the throat of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in January 2002.
Little is known of his sons` mother, who is thought to be Pakistani. "We have no evidence that suggests she has anything to do with al Qaeda," a Pakistani intelligence source said yesterday.
"All we know is that she is the sister of an al Qaeda member that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed met at a Pakistan college, the University of Dawa al Jihad, in the late 1980s."
The college, considered a premier Islamic military academy, is said to have been a breeding ground for terrorists where bomb making was among the subjects on its unofficial curriculum.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Joerver]

Warum gilt das, was vor 12 Jahren gültig war heute nicht mehr?
J.


Dick Cheney on the History Channel, Feb 23 2003, "Operation Desert Storm" (aired at 9pm Pacific Time), speaking about the decision not to go into Baghdad at the end of Operation Desert Storm:

"As long as we were leading the coaltion liberating Kuwait we were looked upon, I think, with great favor, and wide spread support in the Arab world. If we crossed over, to the point where we were going to Baghdad, taking down an Arab government, and replacing it with some other kind of government, then we would have been the colonial imperialist power and the perception would have been very different."

[Joerver]

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Just War — or a Just War?


Rob Hatem


By JIMMY CARTER


TLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war`s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein`s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America`s world standing if we don`t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq`s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize

[Joerver]

New York Times 09.03.2003

Saying No to War
Within days, barring a diplomatic breakthrough, President Bush will decide whether to send American troops into Iraq in the face of United Nations opposition. We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections. But like everyone else in America, we feel the window closing. If it comes down to a question of yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no.

Even though Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said that Saddam Hussein was not in complete compliance with United Nations orders to disarm, the report of the inspectors on Friday was generally devastating to the American position. They not only argued that progress was being made, they also discounted the idea that Iraq was actively attempting to manufacture nuclear weapons. History shows that inspectors can be misled, and that Mr. Hussein can never be trusted to disarm and stay disarmed on his own accord. But a far larger and more aggressive inspection program, backed by a firm and united Security Council, could keep a permanent lid on Iraq`s weapons program.

By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve. Mr. Hussein would now be likely to accept such an intrusive U.N. operation. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home.

Unfortunately, by demanding regime change, Mr. Bush has made it much harder for Washington to embrace this kind of long-term strategy. He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration. Every signal from the White House is that the diplomatic negotiations will be over in days, not weeks. Every signal from the United Nations is that when that day arrives, the United States will not have Security Council sanction to attack.

There are circumstances under which the president would have to act militarily no matter what the Security Council said. If America was attacked, we would have to respond swiftly and fiercely. But despite endless efforts by the Bush administration to connect Iraq to Sept. 11, the evidence simply isn`t there. The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of Al Qaeda living within its borders, but that same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies in the region. It is natural to suspect that one of America`s enemies might be actively aiding another, but nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence.

The second argument the Bush administration cites for invading Iraq is its refusal to obey U.N. orders that it disarm. That`s a good reason, but not when the U.N. itself believes disarmament is occurring and the weapons inspections can be made to work. If the United States ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim in the conflict will be the United Nations itself. The whole scenario calls to mind that Vietnam-era catch phrase about how we had to destroy a village in order to save it.

President Bush has switched his own rationale for the invasion several times. Right now, the underlying theory seems to be that the United States can transform the Middle East by toppling Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a showplace democracy and inspiring the rest of the region to follow suit. That`s another fine goal that seems impossible to accomplish outside the context of broad international agreement. The idea that the resolution to all the longstanding, complicated problems of that area begins with a quick military action is both seductive and extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has not been willing to risk any political capital in attempting to resolve the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, but now the president is theorizing that invading Iraq will do the trick.

Given the corner Mr. Bush has painted himself in, withdrawing troops — even if a considerable slice remains behind — would be an admission of failure. He obviously intends to go ahead, and bet on the very good chance that the Iraqi army will fall quickly. The fact that the United Nations might be irreparably weakened would not much bother his conservative political base at home, nor would the outcry abroad. But in the long run, this country needs a strong international body to keep the peace and defuse tension in a dozen different potential crisis points around the world. It needs the support of its allies, particularly embattled states like Pakistan, to fight the war on terror. And it needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you do not invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons. When the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable propositions, it`s time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goals.

[Joerver]

Nochmals die Nyt

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Xanax Cowboy
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON — You might sum up the president`s call to war Thursday night as "Message: I scare."

As he rolls up to America`s first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.

But the Xanax cowboy made it clear that Saddam is going to pay for 9/11. Even if the fiendish Iraqi dictator was not involved with Al Qaeda, he has supported "Al Qaeda-type organizations," as the president fudged, or "Al Qaeda types" or "a terrorist network like Al Qaeda."

We are scared of the world now, and the world is scared of us. (It`s really scary to think we are even scaring Russia and China.)

Bush officials believe that making the world more scared of us is the best way to make us safer and less scared. So they want a spectacular show of American invincibility to make the wicked and the wayward think twice before crossing us.

Of course, our plan to sack Saddam has not cowed the North Koreans and Iranians, who are scrambling to get nukes to cow us.

It still confuses many Americans that, in a world full of vicious slimeballs, we`re about to bomb one that didn`t attack us on 9/11 (like Osama); that isn`t intercepting our planes (like North Korea); that isn`t financing Al Qaeda (like Saudi Arabia); that isn`t home to Osama and his lieutenants (like Pakistan); that isn`t a host body for terrorists (like Iran, Lebanon and Syria).

I think the president is genuinely obsessed with protecting Americans and believes that smoking Saddam will reduce the chances of Islamic terrorists` snatching catastrophic weapons. That is why no cost — shattering the U.N., NATO, the European alliance, Tony Blair`s career and the U.S. budget — is too high.

Even straining for serenity, Mr. Bush sounded rattled at moments: "My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I`m going to do. . . . I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that`s what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that`s exactly what I am going to do."

But citing 9/11 eight times in his news conference was exploitative, given that the administration concedes there is no evidence tying Iraq to the 9/11 plot. By stressing that totem, Mr. Bush tried to alchemize American anger at Al Qaeda into support for smashing Saddam.

William Greider writes in The Nation, "As a bogus rallying cry, `Remember 9/11` ranks with `Remember the Maine` of 1898 for war with Spain or the Gulf of Tonkin resolution of 1964. . . ." A culture more besotted with inane "reality" TV than scary reality is easily misled. Mr. Greider pointed out that in a Times/CBS News survey, 42 percent believe Saddam was personally responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and in an ABC News poll, 55 percent believe he gives direct support to Al Qaeda.

The case for war has been incoherent due to overlapping reasons conservatives want to get Saddam.

The president wants to avenge his father, and please his base by changing the historical ellipsis on the Persian Gulf war to a period. Donald Rumsfeld wants to exorcise the post-Vietnam focus on American imperfections and limitations. Dick Cheney wants to establish America`s primacy as the sole superpower. Richard Perle wants to liberate Iraq and remove a mortal threat to Israel. After Desert Storm, Paul Wolfowitz posited that containment is a relic, and that America must aggressively pre-empt nuclear threats.

And in 1997, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard and Fox News, and other conservatives, published a "statement of principles," signed by Jeb Bush and future Bush officials — Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams. Rejecting 41`s realpolitik and shaping what would become 43`s pre-emption strategy, they exhorted a "Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity," with America extending its domain by challenging "regimes hostile to our interests and values."

Saddam would be the squealing guinea pig proving America could impose its will on the world.

With W., conservatives got a Bush who wanted to be Reagan. With 9/11, they found a new tragedy to breathe life into their old dreams.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die Jokes werden härter

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Alles Clinton oder was?










Der tägliche "I miss Clinton" Toon

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 09. März 2003, 14:00

Irak-Krise

Blair droht Zerfall seiner Regierung

Großbritannien und die USA wollen dem Irak offenbar eine Abrüstungsliste vorlegen. Binnen sechs Tagen solle Saddam Hussein die darauf erwähnten Waffen zerstören. Unterdessen droht Premierminister Blair wegen seiner harten Pro-Kriegshaltung in der eigenen Partei Ungemach.

London - Mehrere Regierungsmitglieder haben für den Fall eines Irak-Krieges ohne Uno-Mandat ihren Rücktritt angekündigt. Ein Labour-Abgeordneter hat bereits am Sonntag Fakten geschaffen: Andrew Reed trat aus Protest gegen Blairs Irak-Politik von seinem Posten als parlamentarischer Privatsekretär von Umweltministerin Margaret Beckett zurück. Laut "Sunday Telegraph" haben mindestens sechs Privatsekretäre von Kabinettsministern mit ihrem Abschied gedroht. Sogar ministerielle Rücktritte würden nicht ausgeschlossen.

Aus der Partei sollen bereits zahlreiche Mitglieder wegen der Irak-Politik Blairs ausgetreten sein: Laut "Mail on Sunday" gaben 40.000 Labour-Mitglieder ihr Parteibuch zurück. In verschiedenen Wahlkreisen sei die Wiederwahl von Labour-Abgeordneten gefährdet, berichtete die Zeitung. Die Mitgliedschaft der Labour-Partei ist nach offiziellen Angaben laut "Mail" von 405.000 im Jahr 1997 auf etwa 272.000 geschrumpft.

Nicht verhandelbare Liste

Dem britischen "Observer" zufolge haben sich die Regierungen in London und Washington auf eine "endgültige und nicht verhandelbare Liste" über die Abrüstung von Waffen im Irak geeinigt. Wie die Zeitung am Sonntag berichtete, wird die Zerstörung dieser Waffen innerhalb der nächsten sechs Tage verlangt, wenn ein Krieg noch verhindert werden soll. Grundlage für die Liste sei der jüngste Bericht von Chef-Waffeninspektor Hans Blix.


"Wir wollen Saddam Hussein ein klares Ultimatum geben. Wir wollen ihm deutlich sagen, was er zu tun hat", sagte ein Sprecher der britischen Regierung dem "Observer". Damit solle unterstrichen werden, dass es immer noch die Chance einer friedlichen Abrüstung gebe. Einzelheiten der Liste wurden in dem Bericht nicht genannt. Die USA drängen den Uno-Sicherheitsrat, schon am Dienstag über eine neue Irak-Resolution zu entscheiden.

Kriegsdiplomatie in der heißen Phase

Vor einer Abstimmung im Sicherheitsrat laufen die Bemühungen von Kriegsbefürwortern und -gegnern weiter, das jeweilige Lager zu stärken. Der französische Außenminister Dominique de Villepin zog seinen Besuch der afrikanischen Mitgliedstaaten im Weltsicherheitsrat vor, um sich deren Unterstützung für eine friedliche Lösung im Irak-Konflikt zu sichern. Er wird am Abend nach Angola, Kamerun und Guinea reisen. Ursprünglich war von Anfang dieser Woche die Rede. Auch die USA umwerben die drei afrikanischen Staaten. Für die Annahme ihres Resolutionsentwurfs benötigen die USA, Großbritannien und Spanien neun der 15 Stimmen im Weltsicherheitsrat. Zudem darf kein Veto der ständigen Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrats eingelegt werden.

Während die diplomatischen Bemühungen hektisch weitergehen, verstärken Türken und Amerikaner ihre militärischen Vorbereitungen zum Aufbau einer irakischen Nordfront. Die türkische Armee verlegte Panzer in den Nordirak. Das US-Militär setzte am Sonntag die Entladung von Kriegsmaterial in türkischen Häfen fort.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003

[Joerver]

Battlefield nukes
Secret Vietnam-era report, just declassified, highlighted dangers
James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, March 9, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


It was the height of the Vietnam War, and though the American military was pounding the North relentlessly with one of the heaviest bombing campaigns in history, it was having no apparent impact. So a group of highly regarded scholars prepared a secret study for the Pentagon on whether using a sledgehammer -- battlefield nuclear weapons -- might finally turn the tide.

The group, part of the influential but little-known Jason Division, met for six weeks at UC Santa Barbara in the summer of 1966, then sent their carefully researched 55-page analysis, warning in powerful language that unleashing the nuclear genie would undoubtedly backfire and have devastating consequences for the United States.

Nearly four decades later, that report has been declassified and released, and it makes clear, in terms that are strikingly relevant today, that if some commanders were hoping for a justification for more devastating strikes against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, they were sorely disappointed.

The study concluded that a nuclear attack would have only limited success against a guerrilla army and, worse, would provoke nuclear counterattacks against highly vulnerable American installations. At a time when the Bush administration has quietly proposed the pre-emptive use of smaller, tactical nuclear weapons against states like Iraq or North Korea, those conclusions remain as sobering today as they were then.

"The use of TNW in Southeast Asia is likely to result in greatly increased long-term risk of nuclear guerrilla operations in other parts of the world," the authors wrote, using the acronym for tactical nuclear weapons. "U.S. security would be gravely endangered if the use of TNW by guerrilla forces should become widespread."

Substitute "terrorists" or "rogue states" for "guerrilla forces" and the report could be addressing the new American policies. The Bush administration has proposed, in a sharp departure from the past, the possible first-use of tactical nuclear weapons, even against non-nuclear states, to destroy caches of chemical or biological weapons.

Senior administration officials and some weapons experts have argued that this more threatening posture is needed to deter foes. Opponents of the new policies have taken a position strikingly similar to that of the Jason group, saying that removing the inhibitions on the use of nuclear weapons -- firmly in place since 1945 -- would only encourage hostile groups to work that much harder to acquire their own, and then to use them.

"The general conclusions of our report are still valid for any war in which the United States is likely to be engaged in the future," said Freeman Dyson, a physicist who was one of the report`s authors and is now a professor emeritus at Princeton`s Institute for Advanced Study. "The main conclusion is that the United States offers to any likely adversary much better targets for nuclear weapons than these adversaries offer to the United States. This is even more true in the fight against terrorism than it was in Vietnam."

Added another author, S. Courtenay Wright, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago`s Enrico Fermi Institute, "The main conclusion of the report -- that employment of nuclear weapons by the U.S. would be of little use against a widely distributed opponent but disaster if copied by the opponent -- still stands."

The once-classified report, written by Dyson, Wright, Steven Weinberg, a University of Texas professor and Nobel laureate in physics, and Robert Gomer, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, was released last December following a 19-year effort by Peter Hayes, executive director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability in Berkeley.

Hayes, who has written extensively on nuclear issues, said he heard about the report in 1984 and put in a Freedom of Information Act request for its release, only to confront numerous delays.

The report warned that the Soviet Union or China might provide tactical nuclear weapons to guerrilla groups or others if the United States launched a nuclear attack first. Today, Hayes said, the fear is that North Korea, Iran or perhaps even Pakistan might sell nuclear materials or a device if the United States actually launches such an attack.

The report analyzed different kinds of targets in Vietnam, concluding that Vietnamese troops were far too scattered for the weapons to have much success against soldiers. But the principal target was expected to be the Ho Chi Minh Trail, an informal supply line connecting the North and South that the United States bombed heavily but could not shut down.

The study cited a number of "war games," as far back as 1957, performed by the Santa Monica-based Rand Corporation, which concluded that to achieve success against such targets, the United States would have to use perhaps hundreds of tactical nuclear weapons over a period of time, and even then rebuilding could begin quickly.

In other words, the study said, even limited success would require a massive campaign of nuclear bombardment, which would create radioactive fallout that could kill people up to 200 miles away. By contrast, even a single tactical weapon used by the Vietnamese against an American target -- such as a military base or the Saigon airport -- could have had a devastating impact because of the concentration of American forces.

"If only a few tactical nuclear weapons could be detonated intermittently at the American bases," the report found, "the U.S. would suffer terrible casualties -- and the degradation of U.S. capabilities would be considerable."

In an interview, Weinberg said he remained steadfastly opposed to the use of nuclear weapons except as a last-resort deterrent and that he was frustrated by the fact that the Bush administration had not taken into consideration how its new nuclear policies could provoke the kind of weapons proliferation it is trying to avoid.

"I personally felt, and still do, that to cross the line with even one weapon could be a disaster for us," he said.

E-mail James Sterngold at [e-mail]. A copy of the Nautilus report is available at www.nautilus.org.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

CounterPunch

March 8, 2003

The Dollar Has Had Its Day
Is There a Eurologist in the House?
By BEN TRIPP

If a guy in the iceberg business with a dad in the walrus meat business were to attack the Eskimos in the name of freedom, people would wonder if maybe he had a hidden agenda. Now look at George W, who`s waging war (his old man is in the war business) upon the nation with the most untapped oil (George is in the oil business). You don`t have to be a walrus to know something`s up. Yet somehow, the blood-for-oil mantra doesn`t satisfy. I should note that the Arctic analogy will be dropped henceforward and the walruses are on their own. We`re talking about petroleum. Or are we?

There are many untapped mysteries surrounding the motives of the Bush administration, and when I say `untapped`, what I really mean is `these guys are whackjobs`, but this way of putting things lacks gravitas and I`m after the Pulitzer. Most commentators, except the incredibly acute ones such as myself, are content to scratch their wooly polls and wonder why we must have this war. Is it, as many experts have stated, a plunder-mad lunge at the world`s most promising oil fields, or is it, as many other different many experts have opined, an effort to redraw the Near Eastern map along lines which guarantee Israeli/American sovereignty--thus wresting control of the world`s petroleum from Russo-European interests? Maybe those Eskimos are up to something and Bush hasn`t seen fit to mention it, as one expert surmised before he fell off his bar stool and landed heavily on Christopher Hitchens. Still yet more other other different experts--although they often go to the same parties as the experts I previously mentioned--say the whole thing is a cynical ploy to divert domestic attention from a set of disastrous economic and social policies at home.

These are all plausible enough explanations for what appears at first glance to be an insane crusade to precipitate World War Three, crush all resistance to American global hegemony, and found a Christian empire that feeds on the desperation and poverty of resource-rich wog subject states. Say it isn`t so, Joe. Not to worry. Us experts are all sure this benighted administration must have some far less dramatic, policy-based objectives. Yet we are left feeling vaguely unsatisfied, in much the same way a large Chinese meal leaves us. Despite all the chewing and the wide variety of MSG-laden flavors that make the gums tingle delightfully, in the end we feel gassy, hollow, unfulfilled. Our fortune cookie contains a blank slip of paper. What betokeneth this? Experts don`t know, bub. But there`s an interesting new theory out there which ought to be examined, like a piece of mystery meat that shows up in the moo goo gai pan which could be pork, or walrus, or it could be the very nub of the essence of the crux of this mystery. It`s the Euro, and we all know who throws that particular currency around.

First, a little background on the Euro. It`s a new currency, as these things are measured. A mayfly would think it was an old currency, because a mayfly only lives for one day, but a glacier or even a relatively recent range of mountains would be surprised to hear the Euro was even in circulation, which in fact it has been for several years (the coins and notes since 2002, the unit of exchange since January of 1999-although the idea of the Euro was spawned by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 and took form after the Single European Act of 1986. There will be a test, so take notes. We will also be dissecting frogs.) The Euro has since proved to be a formidable currency, indexed more or less to the dollar--and during this administration, at least a dime more. With the American economy in ruins and the dollar flaccid, the virile Euro stands firm and proud, reaching nearly to the navel. It is buoyed up by a variety of nations with differing economic conditions, while the dollar relies mostly on the spending of the American consumer -who ain`t feeling too flush these days (although `flush` is an appropriate term)--and international investment, which is what the Euro is all about in the first place.

Here`s the Euro-based `why we are going merde du singe on Iraq` theory: the Euro is the currency of the future. The dollar has had it`s day (which might explain why the Treasury Secretary John Snow said he "was not particularly concerned" about the catastrophic plummet in the value of the dollar--maybe he`s already switched to Euros) and the world is itchin` to move on, especially as the Euro comes in more colors. The $20 bill will soon have extra colors, but it`s too late. So what`s an administration to do? Threaten everybody who`s thinking about using the Euro, that`s what. After all, the Bush cabal don`t know Dick Cheney about economics, but they know plenty about the use of force. And who`s most likely to adopt the Euro and hit Bush and his pals right where they live?

OPEC, that`s who. OPEC is an acronym for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (or Ootie Pootie Eeka Cootie, I`ve never been clear on which one). OPEC has started making serious noises about a switch from its current dollar-based system to a Euro-based system. They`ve been considering such a move since the Carter administration, when they were just going to take an average of popular currencies (a proto-Euro) and index oil prices to that, because the dollar was so cheap at the time it was only worth 75¢. OPEC nations include not only all those camel-ridden states (including Iraq) which have lately been in the news, but also--wait for it--Nigeria, Indonesia, and Venezuela. The Philippines also produces oil, but is not an OPEC member--it just gets a lot of money from OPEC. Hey, didn`t we just start sending troops into all of those regions? Not Nigeria, but the Philippines (which is right next to Indonesia), and Colombia, which is right next to Venezuela, and obviously we`ve got a couple of guys in the general area of the United Arab Emirates. Not Nigeria, though? Actually, don`t count them out, because we`ve just evinced concern about some missing radioactive material over there, and we may have to send some folks along to help look for it.

So there`s a considerable body of evidence to suggest America is making play to keep OPEC from doing anything hasty, like adopting the Euro--which would throw them in league with America`s real enemies: France, Germany, Russia, and those ever-looming threats Belgium and Finland. Because the Bush administration is fueled by oil dollars, and if the oil-producing nations switch from dollars to Euros, it`s going to be left high and dry. Which all makes a crazy kind of sense, as these theories go. After all, as I said earlier--at least I hope I did, or my punch line falls flat--the Bush family is in the oil business, but it`s also in the war business. So a war on Iraq is a win-win proposition. It intimidates all those oil producing dumps so they know better than to fool around with the Euro--any one of them could be next--and at the same time, it fills the war coffers of the people who really matter-and we`re not talking about the Eskimos.

[Joerver]

Q: Why is George W. Bush so sure that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?

A: His dad still has the receipts.

http://www.theangryliberal.com/03-08-03.htm

[Joerver]

#206

[Joerver]

Die Seite enthält u.a. einige Flashes:




http://www.the-broadside.com/politicalnews.htm

[Joerver]

Amerikanische Soldaten von Türken entwaffnet?


SPIEGEL ONLINE - 09. März 2003, 19:20
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239423,00.html
Irak-Nordfront

US-Truppenaufmarsch brüskiert türkisches Parlament

Trotz des türkischen Votums gegen eine amerikanische Truppenstationierung bauen US-Soldaten an der Nordfront des Irak einen neuen Stützpunkt. Parlamentspräsident Bülent Arinc reagierte mit wütender Kritik. Durch eine Regierungsumbildung könnten indes schon bald gegen den Krieg eingestellte Kabinettsmitglieder entfernt werden.

Kiziltepe - Arinc kritisierte die Aktivitäten der Amerikaner am Sonntag als Missachtung des Parlaments. Die Fernsehbilder störten ihn ungemein, wurde der Politiker am Sonntag in der türkischen Presse zitiert. Dieser habe die Abgeordneten der Opposition, die sich ebenfalls beunruhigt gezeigt hätten, aufgefordert, die Kontrollmechanismen des Parlaments in Gang zu setzen.

Nach einem Bericht der türkischen Zeitung "Cumhurriyet" sorgte darüber hinaus ein Zwischenfall in Iskenderun am Samstag für Irritationen: Am Ausgang des Hafen-Zollbereichs sollen sich plötzlich 700 amerikanische Soldaten und Einheiten der türkischen Armee einander gegenüber gestanden haben. Die türkische Armee habe sie daraufhin entwaffnet und zum Umkehren gezwungen.

Die US-Botschaft in Ankara versuchte derweil, die Sache herunterzuspielen. Es handele sich lediglich um militärisches Material und Soldaten, nicht um Kampftruppen. Deshalb sei auch nicht gegen das Parlamentsvotum verstoßen worden.

Stützpunkt direkt an der Granze zum Nordirak

Arincs Kritik bezieht sich insbesondere auf einen neuen Stützpunkt, mit dessen Aufbau die US-Streitkräfte nahe der irakischen Grenze begonnen haben. Die Anlage soll als logistische Basis für 62.000 US-Soldaten dienen, falls das türkische Parlament doch noch einer Stationierung zustimmt. Der Stützpunkt, den die Türkei vor zwei Monaten genehmigt hatte, liegt nach offiziellen Angaben etwa 160 Kilometer von der Grenze entfernt.

Etwa 30 Lastwagen mit Geländefahrzeugen und Ausrüstungsgegenständen hatten am Sonntag den türkischen Hafen Iskenderun verlassen und sollten 15 Stunden später den Stützpunkt erreichen. An der Operation sind 3500 Soldaten beteiligt. Ein ziviler Flughafen befindet sich wenige Kilometer von dem neuen Stützpunkt entfernt, direkt davor verläuft die wichtigste Straße in Richtung irakische Grenze.

Auch die türkische Armee bereitet sich auf eine Offensive vor

Ungeachtet des Neins des türkischen Parlaments zu einem Offensivkrieg gegen den Irak treibt aber auch die türkische Armee selbst ihre militärischen Vorbereitungen voran. Am Sonntag wurden Panzer in den Nordirak verlegt, wie der Nachrichtensender NTV berichtete. Die Panzer seien am Übergang Habur auf Sattelschleppern über die Grenze gebracht worden.

Der Konvoi hat demnach unter strenger Bewachung von Sicherheitskräften der Demokratischen Partei Kurdistans die Kleinstadt Dohuk passiert und einen türkischen Stützpunkt auf nordirakischem Gebiet angesteuert. Über die genaue Zahl der Panzer machte der Sender keine Angaben.

Die Türkei hatte in den vergangenen Tagen rund 500 Militärfahrzeuge, Panzer und anderes militärisches Gerät an die Grenze zum Irak verlegt. Der türkische Generalstab bezeichnete den Aufmarsch als Vorsorgemaßnahme.

Das Parlament der Türkei hatte in der vergangenen Woche den Wunsch nach einer Stationierung von US-Kampftruppen im Land abgewiesen. Die Regierung hatte bereits angedeutet, gegenenfalls eine neue Entscheidung herbeizuführen.

Regierungsumbildung könnte Weg in den Krieg eröffnen

Heute abgeschlossene Nachwahlen zum türkischen Parlament könnten die Entscheidung beschleunigen. Der Vorsitzende der türkischen Regierungspartei AKP, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ist am Sonntag zum Abgeordneten gewählt worden und kann damit Ministerpräsident werden. Bei der Nachwahl in der südosttürkischen Provinz Siirt kam Erdogans Gerechtigkeits- und Entwicklungspartei (AKP) nach dem vorläufigen Ergebnis auf 84,7 Prozent der Stimmen und holte damit alle drei Mandate - zwei mehr als bei der Parlamentswahl im November 2002.

Mit der Wahl Erdogans zeichnet sich in der Türkei eine Neubildung der Regierung ab. Bei der Parlamentswahl im vergangenen November hatte Erdogan seine AKP an die Macht geführt. Er selbst hatte wegen einer Vorstrafe nicht kandidieren dürfen. Mit Verfassungs- und Gesetzesänderungen ebnete die AKP-Regierung ihrem Vorsitzenden den Weg in öffentliche Ämter.

Beobachter rechnen damit, dass Ministerpräsident Abdullah Gül noch in dieser Woche seinen Rücktritt einreicht und Erdogan dann eine neue Regierung bilden wird. Es wird angenommen, dass sich Erdogan für eine erneute Abstimmung im Parlament zur Frage der Stationierung von US-Truppen einsetzen wird. Nach türkischen Medienberichten dürfte er eine Regierungsumbildung dazu nutzen, Kabinettsmitglieder, die sich gegen die US-Stationierung gewandt hatten, zu ersetzen.

Die türkische Militärführung hatte sich in der vergangenen Woche nachdrücklich für eine Unterstützung der USA eingesetzt, um die bei einem Krieg zu befürchtenden ökonomischen Verluste zu begrenzen und die nationalen Interessen im Nordirak durchzusetzen.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

[LauraGerhard]

Für mich macht Herr Bush die richtige Politik, indem
er bisher mit Hilfe der militärischen Drohkulisse Irak
zum teilweisen Nachgeben gezwungen hat, im Gegensatz
zur rot/grünen Traumtänzer-Politik, über welche man nur noch den Kopf schütteln kann !!!

[Joerver]

Da werden im Schatten der Kriegsvorbereitungen Tatsachen geschaffen.
Denn ohne Öl wird auch das Wasserstoffauto nicht laufen. Mr. Bush mußte das 2,1 Milliarden € Programm der EU zur Entwicklung des Wasserstoff-betriebenen-Motors, mit 1 Milliarde $ kontern, damit eine Technik entwickelt wird,mit Wasserstoff aus Öl und AKW`s.
J.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die Hexenjagd geht weiter

Richard Perle Accuses Sy Hersh of Being a Terrorist
March 9

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

On the Sunday, March 9th CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Richard Perle accused New Yorker Magazine investigative reporter of being a terrorist.

Here is an excerpt from the CNN Rush Transcript
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0303/09/le.00.html

BLITZER:Let me read a quote from the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just out now. "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

PERLE: I don`t believe that a company would gain from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I`ve said this over and over again, will diminish the threat of terrorism. And what he`s talking about is investments in homeland defense, which I think are vital and are necessary.

Look, Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist, frankly.

BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say that? A terrorist?

PERLE: Because he`s widely irresponsible. If you read the article, it`s first of all, impossible to find any consistent theme in it. But the suggestion that my views are somehow related for the potential for investments in homeland defense is complete nonsense.

BLITZER: But I don`t understand. Why do you accuse him of being a terrorist?

PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever distortion he can -- look, he hasn`t written a serious piece since Maylie (ph).

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

October 11, 2002

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President
"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and
George W. Bush
by KATHERINE van WORMER

Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush`s speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President`s speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush`s choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction
Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

Bush`s rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn`t to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

Bush`s tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, "Iraq: It`s the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush`s logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, "Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq`s disarmament with extreme reluctance.

Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany`s Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush`s personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield`s book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

"[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I`d lose focus." Although he once said he couldn`t remember a day he hadn`t had a drink, he added that he didn`t believe he was "clinically alcoholic." Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic. It`s just he knows he can`t hold his liquor."

Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I`m not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."

That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush`s family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can`t drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn`t drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President`s thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush`s history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father`s reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George`s achievements were dwarfed in the school`s memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father`s laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father`s as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father`s footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.

To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
"I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
His drive to finish his father`s battles is of no small significance, psychologically.
If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002). She can be reached at: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

George W. and Alcoholism
by MICHAEL O`McCARTHY

My name is Michael O and I am a recovered alcoholic. I am also a progressive political activist. The two are not always compatible. It is a principle of personal recovery from the disease of alcoholism that I will cease fighting anybody or anything in order that I maintain the necessary level of spiritual serenity that keeps me from creating resentments and justifiable anger. Those two emotional states will lead me to drink. They are, as our experience has taught, the two most common emotional causes of relapses.

When I indulge in either of those two emotional states of mind, I am not rational. My perception is blurred by my own self-righteousness, which is driven by self-centered fear. That is not the right state of mind to live everyday life. Certainly not one by which to make decisions that affect all humankind. That is why I am writing.

The two recent, brilliantly insightful and brave pieces on George W. Bush`s relationship to alcohol, Dry Drunk by Alan Bisbort in American Politics Journal (1) and Addiction, Brain Damage and the President, "Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush by Katherine van Wormer in Counterpunch (2) are the most incisive, analytical explanations of his irrational behavior yet in print. They also provide a basis upon which we must argue for a debate on his mental competence to govern. An ambiguous proviso: Those of us in recovery hold that only an alcoholic can diagnose him/herself. It is too complex a disease to do otherwise, being three fold in nature as we see it. That is physical, mental and spiritual.

Further, far too often, the alcoholic has been `diagnosed` by others both pedestrian and professional as everything from an immoral scumbag to a person without backbone to a clinical case of paranoid schizophrenic. (Parenthetically, the lack of "backbone" is George W`s favorite rant at the UN.)

However I believe that it essential to understand the emotional, mental and spiritual state of the unrecovered and practicing alcoholic in order to understand the `dry drunk.`

Common traits of the alcoholic are a concurrent sense of superiority along with an inferiority complex. A sense of never fitting in. Feeling irritable and discontent, or not comfortable in one`s own skin. A childish selfishness that is never satisfied by people, places or things. An innate fear that someone is always trying to take away what the alcoholic has, or will deprive them of what they think is their due.

Often, anger, resentment and rage are the only `true` emotions that the alcoholic exhibits. At the same time, because of these emotional state`s relationship to the chemistry of the central nervous system, they alone can `fuel` the alcoholic`s behavior. The alcoholic functions on `self-will` or `self-will run riot.` The alcoholic`s favorite phrase is: `my way or the highway.`

Then along comes alcohol. In the beginning its use brings a false sense of `well being.` The alcoholic only feels `normal` when under the abnormal influence of a mind-altering chemical.

However, it must be noted that with some alcoholics, the disease function entirely the opposite: they alcoholic seems like a placid, normal person until that first drink and then the Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde syndrome takes place and they become angry violent people. In other words, as indicated by the American Medical Association, and now by countless clinical studies of behavior, physiology and mental health, the practicing and unrecovered alcoholic is a very sick person.

Often, at various times in the alcoholic`s life, as the disease takes more toll, the alcohol no longer works or soothes the continually irritated state of the alcoholic. Then and/or when, the behaviors caused by the toxic allergic effects of the alcohol produce periods of out of control insanity the alcoholic often becomes both suicidal and homicidal.

At this point only total abstinence and a `psychic` change in personality, as Jung described it, seems to save the alcoholic. Most often this `psychic` change is spiritual in nature, followed by a life altered course based on spiritual principles that are practiced one day at a time by the recovering/recovered alcoholic. These are most often found in a continued lifetime utilizing Twelve Step recovery programs.

Where this does not take place, that is when the alcoholic drinks again, the alcoholic can only become worse. Or, when the alcoholic only abstains but does not experience the `psychic` change and alter life behaviors based on spiritual principles, the alcoholic, as described in the afore mentioned articles, becomes very much the same person as when drinking. Only the fuel becomes self-will and self-centered fear and an obsession to control everything and everybody.

In the average alcoholic this simply means that no one but masochists and enablers wish to befriend him/her. He/she is a miserable, unrelenting pain in the ass and/or a tyrant.

Another core mental characteristic of both the practicing alcoholic and the dry drunk is denial. Alcoholism is the only disease that continually tells the victim that he/she does not have it while it is trying to kill him/her. For the dry drunk to maintain a rational appearance requires that he/she proclaim that they are not alcoholic. Or as Bush said, he was not "clinically alcoholic."

Katherine van Wormer states in her Counterpunch article that "dry drunk" traits consist of: Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity. Grandiose behavior. A rigid, judgmental outlook. Impatience. Childish behavior. Irresponsible behavior. Irrational rationalization. Projection. Overreaction.

All of these mirror the character of the practicing or unrecovered alcoholic.

These behaviors are recognized as commonplace by all familiar with alcoholics and the disease of alcoholism. They are tolerable only to those who have a vested interest in seeing that those behaviors continue, either out of a personal need for attachment and dependency, or, because those behaviors enable others to manipulate the results to their own ends. In the domestic environment it creates co-dependents. In the political environment the enablers are the political minions or manipulators of the ill alcoholic.

In persons with external power/control over their domain, such as police and military officers over their jurisdictions and chain of command, business and corporate bosses over their employees and the direction of the company, husbands and wives over each other and their children, these people become dangerous to the well being of those around them.

To a state ruler, depending upon the weaponry at command, they become dangerous to an entire universe.

Michael O`McCarthy is a poet, writer and political organizer. He can be reached at: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

Is Bush a "Dry Drunk"? This is a Serious, Not Just a Provocative Question
March 10th

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

In a March 7th Bush Commentary, you note:

"Jack Beatty in the Atlantic Monthly: Beatty suggests ... Bush`s apparent belief that God has appointed him to lead a global crusade against evil.

"He writes, `If this is what Bush believes, if his talk of Armageddon is not just catnip for the religious right, then he is in a fair way to becoming the American Ayatollah.

"`Bush`s belief in God is based on his personal narrative of divine salvation as a recovering alcoholic. He once told members of the clergy, `There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God.`"

First, I highly suggest that the two previous articles noted in my piece GEORGE W. and ALCOHOLISM as published In Counterpunch be read. Michael O`McCarthy: Bush and Alcoholism (Counterpunch - October 19, 2002)

There is nothing, absolutely nothing to indicate in the lifestyle of George Bush that he is a "recovered" alcoholic. (As indicated above, Bush explicitly implies that he is alcoholic.)

Secondly, recovery means more than that Bush is no longer plagued by the gross symptoms of the disease of alcoholism, i.e., being unable to stop drinking. Nor does it mean simply being relieved of the mental obsession to drink.

Those two effects in the alcoholic can and often are present in what is called "the dry drunk." As indicated in the mentioned articles the "dry drunk" functions upon "self will," or by "willpower" to resist the inherent urge to use alcohol, (and other mind altering chemicals), in order to cope with day to day life. What often occurs is that the "dry drunk" finds another obsession.

In some of the more "willful" cases, the dry drunk internalizes a concept of "God`s Will" to justify willful behavior. This mental obsession that the alcoholic now is possessed with the knowledge of God`s Will allows the unrecovered alcoholic to justify ego driven, highly aggressive attitudes and behaviors in the face of opposition of life on life`s terms. Using this God Given mandate, the unrecovered alcoholic is driven by a form of "self will run riot" that becomes not only dangerous to the alcoholic, but to all those the alcoholic affects in the daily course of life.

The obsessive nature of mental component of the disease of alcoholism is well noted. The alcoholic will go to any length to get the drugs they need. Conversely, the alcoholic who does not enter a collective program of recovery, (for example as found in 12 Step Programs), where their attitudes and behaviors are contrasted with, confronted by, or helped by those of other recovering, become more and more convinced of the righteousness of their behavior and only surround their lives with those who support, or enable them. Much like the practicing alcoholic who only associates with those that drink the same or who enable them to drink alcoholically. It is one way of saying: "You are either with me or against me."

President George W. Bush shows every sign of a mental obsession that is rendering him dysfunctional. This obsession that he alone is right in his view of the world is driven by the complex ingredients of egomania and inferiority symptomatic to that found in the medical diagnostic description of the illness of alcoholism.

A simple real world analogy would be to see Bush as the Chairman of the Board of an international corporation whose majority members were opposed to his policies. In like circumstances, should he persist, as he is doing now, he would either be forced to resign or be fired, and/or, the Human Resources department would be called in to require mental health counseling.

Michael O`McCarthy

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY

[Joerver]

Die Amis auf der Überholspur. Wann zieht RTL2 nach?

TV`s hot pursuit
Live car chases make primetime TV in LA - and the bloodier the better. But Gulf war two won`t be shown like that

John Sutherland
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian

The hottest item on LA`s six network TV channels is "breaking news". Inevitably, it`s a car chase - covered live by eye-in-the-sky helicopters. It hooks the viewers and keeps them hooked, often for hours. Ratings soar. What the audience is hoping for - and what it gets in 40 per cent of such chases - is blood on the freeway. Just like the movies, but real. Since (until recently) there were 800 hot pursuits a year, you could reasonably expect to catch one or two a week.

The channels started using helicopters in the sixties to cover freeway traffic. It was unexciting TV. If you were watching at home, you didn`t give a toss about the poor sods trapped in the jams. If you were one of the poor sods, you couldn`t see yourself suffering.

On April 29 1992, the sky-cams paid off big time. The Rodney King riots began, late afternoon, in South Central LA. Viewers (voyeurs, to be honest), courtesy of the traffic choppers, saw Reginald Denny beaten to a pulp and followed the arsonists as they drove, torching and looting, across the city. It was the best-covered urban disaster in the history of the world. A parameter shift. Vulture TV was born.

The TV helicopter fleet had another moment of glory with the OJ slow-speed chase in June 1994. And about this time, something strange happened. The LAPD began instigating primetime chases for what seemed like no reason at all. A broken rear light, running a stop sign, even looking "weird" would trigger manic hot pursuit, with sirens shrieking, lights (and not infrequently guns) blazing. As it was going down, someone back at the police station would alert the TV people to another "breaking news" story.

It got worse. In a bizarre folie à deux, drivers too began to take off like greyhounds from the slips - not with any motive of eluding arrest but with the humble ambition of starring on that evening`s TV. The police called it the "15 minutes of fame" syndrome.

It reached a grisly apogee on April 30 1998 when Daniel V Jones - HIV-positive and mad as hell - stopped his van in the middle of a televised chase, calmly waited for the helicopters to catch up, unfurled a banner protesting his hatred of the American health industry, patted his dog, and blew his head off with a shotgun. All carefully timed for the early evening newscasts. Children had nightmares for weeks after.

In January this year, the LAPD introduced a policy limiting hot pursuit. Apart from the craziness, too many innocent civilians were getting hurt. More than half the chases resulted in death or injury. It was great TV, but lousy crimefighting. From now on chases were sanctioned only where a serious offence had been committed.

The mayor and police chief appealed to the TV stations to do their bit and not cover even these non-frivolous chases. Their appeal was studiously ignored. Last Monday, as usual, the evening airwaves were dominated for two hours by the familiar "breaking news".

Once the audience has tasted blood it will never be happy with ketchup. And the audience, like the customer, is always right. The Pentagon has taken on board the lesson that the LAPD is painfully learning. Over recent months, the army has been putting a corps of newspaper people through boot camp with the aim of "embedding" them and their cameras in the front line of the upcoming Gulf war.

It`s a canny move. Since the reporters will be inside the tent pissing out, real horrors can be censored, highlighting Mel Gibson-style heroics. For millions of viewers it will be the ultimate reality TV: close-up, dirty and (dramatically, but not nauseatingly) bloody. Death will be delivered, hot and smoking, to the home. War as breaking news - I like it.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 10. März 2003, 9:23
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239340,00.html
Dirty Tricks

Wenn Kriegsgründe erfunden werden

Von Jochen Bölsche

Von der Emser Depesche bis zum Hufeisenplan, vom erstunkenen Tonkin-Zwischenfall bis zum erlogenen Babymord - immer wieder haben auch deutsche und amerikanische Militärs mit Propagandalügen und Provokationen die Kriegslust im eigenen Land zu schüren versucht. Derzeit, argwöhnen US-Friedenskämpfer, arbeiteten Bushs Psychokrieger an einem "neuen Tonkin".

Wann immer es der Regierung Bush in den letzten Monaten darum ging, die Welt von der Notwendigkeit eines US-Angriffskriegs auf den Irak zu überzeugen, zählte ein General namens Hussein Kamal zu den meistzitierten Zeugen.

Erst nachdem der Ex-Schwiegersohn Saddam Husseins, oberster Chef der irakischen Rüstungsindustrie, 1995 nach Jordanien übergelaufen sei und ausgepackt habe, sei das Regime in Bagdad bereit gewesen, "die Produktion von über 30 000 Litern Anthrax und anderer tödlicher B-Waffen-Stoffe zuzugeben", sagte Präsident George W. Bush im Oktober vorigen Jahres in einer Rede, um die Heimtücke des Schurkenstaates zu belegen.

Bushs Außenminister Colin Powell zitierte den Überläufer noch am 5. Februar dieses Jahres vor dem Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen, um Saddams Gier nach Massenvernichtungsmitteln und die Unfähigkeit der UN-Inspektoren anzuprangern.

"Der Irak benötigte Jahre, um endlich die Produktion von vier Tonnen des tödlichen Nervengases VX zuzugeben," erklärte Powell. "Das Eingeständnis erfolgte erst, nachdem den Inspektoren auf Grund der Aussagen des geflohenen Kamal Hussein bestimmte Dokumente in die Hände gefallen waren."

Kriegspropaganda mit verfälschten Aussagen

Seit einigen Tagen ist alles ganz anders: Bushs Kronzeuge Kamal - der sofort ermordet wurde, nachdem der Tyrann von Bagdad ihn 1996 mit einer Amnestiegarantie zur Rückkehr in den Irak gelockt hatte - dient jetzt der US-Friedensbewegung als Kronzeuge gegen Bush.

Die Art und Weise, wie Washington in den letzten Wochen mit Kamals Aussagen operiert hat, verstärkt amerikanische Pazifisten und Publizisten in dem Verdacht, die Falken im Weißen Haus wollten das amerikanische Volk mit gezielt verbreiteten Falschinformationen in den Krieg gegen den Irak hetzen.
Denn wie das US-Nachrichtenmagazin "Newsweek" in seiner Ausgabe vom 3. März enthüllte, haben die Bushisten, die sich so lange und so gern auf Kamal beriefen, einen wesentlichen Teil der Aussagen unterschlagen, die der Überläufer 1995 in einer dreistündigen Unterredung mit den UN-Inspektoren gemacht hat.

"Ich habe die Zerstörung aller chemischen Waffen befohlen. Alle Waffen - biologische, chemische, Trägerraketen, nukleare - sind zerstört worden," hatte Kamal in seiner Vernehmung erklärt.

Lediglich Bauanleitungen seien archiviert worden, heisst es in dem von "Newsweek" überprüften und zitierten Protokoll, das, wie das Magazin herausfand, auch amerikanischen und britischen Geheimdiensten zuging (und dessen voller Wortlaut neuerdings auch im Internet verfügbar ist).

http://www.middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
Die Wahrheit stirbt im Krieg zuerst

Dass die US-Regierung die Kernaussage ihres Starzeugen jahrelang der Öffentlichkeit verschwiegen habe, sei der dickste Hund ("the biggest story") seit Beginn der Irakkrise, kommentieren die Medienwächter von der New Yorker Bürgerinitiative FAIR ("Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting").

Die Wahrheit stirbt im Krieg zuerst - diese alte Erfahrung sehen die amerikanischen Bush-Kritiker durch die regierungsamtliche Verfälschung der Kamal-Aussage aufs Neue bestätigt.

Warum die Hardliner in Washington zu derartigen Methoden greifen, ist nachvollziehbar.

Schon vor mehr als zehn Jahren ersehnten die Bushisten und ihre Vordenker in den rechten, von Öl- und Rüstungskonzernen geförderten "Think Tanks" eine auf Dauer angelegte Vorherrschaft Amerikas über Eurasien - insbesondere mehr Einfluss auf Afghanistan ("das Cockpit Asiens") und einen Zugriff auf den Irak, eines der rohstoffreichsten Länder der Erde (siehe Folge 8 dieser Serie).

Spekulationen über ein "neues Pearl Harbour"

Um für solche kühnen Unternehmungen gerüstet zu sein, verlangte die Lobby-Organisation "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) eine -zig Milliarden Dollar teure "Transformation" des US-Militärs in eine jederzeit global einsetzbare Kriegsmaschinerie. "Dieser Umwandlungsprozess wird wahrscheinlich sehr lange dauern," hiess es noch in einem PNAC-Strategiepapier aus dem September 2000, "es sei denn, ein katastrophales Ereignis tritt ein, das als Katalysator dient - wie ein neues Pearl Habour".

Kurz nachdem das katastrophale Ereignis - am 11. September 2001 - eingetreten war, sah Bush den rechten Zeitpunkt gekommen. Wenig später ordnete er per geheimem Exekutivbefehl nicht nur den Kreuzzug gegen den Terrorismus an, sondern auch die Erarbeitung von Plänen für einen Irakkrieg.

Doch der Präsident hatte die Rechnung ohne die Öffentlichkeit gemacht. So bereitwillig die Amerikaner und ihre Verbündeten dem Präsidenten in seinen "Krieg gegen den Terrorismus" und auch in den Feldzug gegen das afghanische Taliban-Regime folgten, so schwierig war es, dem gemeinen Volk rasch auch noch die Notwendigkeit eines so genannten Präventivkrieges gegen den Irak zu vermitteln.

Die CIA widerlegt das Weiße Haus
Erst vorigen Monat beklagte der New Yorker Kolumnist (und Kriegsbefürworter) Thomas Friedman: "Ich hatte seit September die Möglichkeit, durch das ganze Land zu reisen, und kann mit Bestimmtheit sagen, dass ich nicht ein einziges Mal zu einem Publikum sprach, von dem ich den Eindruck hatte, es sei mehrheitlich für den Krieg im Irak."

Dabei hatte Bushs Regierung schon gleich nach dem 11. September 2001 die Version verbreitet, die Attentäter seien vom Irak unterstützt worden. Viele Amerikaner allerdings glaubten offenbar eher der CIA, die Bush öffentlich widersprach: Sie sehe keine Verbindung zwischen Saddam und der al-Qaida.

Ebenso rasch platzte die von Washington zunächst lancierte Lesart, die mysteriösen Anthrax-Briefe, die im Herbst 2001 für Panik in der Bevölkerung sorgten, seien im Auftrage des Irak verschickt worden. FBI-Ermittler stießen auf eine ganz andere Spur: Die tödlichen Sporen stammten mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit aus einem US-Militärlabor.

Ein Phantom, das "Mr. Anthrax" heißt

Ins Visier geriet ein amerikanischer Biowissenschaftler mit intensiven CIA-Kontakten und einem denkbar dubiosen Lebenslauf: Angehöriger einer Killertruppe im einstigen Rassistenstaat Rhodesien; Bioforscher im Auftrag des südafrikanischen Apartheid-Regimes; ABC-Waffen-Inspektor der UN im Irak; Wissenschaftler in der Biowaffen-Forschung; Reisender in geheimer US-Mission in Zentralasien.

Als die Ermittlungen voriges Jahr ins Stocken zu geraten schienen, kommentierte die "New York Times": Wäre der Mann ein Araber, "wäre er längst verhaftet. Aber es handelt sich um einen blauäugigen Amerikaner mit Verbindung zum Pentagon, zur CIA und zum Bioabwehrprogramm."

Und auch die Hamburger "Zeit" argwöhnte: "Gibt es eine Macht, die will, dass Mr. Anthrax ein Phantom bleibt?... Haben die Anthrax-Anschläge etwas mit den Geheimnissen der amerikanischen Regierung zu tun?"
Während es um den mysteriösen "Mr. Anthrax" seltsam still wurde, widmeten sich Washingtons Kriegspropagandisten um so intensiver der Behauptung, Saddam Hussein bedrohe die USA mit Massenvernichtungswaffen.

Peinlich, dass die CIA dieser Behauptung schon im Juli vorigen Jahres widersprach: Der Irak stelle in "absehbarer Zukunft" keine unmittelbare Gefahr für die Vereinigten Staaten dar; ein Irakkrieg jedoch würde das Terror-Risiko in den USA deutlich erhöhen - Einschätzungen, mit denen sich der Geheimdienst prompt den Zorn der Washingtoner Bellizisten zuzog.

Rüge vom "Fürsten der Finsternis"

Oberfalke und PNAC-Stratege Richard Perle - der stolz darauf ist, von Friedenskämpfern als "Fürst der Finsternis" tituliert zu werden - rügte die CIA, sie versage in Sachen Irak. Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld schäumte, der Dienst sei "kurzsichtig".

Letzte Woche kündigte Rumsfeld den Aufbau einer weiteren Agententruppe an - zusätzlich zu den bereits bestehenden 14 US-Geheimdiensten. Die Spione sollen dem Verteidigungsministerium direkt unterstellt sein und "origineller" denken als die CIA.

Obwohl Rumsfeld wiederholt die Vorlage von "Beweisen" für das Vorhandensein von ABC-Waffen angekündigt hat, fehlt es bis heute an völkerrechtlich relevanten Belegen, die einen Krieg rechtfertigen würden. In der Bundesrepublik, kommentierte die "Süddeutsche Zeitung", würde Material von solcher Qualität nicht einmal zur Verurteilung eines "Hühnerdiebes" ausreichen.

Rumsfeld reagierte auf Kritik schlicht mit der Forderung nach einer Umkehr der Beweislast ("Das Fehlen von Beweisen ist kein Beweis für das Fehlen von Massenvernichtungswaffen") - und, ebenso wie Bush, mit sinnentstellend verkürzten Zitaten aus dem Kamal-Protokoll.

Als der Trick vorige Woche aufflog, war in der US-Friedensbewegung sogleich von einem "neuen Tonkin" die Rede.

Am Beginn des Vietnamkriegs stand eine Lüge

Tonkin - dieser Terminus steht nicht nur in den USA für den Versuch, den Gegner durch Intrigen zum Erstschlag zu provozieren, einen Angriffskrieg als Verteidigung zu tarnen oder das eigene Volk durch Gräuelmärchen in eine Schlacht zu hetzen.

Die Tonkin-Lüge stand am Beginn des Vietnamkrieges in Südostasien: Berichte über einen (in Wahrheit nicht erfolgten) Überfall nordvietnamesischer Boote auf den US-Zerstörer "Maddox" im Golf von Tonkin nahm US-Präsident Lyndon B. Johnson 1964 zum Anlass, sich vom Kongress zu einer lange vorbereiteten Serie von Luftschlägen gegen Vietnam ermächtigen zu lassen - Auftakt zu einer mörderischen Völkerschlacht.

Kriegslisten dieser Art sind so alt wie die Menschheit. Und sie sind auch den Deutschen auf verhängnisvolle Weise vertraut.

Otto von Bismarck veröffentlichte 1870 die berüchtigte "Emser Depesche" von Kaiser Wilhelm I. in einer derart verstümmelten Fassung, dass Napoleon III. sie als Kriegserklärung wertete - und selber eine abgab. Adolf Hitler liess 1939 einen polnischen Angriff auf den Reichssender Gleiwitz vortäuschen, um mitteilen zu können: "Seit 5.45 Uhr wird zurückgeschossen." Rudolf Scharping förderte 1999 die Kosovo-Kriegsbereitschaft der Deutschen mit einem angeblichen "Hufeisenplan", der sich als Fälschung erwies.

"Die Geheimoperation war eine exzellente Idee"

Die Amerikaner stehen den Deutschen auf diesem Gebiet kaum nach. So bekennt der einstige CIA-Direktor Robert Gates in seinen Memoiren, dass die USA im Sommer 1979 mit verdeckten Hilfsaktionen für islamische Untergrundkämpfer die Sowjetunion zur Intervention in Afghanistan provoziert zu haben.

"Die Geheimoperation war eine exzellente Idee," erklärte der vormalige US-Sicherheitsberater Zbigniew Brzezinski Jahre später in einem Interview, "sie hatte den Effekt, die Russen in die afghanische Falle zu locken." Als die Sowjets einmarschiert seien, so Brzezinski im "Nouvel Observateur", habe er an Präsident Carter geschrieben, nun hätten auch die Russen "ihren Vietnamkrieg". Und tatsächlich habe der zermürbende Krieg am Ende "zur Demoralisierung und zum Zusammenbruch" des Sowjetreichs geführt.

Gut zehn Jahre nach der "covert operation" in Afghanistan - bei der die Amerikaner die Vorläufer der WTC-Terroristen bewaffneten, munitionierten und instrumentalisierten - begleiteten schmutzige Propagandatricks den Golfkrieg.

Babymorde, von PR-Agenten erfunden

Unvergessen sind in den USA die TV-Bilder von jener angeblichen Krankenschwester, die unter Tränen irakische Soldaten beschuldigte, Brutkästen geöffnet und kuweitische Säuglinge massakriert zu haben. Die Lüge hatte kurze Beine: Eine PR-Agentur aus dem Umfeld der neokonservativen Think Tanks hatte die Geschichte frei erfunden. In die Rolle der Krankenschwester war die Tochter des Botschafters von Kuweit geschlüpft.

Als Washington nach den WTC-Anschlägen erklärte, im Krieg gegen den Terrorismus sei die Waffe der Desinformation unverzichtbar, stieg in einem Teil der US-Gesellschaft das Misstrauen in die Regierenden schlagartig an.

Bei manchem wuchsen sich die Zweifel an der Wahrheitstreue Washingtons zur Paranoia aus. Andere Bürger hingegen legen seither eine bemerkenswerte Wachsamkeit an den Tag.



Besonders mißtrauisch beäugen US-Friedensfreunde seit langem das wohl merkwürdigste territoriale Konstrukt der Welt: die beiden Flugverbotszonen im Norden und im Süden des Irak. Dort, wo amerikanische und britische Maschinen unablässig irakisches Territorium kontrollieren und bombardieren, so fürchteten sie schon voriges Jahr, könnten sich schon bald Dinge ereignen, die den Persischen Golf in einen "Tonkin-Golf" verwandeln würden.

Die "no-fly zones" (NFZ) waren nach dem Golfkrieg, 1991 und 1992, von den westlichen Siegermächten eingerichtet worden. Weil keine eindeutige Zustimmung der Uno vorlag, nannte die "New York Times" diesen Schritt "vermutlich unklug und womöglich illegal".

"Hidden trigger" in der Wüste?

Die Zweifel von damals sind vergessen, Amerikaner und Briten reklamieren für ihre Präsenz in den NFZ mittlerweile das Gewohnheitsrecht. US-Oppositionsblätter wie das liberale Magazin "The American Prospect" wiederum sehen in den verbotenen Wüstenzonen einen verborgenen Auslöser ("hidden trigger") für einen möglichen Krieg.

Schüsse auf amerikanische oder britische Militärmaschinen in den NFZ, betonen Washingtoner Regierungssprecher, würden als ernsthafte Verletzung einschlägiger UN-Resolutionen angesehen - als casus belli. Damit aber, argumentiert "Prospect"-Kolumnist Robert Dreyfuss, hätten es die auf einen Angriff erpichten amerikanischen Strategen in der Hand, jederzeit einen Kriegsanlass zu provozieren oder vorzutäuschen. Absurd?

Kaum einem gesunden Hirn würden solche Gedanken entspringen - wenn, ja wenn nicht Pläne für eine Geheimoperation mit dem Codenamen "Northwoods" existierten, die 1962 entwickelt wurden und gespenstische Einblicke in die menschenverachtende Mentalität der höchsten US-Militärs jener Jahre geben.

"Wir könnten ein US-Schiff in die Luft jagen"

Die "Top secret" gestempelten Dokumente, die mittlerweile auf Grund eines Kongressbeschlusses freigegeben und voriges Jahr erstmals veröffentlicht worden sind, hatte der Chef des Vereinigten Generalstabs in Washington, General Lyman L. Lemnitzer, ausarbeiten lassen. Darin aufgeführt sind seitenweise Vorschläge für dirty tricks, von deren Ausführung sich die Militärs öffentliche Unterstützung für einen zeitweise geplanten US-Überfall auf das kommunistische Kuba versprachen.

Die schriftlich niedergelegten Ideen der Top-Militärs reichen von der Ermordung unschuldiger Bewohner von US-Städten bis hin zu vorgetäuschten Anschlägen auf US-Kriegsschiffe, die Fidel Castro in die Schuhe geschoben werden sollten: "Wir könnten ein US-Schiff in der Bucht von Guantanamo in die Luft jagen und Kuba beschuldigen," heisst es da, und: "Die Listen der Todesopfer in den US-Zeitungen würden eine hilfreiche Welle nationaler Empörung auslösen."

Auch Flugzeugentführungen und Bombenattentate in US-Großstädten wurden in Erwägung gezogen, um "die kubanische Regierung vor den Augen der internationalen Öffentlichkeit so darzustellen, dass sie ... als alarmierende und unkalkulierbare Bedrohung für den Frieden der westlichen Hemisphäre erscheint".

Ein toter Astronaut als Kriegsvorwand

Detailliert ist in den "Northwoods"-Papieren auch dargestellt, wie sich mit Hilfe raffiniert gestalteter Flugrouten, gefälschter Kennzeichen und präparierter Wracktrümmer der Eindruck erwecken lässt, ein US-Flugzeug sei durch kubanisches Militär abgeschossen worden.

Sogar für einen möglichen Tod des Astronauten John Glenn wollten die Militärplaner Kuba verantwortlich machen: Sollte beim ersten Versuch der USA, einen Menschen ins All zu befördern, die Rakete explodieren, könne das Unglück kubanischen Saboteuren angelastet und als Vorwand für einen Krieg genutzt werden.

Als die Papiere voriges Jahr durch den Buchautor James Bamford ("Body of Secrets") und den TV-Sender ABC bekannt wurden, vernahm die Öffentlichkeit erleichtert, dass der einstige Präsident John F. Kennedy die Umsetzung der "Northwoods"-Pläne abgelehnt habe.

Erst "top secret", jetzt im Internet

Zwei Jahre später allerdings startete Kennedy-Nachfolger Johnson die Tonkin-Intrige, womöglich nach einem ganz ähnlichen Drehbuch.

Mittlerweile stehen die Faksimiles der "Northwoods"-Akte also im Internet - gleichsam als ein virtuelles Mahnmal, das daran erinnert, zu welchen Teufeleien selbst in der grössten Demokratie der Welt Obskuranten in Uniform fähig sein können, sofern nicht im Weißen Haus ein Mann mit einem Minimum an Anstand sitzt, der sie bremst.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_northwood…



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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten

[Joerver]

[rightnow]

# 243

hi joerver,

vielen dank für den aufgeführten artikel.

sehr kompakt u. klar -für jeden, der verstehen will, was für eine holywood-regierung, die geschicke der welt bestimmen will

und vor allen dingen:
welche blender am werk sind !!!

vor kurzem sprach der einzige reporter vom zdf, der `91 im
golfkrieg dabei war folgendes:

"... ich sprach mit einem pressesprecher der us-army, warum sie unbedingt krieg gegen den irak führen wollen,
wo doch nachweislich keine gefahr für die usa bestehen ?
und ebenso, die immensen kosten des krieges !
der us-sprecher lachte u. sagte:

die entsorgung alter waffen in der us-wüste kostet uns,wenn wir die us-entsorgungsvorschriften einhalten: 5000 us-dollar pro...
wenn wir sie im irakkrieg entsorgen, nur: 1000 .- us-dollar !..."

tja: menschenrechte -was ist denn das ?(für die us-regierung ein fremdwort !)

logisch muss es (lt. denkweise der kriegsgeilen) die nächsten patriot acts II geben -in planung sind sie bereits!

(wo kommen wir denn hin, wenn ein paar schreiberlinge unsere "dirty tricks" der bewussten falschinformation veröffentlichen)

also patriot acts II -ein muss !

kriegsreporter im kommenden irakkrieg lassen wir erst gar nicht zu -ausser solchen, die veröffentlichen, was wir ihnen vorlegen.

also was wird cnn u. co zeigen = einen sauberen krieg

freiheit war gestern


cu
rightnow

[Joerver]

@rightnow
Ich such die Artikel nur aus. Gedanken kann sich jeder selbst machen. Heutzutage kann keiner mehr sagen, er habe es nicht gewußt.
Es gibt grundsätzlich nur eine Gruppe, die für den Krieg ist, und das sind die, die an ihm verdienen, und die nützlichen Idioten, die hier im Board auch ausreichend vertreten sind.
Nur Diskussionen lohnen sich nicht, denn wer glaubt der glaubt.
J.

March 10, 2003
Antiwar Clerics Wonder if Bush Hears Their Call
By ELISABETH BUMILLER


ASHINGTON


George W. Bush is turning out to be one of the most openly religious presidents in American history. He prays daily. He delivers speeches and national radio broadcasts that sound like sermons. He oversees a White House full of Bible study groups. Most important, he favors lowering the barriers between church and state by giving government money to religious charities.

But in recent weeks, the leaders of the many mainline American churches opposed to a war with Iraq — including the president`s own church, the United Methodist — have grown frustrated that they have not been able to see Mr. Bush to express their anxieties. The group represents nearly every faith and denomination, including Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists and mainstream evangelicals. The Southern Baptist Convention, conservative evangelicals and some Pentecostal leaders are supporting the president, while Jewish leaders are divided.

"There`s never been such unity among the churches in the country, even during Vietnam," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the editor of the evangelical magazine Sojourners and the leader of a delegation of United States religious leaders that last month met for nearly an hour in London with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Mr. Bush`s closest ally and an observant Christian.

Those Americans who met with Mr. Blair included John B. Chane, the Episcopal bishop of Washington; Melvin Talbert, the ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Council of Bishops; Clifton Kirkpatrick, the chief ecclesiastical officer of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); and Dan Weiss, the immediate past general secretary of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. Last week, the group released an antiwar plan that calls for coercive weapons inspections and the indictment of Saddam Hussein on charges of crimes against humanity — but no bombing of children, as Mr. Wallis put it, in downtown Baghdad.

In London, Mr. Wallis said, although Mr. Blair did not move away from his conviction that action against Mr. Hussein was justified to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists, he "engaged deeply the moral and theological issues at stake."

It has not been lost on Mr. Wallis and the other Americans who met with Mr. Blair that they have not yet had the same conversation with their own president. Mr. Wallis, who supports Mr. Bush`s plan to give federal money to religious charities, has met with him a number of times in the past on other issues.

"I hope he hasn`t walled himself off," Mr. Wallis said. "I haven`t heard a moral language or a faith language from him in relation to this momentous decision."

The only antiwar religious leader who has seen Mr. Bush recently is Cardinal Pio Laghi, a peace emissary sent by Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Laghi, who as the Vatican`s representative in Washington in the 1980`s played tennis with Vice President George Bush, met with the current President Bush for 40 minutes on Wednesday. The cardinal also delivered a letter from the pope to Mr. Bush. "I assure you, Mr. President," the letter concluded, "that I am praying for you and for Americans, and I ask the Lord to inspire you to search for the ways of a stable peace, the noblest of endeavors."

The entreaties of the pope and the cardinal seem not to have persuaded Mr. Bush, who at a news conference a day later made clear that war was imminent and that if necessary, the United States would wage it alone, without the support of the United Nations. If so, many Christians say the attack would not be a "just war," according to a theory developed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, because it would not have what they consider proper authority, an important requirement for a just war.

But Mr. Bush, his advisers say, sees it differently. "The president thinks the most immoral act of all would be if Saddam Hussein were to somehow transfer his weapons to terrorists who could use them against us," Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said last week. "So the president does view the use of force as a matter of legality, as a matter of morality and as a matter of protecting the American people."

At the White House, where two liaisons to religious groups are on the staff of Karl Rove, the president`s chief political adviser, the concern is that a meeting with antiwar leaders would turn into a circuslike news conference. Even Cardinal Laghi said he was told by the White House last week that he could not speak to reporters in the driveway outside the West Wing, where microphones are set up for regular news conferences with visitors to the Oval Office. Mr. Fleischer said that was not true, but Cardinal Laghi nonetheless held his news conference at the National Press Club.

On the eve of the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the first President Bush met with the man who was then the national leader of his faith, Presiding Bishop Edmond L. Browning of the Episcopal Church. Church leaders describe the conversation as "vigorous." The two famously disagreed, but at least, religious leaders say, the meeting occurred.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Eine Bush-Seite in deutsch, bin durch eine amerikanische Home-Page darauf aufmerksam geworden.


http://bushcritics.gmxhome.de/index_2.html

[Joerver]

Hillary Clinton fast emerging as Senate Democrat power
May presage `08 run for president

Jim VandeHei
Washington Post
Mar. 8, 2003 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, after lying low for most of her first two years, is emerging as one of the Senate`s most prominent and influential Democrats, moving aggressively on fund-raising and policy matters and fueling speculation she plans to run for president in 2008.

Clinton, the only first lady to have served in the Senate, is playing a key role in a behind-the-scenes effort to create at least one new political group, funded with "soft money," to promote the Democratic agenda in the 2004 elections and beyond, according to Democratic officials. With her help, leading Democrats are putting the finishing touches on a new "activist think tank" designed to crank out policy ideas and disseminate them to voters without running afoul of the new campaign finance laws, the officials said.

"She`s strongly encouraging people, including myself, to get our act together, get out there, generate more ideas (and) market our ideas better," said John Podesta, chief of staff under former President Clinton, who is heading the think tank effort.

In an interview, Clinton said it would be an indictment of Democrats if they do not create groups to "make sure the point of view we think is needed can be heard."

New York`s junior senator also is commanding greater influence over the party`s base of lawyers, environmentalists, union workers and pro-choice activists through her new assignment as chairwoman of the Democratic Steering Committee, a Senate organization that helps refine and promote the party`s agenda. "I am trying to broaden the base of people we have reached out to in the past," Clinton said.

To the chagrin of some Senate Democrats, she is assuming a bigger role in crafting the party`s agenda and message for the next election. Most recently, she has been vocal and visible in escalating the fight with President Bush on funding for firefighters and other emergency first-responders. At the same time, she has tried to cultivate a centrist image for herself.

"I consider myself a New Democrat," she said. "I am very proud of the political identity developed by Democrats during the Clinton administration."

She has reached out to conservative Republicans, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, on foster care legislation, and Senate Budget Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., on unemployment insurance.

Clinton backs Bush`s goal of deposing Saddam Hussein, an unpopular view among her party`s anti-war base, though she`s critical of the president`s "rhetoric and tactics" in dealing with the international community. She was recently awarded a seat on the Armed Services Committee, which provides her an opportunity to build a foreign policy resume in the years ahead.

"She spent the first two years in a learning process, (learning) not only the rules of the Senate but the traditions of how things should be handled here," said Sen. John Breaux, D-La. "She was very careful and more restricted. Now she`s moving into a second stage, being more out front, more visible and more available to articulate issues."

Some Democrats privately worry that Clinton is moving too quickly. "There are some people inside the caucus grumbling, suggesting she wants to bring more of a war-room mentality to the Senate than some senators are comfortable with," a top Senate Democratic aide said.

Clinton appears to have won over most of her colleagues. She got rave reviews for digging deep into the details of legislation and learning the Senate`s esoteric rules.

Yet colleagues said it was only a matter of time before she gained power. "It took awhile for some people to really understand her brilliance," said Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We had to find a place for her, she is that good."

Many Democrats predicted Clinton will run for president in 2008 if Bush is re-elected. "I think she`s very well-positioned to be a candidate next time around," Breaux said.

Recent polls suggest Clinton would enter the 2004 Democratic primary as the clear front-runner. A national poll conducted by Quinnipiac University in February had 42 percent of Democrats favoring her in the primary. Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., was a distant second at 15 percent.

Still, that same poll had Bush beating her easily, underscoring how divisive the Clinton name remains.

Clinton said she will not run in 2004 and "has no plans to" in 2008. But several Democrats said Clinton`s White House ambitions are growing increasingly apparent.










Find this article at:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0308hillary08.html

[Joerver]

Neues von Mr. Clinton. Die erste Fernsehdiskussion mit Sen. Dole!

Clinton Slams Tax Cut on `60 Minutes`
Mon Mar 10, 1:04 AM ET


NEW YORK - Former President Clinton (news - web sites), in his first televised mini-debate with Republican Bob Dole on Sunday, said that a tax cut at a time that war is looming in Iraq (news - web sites) is "bad economics."

Dole, Clinton`s opponent in the 1996 presidential election, said the Bush administration has launched a global war to protect the American way of life, "which means, among other things, the freedom to save or invest our own money."


The retired politicians have agreed to revive the "Point-Counterpoint" segment on "60 Minutes," television`s most popular newsmagazine.


In the two-minute debate, the two will face off on a subject of their own choosing. Sunday`s segment was the first, and Clinton chose to talk about his successor`s proposed tax cut; Dole gets to choose the next segment.


Clinton said a conflict with Iraq and the subsequent rebuilding will cost many billions of dollars when the country is at a deficit.


"Now when we`re cutting back on everything from homeland security to education and with Iraq still to pay for, your party wants another big tax cut," Clinton said. "Never before have we had a big tax cut in times of national crisis. Lincoln didn`t. FDR didn`t. With over 200,000 young Americans in the Persian Gulf, we shouldn`t. It`s wrong and it`s bad economics."


Dole responded that it didn`t have to be one or the other.


"For President Bush (news - web sites) to practice the economics of "either/or" would not only invite political attack from your friends who want his job, it would risk winning the battle and losing the war," the former Senate majority leader said.


After their initial 45-second segments, both politicians were given 15 more seconds to make another point.


"Leadership is about choosing," Clinton said. "So let`s give up our tax cut."


No way, said Dole, arguing that many of the nation`s economic problems could be traced to an economic hangover from the roaring `90s.


"The Bush tax cut has barely kicked in," Dole said. "But I`ll tell you what. I`ll gladly donate my tax cut to a worthy charity, if you will. Maybe even to the Clinton library."

[Joerver]

The Winner is: Für die beste schauspielerische Leistung in einer Nebenrolle.

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 10. März 2003, 17:35

Überflugrechte bei US-Alleingang

Die noch verbotene Debatte

Von Matthias Gebauer

Dürfen US-Jets über Deutschland fliegen, wenn Amerika den Irak ohne Uno-Mandat angreift? Nur die Andeutung einer solchen Debatte löste bei den Grünen hektische Treueschwüre zur Regierung aus. Lange aber werden die Grünen die in der Partei schwelende Frage nicht unter der Decke halten können.

Berlin - Der Grünen-Chef Reinhard Bütikofer hatte es am Montag nicht leicht. Nach der zehnten Frage, ob die Bundesregierung den USA Überflugrechte bei einem Angriff auf den Irak ohne Uno-Mandat gewähren sollte, reichte es ihm dann. "Ich bin nicht bereit, diese Diskussion zu führen", blaffte Bütikofer. Sichtlich genervt wiederholte er dann noch einmal, was er schon dutzendfach in dieser oder einer anderen Formulierung gesagt hatte. "In dieser Frage gibt es in der grünen Partei keine Differenz zur Regierung."

Wirklich glaubhafter machten die vielen Wiederholungen in Bütikofers Vortrag seine Worte nicht. Denn je wahrscheinlicher ein Alleingang der USA und Großbritanniens gegen den Irak wird, desto dringlicher wird für viele Grüne eine Frage: Darf Deutschland auch in diesem Fall weitgehende Überflugrechte und Starterlaubnisse für US-Jets von hiesigen Basen gewähren oder verstößt dies vielleicht sogar gegen die deutsche Verfassung? So mancher Grünen nennt das Szenario gar Unterstützung eines Angriffskriegs.

Neues Feuer hatte die Debatte am Wochenende durch ein Interview der grünen Parteichefin Angelika Beer bekommen. Die Verteidigungsexpertin hatte in der "Welt" angedeutet, es müsse eine "neue Diskussion" rund um die Überflugrechte geben, wenn Amerika allein gegen den Irak losschlage. Wie bei einer heiklen Frage wie dieser üblich, wurden Beers Worte in der Folge zugespitzt. So meldeten schon am Sonntagabend die ersten Nachrichtenagenturen, dass Beer an der Zusage des Kanzlers in Sachen Überflugrechte zweifle und sahen schon eine Koalitionskrise am Horizont.

Unerwünschter Nebenkriegsschauplatz

Den wirklich Mächtigen bei den Grünen passten die Worte der immer noch mehr als Notlösung agierenden Parteichefin Beer gar nicht. Mehr oder weniger offen gingen die Herren und Damen um den grünen Außenminister Joschka Fischer am Montag im routinemäßig tagenden Parteirat auf Gegenkurs. Verbraucherministerin Renate Künast sagte vor laufender Kamera, sie stimme mit keinem der Worte Beers überein. Ein anderer aus der Fischer-Gang ätzte lieber anonym, dass Beer sicher lieber "andere Baustellen als die internationale Politik" suchen solle und dass die Diskussion mehr als unnötig sei.

Schließlich warnten die Kreise aus der grünen Parteizentrale Beer und alle anderen Pazifisten in der Partei am Montag davor, mit einer solchen Grundsatzdebatte einen unnötigen Nebenkriegsschauplatz zu eröffnen. Erst einmal solle Fischer gemeinsam mit dem Kanzler alles versuchen, um die USA von einem Alleinschlag abzuhalten, so die Linie. Wenn dies nicht gelinge, habe man immer noch genug Zeit, sich über die Gewährung von passiver Hilfe wie den Überflug- oder Startrechten zu streiten. Eine Diskussion zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt hingegen könnte Deutschland und vor allem Fischer selbst schnell wieder den Ruf eines Antiamerikaners einbringen, fürchten die Parteitaktiker des Obergrünen.

Regierung will erst mal Ruhe

Auch die Regierung selber erteilte Beers Diskussionseröffnung eine harsche Abfuhr. Die Zusage des Bundeskanzlers für die passive Hilfe gelte ohne Bedingungen, betonte Regierungssprecher Anda. Es gebe keinen Anlass, die Bewegungsfreiheit der Verbündeten einzuschränken, sagte er abschließend. Naturgemäß wollte auch Anda von Differenzen innerhalb der Koalition nichts wissen.

Hinter den Kulissen ist die Lage allerdings strittiger als Bütikofer zu vermitteln versuchte. Dass die Frage der passiven Hilfe heikel wird, wissen die grünen Spitzen jedoch nicht erst nach Beers Erinnerung in der "Welt". Für jeden in der Parteiführung ist schon lange klar, dass kaum einer in Partei und Fraktion bedingungslos die Gewährung der Überflugrechte bei einem US-Alleingang akzeptieren könnte.

Die Äußerungen zu dem Thema sind nicht neu. Bereits beim Länderrat vor wenigen Wochen in Berlin wurde die Frage ausführlich besprochen. "Bisher aber haben wir meistens über einen Krieg mit Uno-Mandat gestritten", sagte der grüne Abgeordnete Hans-Christian Ströbele, "die jetzige Lage ist eine ganz neue und verlangt auch eine neue Diskussion." Außenminister Fischer hingegen sieht die Situation anders. Er geht davon aus, dass ein Alleingang der USA durch die Uno-Resolution 1441 zumindest so weit gedeckt ist, dass man ihn nicht als völkerrechtswidrig oder gar als Angriffskrieg deklarieren kann.

Hoffen und abwarten

Ein interner Streit ist also spätestens nach der Abstimmung über die neue Uno-Resolution garantiert. Neben Ströbele finden sich in der Fraktion schon jetzt mindestens ein halbes dutzend Mitstreiter, welche die Frage gern ausdiskutieren wollen, wenn sie denn ansteht. Ströbele aber will erst einmal die Haltung der USA im Sicherheitsrat abwarten. Er hofft auch noch immer, dass die USA sich keinen Alleingang gegen den Irak trauen. Was der plötzliche Vorstoß seiner Parteichefin Beer bezwecken sollte, kann auch er sich nicht recht erklären.

Für die Zeit zwischen jetzt und einem möglichen US-Alleingang haben sich die Grünen mit dem Machtwort am Montag erst mal Ruhe verordnet. Im Parteirat selber dann kamen die Worte von Angelika Beer auch gar nicht mehr groß zur Sprache. Das Motto ist klar: Noch ist die Debatte verboten.

Erstaunliche Allianzen

In den anderen Parteien sind die Positionen klarer. Auf Nachfrage sagte zuerst SPD-Generalsekretär Olaf Scholz, dass die Zusage der Bundesregierung für die passive Hilfe weiter gelte. Der außenpolitische Sprecher der Fraktion, Gert Weißkirchen, ergänzte, dass es "vollkommen abwegig" sei, diese Frage ausgerechnet jetzt anzugehen. Dass jedoch auch die Sozialdemokraten bei einem US-Alleingang einige in der Fraktion haben, die dann ebenfalls die passive Hilfe verweigern wollen, ist auch ihm klar.

Die brisante Frage sät jedoch nicht nur Zwietracht unter den Politikern. So sieht sich die Union endlich mal auf der Linie der Regierung. "Ich begrüße, dass der Kanzler sich endlich mal eindeutig geäußert hat. In diesem Fall ist seine Meinung mit meiner identisch", sagte der außenpolitische Sprecher Friedbert Pflüger. Auch seiner Meinung nach erfüllt die Resolution 1441 bereits die Auflagen für einen Angriff. Folglich müsse die Bundesrepublik die zugesagte Hilfe an die USA leisten, so Pflüger.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

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

[Joerver]

Gagging Helen Thomas: Press Conference of Lapdogs
By Brian Deagon
If the press conference that George W. Bush graciously provided us on March 6th is an indication of the best of the U.S. media can deliver, we are in a lot of trouble. The media were like young choir boys and girls: Well dressed, well behaved, well mannered, and singing to the same song. “All Iraq, All the Time.” They performed magnificently. They deserve an Oscar or something like it, for “The Best in Show.” Hail to the lapdogs.

There were 94 reporters in the show. Only 19 got a chance to strut their stuff, and each one was preselected to ask a question. (Senior White House correspondent/pundit Helen Thomas, an outspoken critic of the Bush administration and traditionally the first to ask a question, was totally ignored.) Seventeen asked questions about Iraq. The other two were about North Korea. It seems nothing else mattered.

The media elite, each asking one question with a few lame attempts at follow-ups, solemnly addressed High Priest Bush. The reporters acted as if asking the wrong question would get them thrown to a corner with a Dunce cap. Unbelievably, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and Kingmaker Karl Rove were in the audience taking notes. National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice was right along side them, as if this were some kind of State of the Union address. Fleischer was sitting in the front row, tense but beaming with notebook in hand, as if he were coaching his brightest student. Perhaps the three should have been allowed to ask a question as a member of the White House press.

There was no need for them to worry. The press had been well trained. Word is that Bush bristles at press conferences because he sees them as a chance for the press to preen. He may be partially right in that. The elite media have become celebrities in their own right. They know that pissing off the director or producer will ruin their next chance as a contributing actor in a major role.

It’s not that they press failed entirely. They did ask some serious questions about Iraq. But they made the mistake of asking questions that contained too much information for the limited capacity of Bush to remember what was said. Case in point was when one reporter asked if Bush’s fixation on Iraq was somehow personal. Not a bad start. Then the reporter continued with more questions. “Could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisers have shared with you about worst-case scenarios, in terms of American lives, the cost to the economy and the risk of retaliatory strikes at home?”

Said Bush: “My job is to protect the American people.” He continued “I swore to protect and defend the Constitution, that’s what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath. And that’s what I’m going to do.” He never answered the question, then quipped to the reporter: “The rest of you six part question?” (LAUGHTER)

Later on came this scintillating question: “How is your faith guiding you.” Said Bush, “I appreciate that question a lot.” No doubt. That was followed by this lame softball: “Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong...” Nah.

Later, a reporter asked about the cost of war, something the Bush administration has yet to reveal. Said Bush: “We’ll present it in the form of a supplemental to the spenders. We don’t get to spend the money; as you know, we have to request the expenditure of money from the Congress.”

Hmmmm. Bush gets to make the decision to launch a war that could cost over $100 billion, and he says it’s Congress that has to make the choice on how that money will be spent. What a way to go!

Later on, a reporter asked: “What can you say tonight, sir, to the sons and daughters of the Americans who served in Vietnam to assure them you will not lead this country down a similar path. Said Bush: “It’s a great question.” Yes, George, please tell us it will be different this time, please? In the press conference, Bush repeatedly said that the U.S. has given Saddam “12 long years of chances to disarm.” The implications was that nothing has happened since then. Bush said nothing about the fact that most of Saddam’s arsenal, including his weapons of mass destruction, has been destroyed, up to 90% by some accounts.

It’s hard to know who to blame for this charade of a press conference. Did Fleischer , Rove and their boys threaten the press to the point of kneeling? That seems to be the case. But where is the backbone of the media to stand up and not accept ground rules that rob the American people of getting a straight up representation of what’s going on?

Not one question was asked about how the Bush administration plans to deal with our failing U.S. economy, which is headed toward another recession. Not one question was asked about plans to commit U.S. troops to fight in the Philippines. Not one reporter included the words Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda in a question, very surprising in that two of their key leaders had been captured only days ago. Only two questions were asked about North Korea, which seems hell-bent on building a nuclear arsenal. Amazingly, Bush said North Korea was a regional issue. What is it that makes North Korean a regional issue and Iraq an international one? The press conference was entirely surreal, unlike any ever seen before. Give the Bush administration credit for one thing. Not only have they hypnotized and anesthetized the entire Congress, they have done so with the mainstream press as well. --03.10.03

[Joerver]

Released: March 09, 2003
Support for War Up to 57%; Bush Performance Down to 54%; Voters Say Iraq Only Third Worst Threat Following al-Qaeda and North Korea; 7 in 10 Say UN is Relevant, Latest Zogby America Poll Reveals



Support for a war against Iraq has increased slightly to 57%, putting it at the same level as following Secretary of State Colin Powell`s presentation to the United Nations on February 5, 2003. At that time, 58% supported and 37% opposed a war.

Now, 57% support and 40% are opposed, according to the new Zogby America poll of 1,120 likely voters conducted March 5 - 7. It has a margin of error of +/- 3.0%.

President George W. Bush`s job performance approval rating has slipped from 57% to 54% favorable since February, with 46% now saying his performance is fair or poor.

The new Zogby Poll shows that Republicans overwhelmingly support the war (84%-12%), while independents are nearly split (52%-46%), and Democrats are very opposed (35%-61%). Key support comes from 25-34 year olds (61%-39%), 35-54 year olds (61%-35%), and 55-69 year olds (55%-42%). But the youngest voters (18-24 year olds -- 41%-59%) and oldest voters (over 70 - 49%-46%) are most opposed.

The President`s war effort has the support of married voters (63%-34%), while those who are single oppose the war (47%-52%). A large gap exists between those who say they are members of the Investor Class (67% support, 30% oppose) and non-Investor Class voters (49%-47%). Approximately three in five voters who attend a place of worship at least weekly support the war, while those who attend monthly (49%-50%), Seldom (45%-55%), and Never (28%-71%) are least supportive.

Whites support the war (62%-35%), while African Americans are greatly opposed (19%-75%). Protestants are more likely to support the war (64%-33%) than Catholics (54%-42%).

Pollster John Zogby: "The most interesting thing in both the numbers of those who support the war and President`s job performance is that the `coalition of the willing` essentially includes the Republican coalition-and little more. The President is bolstered by overwhelming support from Republicans, whites, Protestants, married voters, men, and investors. He does pick up support from Catholics -- but mainly those who are active churchgoers - and women. But independents are evenly split on both the war and the president`s performance, while all the Democratic constituencies are opposed. In short, the President seems to have squandered almost all of his post-9/11 bounce and, on the eve of a war, finds himself hardly more popular than when he polled near 50% in November 2000 and in late August 2001. On the war issue, the youngest voters and the oldest voters are the ones most opposed. This should spark some keen interest and debate."

Al-Qaeda remains the largest danger to the U.S., according to poll respondents, at 32%. North Korea has moved into second place at 30%, followed by Iraq at 22%.

John Zogby: " Could it be that America will go to war against the least likely threat among al-Qaeda, North Korea, and Iraq?"

Nearly 7 in 10 (69%) likely voters say the United Nations is a relevant organization in world affairs, compared to 27% who say it is irrelevant. Overall, just half (51%) of the respondents hold a favorable view of the UN, 38% say their opinion is unfavorable, and 10% say they are not familiar enough to judge. In a 1999 Zogby poll, the UN had a 70% favorable view by Americans, compared to 27% unfavorable… the highest unfavorable rating of 13 countries polled.

Mehr unter:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=682

[antigone]

"Die wahre Geschichte des Golfkrieges"

Angesichts der zugespitzten internationalen Auseinandersetzung über einen Irak-Krieg hat der deutsch-französische Fernsehsender Arte erneut sein Programm geändert. Am Dienstag wird ein Themenabend mit dem Titel "Amerikas Kreuzzug gegen Saddam" ausgestrahlt.
Kriegspolitik im Wandel
Erstmals in Europa ist um 20.40 Uhr die Dokumentation "Der Krieg hinter verschlossenen Türen" zu sehen, die in den USA als ein Teil der Sendereihe "Frontline" im nicht-kommerziellen Fernsehen lief. In der knapp einstündigen Sendung analysiert der Autor und Regisseur Michael Kirk den Wandel der US-Politik vom Ende des ersten Irak-Krieges 1991 bis zur "Bush-Doktrin", die militärische Präventivschläge ausdrücklich einschließt.

Die Rolle von Paul Wolfowitz
In Interviews mit Schlüsselfiguren der Regierung sowie Experten und Beobachtern werden der große programmatische Einfluss des jetzigen Vize-Verteidigungsministers Paul Wolfowitz und sein politischer Streit mit Außenminister Colin Powell dargestellt. Wolfowitz hatte bereits 1991 ein Konzept über militärische Präventivschläge vorgelegt, das unter dem jetzigen US-Präsidenten George W. Bush neue Aktualität bekommen hat.

Gesprächsrunde mit Experten
Als zweiten Beitrag hat Arte den von unabhängigen amerikanischen Filmemachern gedrehten Film "Die wahre Geschichte des Golfkrieges" ins Programm genommen. Der Film aus dem Jahre 2000 blickt auf den Einmarsch irakischer Truppen in Kuwait zurück und geht den Ursachen und Hintergründen nach. Abschließend soll es ab 22.40 Uhr eine Gesprächsrunde von Experten geben.
t-online.de

[Joerver]

Das Bild gefällt mir.

[/url]




Sunday, Mar. 09, 2003
His Lonely March
Bush would love as much support as possible against Iraq, but in the end he requires only his own resolve
By ROMESH RATNESAR
The most solemn moments for an army preparing to wage war come right before it begins. For weeks now, the 250,000 soldiers positioned on Iraq`s borders have been winding down their rehearsals, armed and ready to invade, waiting only for President Bush to declare that the diplomatic clock has run out. It appears they won`t be waiting much longer. At the White House last Thursday night, Bush looked and sounded like a Commander in Chief who has already made up his mind. "It makes no sense to allow this issue to continue on and on," he said, surely signaling the start of the final march toward war. The next day, at a meeting of the U.N. Security Council, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw introduced an amendment to last month`s U.S.-British resolution—the measure declaring that Iraq had missed its last chance to disarm—that appoints an hour for the Iraqi leader`s reckoning. The amended resolution would give Saddam until March 17 to comply with the entire 12-year panoply of Security Council resolutions against him, which would require that he hand over any banned weapons he possesses and provide a full accounting for the ones he claims he has destroyed. Unless Saddam meets those demands by the deadline, U.S. and British forces will, within days of the 17th, invade Iraq. In other words, only a miracle—a complete change of heart, a coup, a journey to exile—can stop a war now.

So war it shall be, even though the U.S. still doesn`t know who will be on its side. Administration officials ended last week planning to force a vote on the second U.N. resolution, even without commitments of votes from nine of the 15 Security Council members, the number needed for the second resolution to pass. France and Russia have the authority to veto, and both vowed to "block" the Security Council from sanctioning the use of force, even if the U.S. lines up the votes needed to approve it. Administration officials are betting that neither country would risk such an outright challenge to American will, knowing that the U.S. will go ahead with an invasion anyway.

But even if a second resolution squeaks through, the cause of multilateral unity will have been badly tarnished. In the minds of many U.S. officials, the failure of the U.N. to agree on an approach for dealing with Iraq has compromised its relevance as a body the U.S. can turn to for help in fighting security threats. The fact that the U.S. has been forced to scramble for the barest of majorities in the Security Council while still courting the danger of a veto has also been a sobering lesson in the limits of American power. No matter how the vote turns out, the Administration`s push for war and its failure to satisfy the world`s objections to it mean that American troops are about to fight, and die, in a war that major U.S. allies do not endorse.

The U.S. effort against Iraq took a hammering last Friday, after the U.N.`s chief weapons inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council that Baghdad is now taking "pro-active" steps to cooperate with the inspectors` requests, demonstrated most dramatically by Iraq`s destruction last week of 40 banned al-Samoud missiles. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks," Blix said. ElBaradei disputed the veracity of Western intelligence reports that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. Secretary of State Colin Powell could barely contain his exasperation with the inspectors` upbeat assessments. Privately, his aides trashed them—"Pathetically unaggressive, amateurish and believing everything the Iraqis tell them," a senior State Department official said—and claimed that the inspectors are ignoring tips from U.S. intelligence and capitulating to Iraqi intimidation. Inspectors vehemently deny the charges. But Powell`s Russian and French counterparts hailed the reports of progress and repeated their threats to block passage of the Anglo-American resolution. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin rejected the idea that the British amendment amounted to a compromise, saying, "We would not accept a resolution that will lead to war."

De Villepin`s statements, which were echoed by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, may have been just as significant for the four-letter word they pointedly avoided: veto. France and Russia could veto the second resolution if Washington strong-arms enough yes votes out of the six countries sitting on the fence, but the U.S. believes France and Russia can be stared down. Russia, in particular, is under intense U.S. pressure to keep its veto in its pocket. U.S. diplomats are trying to peel Russia away and isolate Paris, daring the French to veto the U.S. resolution on their own. At a closed-doors lunch after Friday`s meeting, Powell made an emotional last appeal for support, telling the other ministers that the U.S. would never have come to the U.N. to begin with if it were hell-bent on war. Powell appeared to be personally hurt by French intransigence; it was France, after all, who in October demanded that the U.S. return to the Security Council for a second resolution before going to war. Powell`s speech may have softened the hearts of wavering member states: one U.N. ambassador at the lunch called Powell`s speech "inspirational."

There would certainly be benefits to bringing more countries on board. Sealing a second resolution would allow the Administration to drape a multilateralist cloak over what many have charged is a U.S.-driven obsession with ousting Saddam. A U.N. stamp of approval would also make it easier for the U.S. to ask for the U.N.`s help in rebuilding Iraq after the war. And the various issues that will clamor for the world`s attention after Iraq—from North Korea to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—could grow into far more dangerous crises if the U.S. and its allies can`t figure out a way to put behind them the differences that emerged over Iraq.

But for the Bush Administration, that`s all beyond the horizon. Aides close to Bush say the President has decided to confront Saddam now, with any partners he can get. Even among the internationalists at the State Department, who have long warned against the dangers of going it alone, support for giving diplomacy and the inspections more time has vanished. "More and more people are saying `enough already,`" says a U.S. official. "We`re the U.S., for chrisakes. We don`t plead. We don`t beg. You`re either with us or not."

Washington insists it has never needed a second resolution explicitly authorizing military action. Resolution 1441, passed in November, promises "serious consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. Bush decided to seek the later resolution last month at the prodding of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who needs at least a semblance of U.N. support to help convince his party and the British public, both of which are hostile to a war without that backing. Since many Americans also prefer to have the U.N.`s approval for a war against Iraq, the quest for nine votes has become a political priority for Bush. And so the President worked the phones all week, making the Administration`s case to the leaders of some swing nations, including Pakistan, Mexico, Cameroon and Chile. A senior Administration official says Bush didn`t explicitly ask for wavering countries` votes, but he came close. "I hope together we can affirm the willingness of the Security Council to enforce its own resolutions," the aide says, paraphrasing Bush`s pitch, "and I need you to do that." Bush focused special attention on Russian President Vladimir Putin; after speaking by phone last Thursday, the two leaders agreed to "continue to communicate." A White House official told TIME that Putin assured Bush he wouldn`t cast a veto. "There were rumors that the Russians were going to veto," says the official. "The President had a conversation and got a different impression—not that Putin was with him, but that he`s not going to veto."

Until the final votes are cast, though, assurances count for nothing. Inside the hallways of the U.N., the battle for votes was so pitched that some delegates wouldn`t talk strategy on phones, for fear they could be tapped. The White House denied that the U.S. offered any incentives to indecisive states, but the members weren`t so hesitant. "We`re keeping our options open," says a diplomat from one swing country. "It`s a tantalizing situation now."

The allies` decision to offer an amendment giving Saddam a clear deadline for compliance was aimed at winning over the undecideds. With the U.S. bringing a second resolution to a vote this week, Saddam would still have until next Monday to comply—a pause sufficient perhaps to allow governments to say they did not vote for the "automatic" use of force. Last week U.S. and British head counters believed the amendment may be enough to sway Mexico and Chile, and they sensed the African countries` moving toward their column.

For the allied war planners, the maneuverings in New York City are now a sideshow. "It`s always been our position, whether it`s one, two, three vetoes or however many there are—if they are unreasonable, then it is not going to stop us," says a British official. The military campaign will probably become the U.S.`s chief instrument of diplomacy. The Pentagon`s plan is to launch a massive early blitz that would demoralize Saddam`s forces and lead to a quick liberation with limited casualties; if that happens, the Administration believes, hostility to U.S. action will peter out. As it tries to line up votes for a last-chance U.N. resolution, the U.S. is already discussing the prospect of U.N. involvement in a post-Saddam Iraq. Given the enormity of the task of rebuilding that country, it makes sense to get started now. "The United States will come to the U.N. for reconstruction help," says a senior U.N. diplomat, "and they`ll get it."

So, ready or not: the U.S. appears headed for Baghdad, with a coalition of the willing, or at least grudgingly willing, trailing behind. The signs that war is fast approaching are impossible to ignore. As U.S. troops in northern Kuwait readied for combat last week, U.N. monitors discovered several 82-ft.-wide gaps in the electric fence that runs along the border between Iraq and Kuwait. Workers say the Kuwaiti government hired them to cut 35 gaps in the barrier by March 15, big enough for tanks to roll through.

—Reported by Massimo Calabresi and John F. Dickerson/ Washington, Helen Gibson/London and Marguerite Michaels/U.N.




Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved.

[Joerver]

The Bottom Line On Iraq: It`s The Bottom Line
Filed February 19, 2003
Boys, boys, you`re all right. Sure, it`s Daddy, oil, and imperialism, not to mention a messianic sense of righteous purpose, a deep-seated contempt for the peace movement, and, to be fair, the irrefutable fact that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein.

But there`s also an overarching mentality feeding the administration`s collective delusions, and it can be found by looking to corporate America`s bottom line. The dots leading from Wall Street to the West Wing situation room are the ones that need connecting. There`s money to be made in post-war Iraq, and the sooner we get the pesky war over with, the sooner we (by which I mean George Bush`s corporate cronies) can start making it.

The nugget of truth that former Bush economic guru Lawrence Lindsey let slip last fall shortly before he was shoved out the oval office door says it all. Momentarily forgetting that he was talking to the press and not his buddies in the White House, he admitted: "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy."

To hell with worldwide protests, an unsupportive Security Council, a diplomatically dubious Hans Blix, an Osama giddy at the prospect of a united Arab world, and a panicked populace grasping at the very slender reed of duct tape and Saran Wrap to protect itself from the inevitable terrorist blow-back -- the business of America is still business.

No one in the administration embodies this bottom line mentality more than Dick Cheney. The vice president is one of those ideological purists who never let little things like logic, morality, or mass murder interfere with the single-minded pursuit of profitability.

His on-again, off-again relationship with the Butcher of Baghdad is a textbook example of what modern moralists condemn as "situational ethics," an extremely convenient code that allows you to do what you want when you want and still feel good about it in the morning. In the Cheney White House (let`s call it what it is), anything that can be rationalized is right.

The two were clearly on the outs back during the Gulf War, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and the first President Bush dubbed Saddam "Hitler revisited."

Then Cheney moved to the private sector and suddenly things between him and Saddam warmed up considerably. With Cheney in the CEO`s seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services -- becoming Baghdad`s biggest such supplier. Kinda nice how that worked out for the vice-president, really: oversee the destruction of an industry that you then profit from by rebuilding.

When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company`s Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with "Hitler revisited."

And make no mistake, this wasn`t a case of hard-nosed realpolitik -- the rationale for Rummy`s cuddly overtures to Saddam back in `83 despite his almost daily habit of gassing Iranians. That, we were told, was all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

No, Cheney`s company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait. After Scuds had been fired at Tel Aviv and Riyadh. After American soldiers had been sent home from Desert Storm in body bags.

And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam.

Of course, American businessmen are nothing if not flexible. So his former cronies at Halliburton are now at the head of the line of companies expected to reap the estimated $2 billion it will take to rebuild Iraq`s oil infrastructure following Saddam`s ouster. This burn-and-build approach to business guarantees that there will be a market for Halliburton`s services as long as it has a friend in high places to periodically carpet bomb a country for it.

In the meantime, Halliburton, among many other Pentagon contracts, has a lucrative 10-year deal to provide food services to the Army that comes with no lid on potential costs. Lenin once scoffed that "a capitalist would sell rope to his own hangman." And, while the man got more than a few things wrong, he`s been proven right on this one time and time again: from Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel helping arm Saddam back in the 80s, to the good folks at Boeing, Hughes Electronics, Lockheed Martin, and Loral Space whose corporate greed helped China steal rocket and missile secrets -- and point a few dozen long-range nukes our way.

Clearly, our national interest runs a distant second when pitted against the rapacious desires of special interests and the politicians they buy with massive campaign contributions. Oil and gas companies donated $26.7 million to Bush and his fellow Republicans during the 2000 election and another $18 million in 2002. So does it really come as any surprise that Cheney`s staff held secret meetings in October with executives from Exxon Mobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips -- and, yes, Halliburton -- to discuss who would get what in a post-Saddam Iraq? As they say, to the victors -- and the big buck donors -- go the sp-oil-s.

Here`s my bottom line: at a time of war, at what point does subverting our national security in the name of profitability turn from ugly business into high treason?

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/021903.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Bush`s Pressekonferenz zum Download. DSL sollte da sein. Dauert ziemlich lange.


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/10_conference.ht…

[Joerver]

Who the fuck is Yankee Doodle?

Ernst Corinth 11.03.2003
Der Betreiber von germanystinks.com treibt es lieber anonym

Der Mann nennt sich Yankee Doodle. Er liebt sein Land, die USA, "Uber Alles" - oder tut wenigstens so. Als aufrechter Patriot scheint er gegen die neuen Schurkenstaaten Deutschland und Frankreich bös auf Netzseiten wie francestinks.com oder germanystinks.com zu Felde zu ziehen ( Möge der Saft mit Euch sein!).


Dort findet man dann unter "Das Jokes" Witze über doofe Deutsche, unter "Das Photos" Bilder von doofen Deutschen und unter "German: Don`t buy" Produkte doofer deutscher Firmen, die amerikanische Patrioten nicht mehr kaufen sollen ­ wegen Saddam, Schröder und Co. Und kürzlich hat Yankee Doodle sogar die Aktion "Flushed On The 4th!" gestartet und seine Landsleute aufgefordert am 4. März um Mitternacht deutsches Bier, französischen Wein und andere Getränke made in Schurkenstaaten in die Toilette zu kippen. Daran sollen sich dann angeblich 34,2 Prozent der US-Haushalte beteiligt haben. Das wäre zwar schade wegen des schönen Biers und wegen des schönen Weins, aber natürlich das gute Recht vaterländisch gesinnter Amerikaner - oder von solchen, die just diese hinters Licht führen wollen.





So weit, so doof! Und dennoch fragen sich wohl nicht nur die Betreiber von Die USA sind doof und USA stinks, wer steckt eigentlich hinter ihrer Bruderseite germanystinks.com? Wer denkt sich also Witze aus wie: "What did the German clockmaker say to the clock that went `tick, tick, tick`? Ve haff vays to make you tock!"? Kurzum: Who the fuck is eigentlich Yankee Doodle?

Das hat sich auch ein Leser von Telepolis gefragt und mal ganz genau nachgeschaut. Via Whois-Abfrage ist er schnell bei www.internic.com/whois.html und www.domaindiscover.com/whois.html fündig geworden. Und nach seinen Recherchen verbirgt sich hinter dem Pseudonym ein Mitglied und Funktionär der Vereinigung amerikanischer Regisseure ("Directors Guild of America"), der unter anderem als Produzent für auch bei uns beliebte TV-Serien verantwortlich zeichnet und auch die Website www.gofireyourboss.com sein eigen nannte.



THE USA HAS: George W. Bush, Stevie Wonder, & Johnny Cash
GERMANY HAS: Gerhard Schroeder, No Wonder, No Cash!





Das ist allerdings der Stand von vergangener Woche. Inzwischen sind die german/francestinks.com-Seiten nämlich umgemeldet worden. Als Verantwortlicher wird jetzt genannt ein fiktives "Victory Village" aus "Nohow, CA 90000, US", das komischerweise unter der gleichen Telefonnummer zu erreichen ist wie der von unserem Leser verdächtige Produzent. Und sein Verdacht wird erhärtet durch verschiedene Netzseiten. Sie stellen Yankee Doodle vor als 50-jährigen TV-Produzenten aus Kalifornien, der seinen richtigen Namen nicht nennen möchte, weil er in zahlreichen Emails beschimpft worden sei und weil er befürchtet, dass sein politisches Bekenntnis für Vaterland und Krieg ihm geschäftlich schädigen könne.

Dass, wenn es ums Geld geht, die Vaterlandsliebe auch beim selbst ernannten Cowboy Yankee Doodle offenbar sofort aufhört, können wir als feige alte Europäer natürlich gut verstehen. Und deshalb gratulieren wir zum Schluss Mister Doodle alias Dan F. aus dem hoffentlich wunderschönen kalifornischen Burbank besonders herzlich zu seinen wirklich gelungenen Fake-Seiten, mit denen er nicht nur seine patriotischen Landsleute, sondern zahlreiche Medien in der ganzen Welt herrlich veralbert hat. Und fast wären auch wir auf diese Parodie hereingefallen. Was allerdings kaum wundert, weil sich Dan F. als ehemaliger Mitarbeiter der TV-Serie "Seinsfeld" mit Ironie, Scherz und Satire ja bestens auskennt.

Wahrscheinlich versteht Yankee "das Witzerzähler" Doodle auch uns, dass wir immer noch über Witze lachen können wie diesen hier:



George W. Bush und Tony Blair treffen sich zum Essen mit Gästen im Weißen Haus. Fragt einer der Gäste: "Mister President, worüber unterhalten Sie sich denn den ganzen Tag?" - "Wir planen gerade den 3. Weltkrieg." - "Und wie sieht der aus?" - Bush: "Wir töten 4 Millionen Moslems und einen Zahnarzt ..."
Der Gast schaut etwas verwirrt: "Wieso einen Zahnarzt?" - Tony Blair klopft Bush auf die Schulter und meint: "Was habe ich dir gesagt, George. Keiner wird nach den Moslems fragen ..."

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 11. März 2003, 9:09
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239559,00.html
Bushs Öl-Bonanza

"Ekelerregend wie Arafats Unterhosen"

Von Jochen Bölsche

Warum wollen die USA Saddam Hussein nicht nur entwaffnen, sondern partout entmachten? Nur nach einem Regimewechsel, zeigen US-Analysen, ließen sich die gigantischen Ölvorräte im Irak privatisieren und neu verteilen. Jene Ölkonzerne, die Bush den Weg ins Weiße Haus geebnet haben, spekulieren auf die größte Beute aller Zeiten: eine "Bonanza" im Wert von 2800 Milliarden Dollar.

Cynthia McKinney, Abgeordnete der Demokratischen Partei im US-Kongress, ist eine Politikerin mit Zivilcourage. Für viele ihrer konservativen Gegenspieler zählt sie zu den meistgehassten Politikerinnen des Landes. Vergleichsweise mild klingt noch der Vorwurf, die Afroamerikanerin sei eine "Araber-Arschkriecherin". Hardliner wie der rechte Journalist Jonah Goldberg teilen da noch ganz anders aus: Er hält McKinney für "dumm wie Salz und so ekelerregend wie Arafats seit drei Wochen nicht gewechselte Unterhosen".

Mit drei Sätzen drei Tabus verletzt

Solche Rüpeleien muss die Demokratin aus Georgia ertragen, seit sie voriges Jahr mit einer Rede im US-Kongress mit drei Sätzen gleich drei Tabus auf einmal verletzt hat:


"Welche Rolle spielt unsere Abhängigkeit von importiertem Öl für die Militärpolitik, wie sie von der Bush-Administration betrieben wird?"
"Welche Rolle spielen enge Bindungen zwischen der Administration und der Öl- sowie Rüstungsindustrie?"
"Welchen Stellenwert haben sie für die Grundlinien der amerikanischen Politik?"
Mit ihrer Wortmeldung durchbrach die Abgeordnete das "verhängnisvolle, gefährliche Schweigen" über die Kriegsgründe und die Kriegsziele, das seit langem über den USA liegt und das Mitte Februar auch Robert C. Byrd, 86, dienstältester Demokrat und so genannter "Vater des Senats", beklagt hat: "Es gibt keine Debatte, keine Diskussion, keinen Versuch, der Nation das Für und Wider dieses besonderen Krieges darzulegen."

Die US-Massenpresse und das US-Fernsehen, dessen Quoten - war sells - schon jetzt in diesen fiebrigen Vorkriegstagen emporschnellen, rühren unablässig die Kriegstrommel und werben für die Auffassung, ein Angriff auf den Irak diene der Verbreitung der Demokratie im Nahen Osten beziehungsweise der Bekämpfung Osama Bin Ladens; Millionen von Amerikanern sind mittlerweile Opfer des Irrglaubens, die (überwiegend saudiarabischen) WTC-Attentäter seien Iraker.

Allenfalls in amerikanischen Wirtschaftsmagazinen und auf den Wirtschaftsseiten der Qualitätspresse wird gelegentlich die Frage nach den wahren Kriegszielen aufgeworfen - so etwa in der "Washington Post" unter der Überschrift "When It`s Over, Who Gets the Oil?" Wer das Öl kriegt, wenn alles vorbei ist - die Antwort geben die Autoren Dan Morgan und David B. Ottaway gleich im ersten Absatz ihrer Analyse: Ein Sturz Saddams würde für die lange aus dem Irak verbannten westlichen Ölgesellschaften eine "Bonanza" ohnegleichen bedeuten, sozusagen die Mutter aller Goldgruben.

Die Schlüsselfigur heißt Zalmay Khalilzad

Nur der von Bush angestrebte "regime change" im Irak - nicht aber die durch Uno-Beschlüsse abgedeckte Entwaffnung Saddams - ermöglicht den größten Deal aller Zeiten: den Zugriff auf die gigantischen Ölreserven des Orients. Unter anderem mit dem Hinweis auf den "bedeutsamen Teil der Welt-Ölvorräte", der unter dem irakischen Wüstensand schlummert, hatte schon am 26. Januar 1998 das rechtskonservative "Project für a New American Century" (PNAC) eine "militärische Aktion" zur "Entmachtung von Saddams Regime" vorgeschlagen.

Zu den Unterzeichnern gehörte neben dem heutigen Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld und den rechten Globalstrategen Richard Perle und Paul Wolfowitz auch jener Mann, der als Schlüsselfigur für die weltweite Durchsetzung amerikanischer Ölinteressen gilt: Zalmay Khalilzad. Nachdem Khalilzad als Bushs Sonderbotschafter geholfen hatte, die neue Regierung in Afghanistan zu installieren, pflegt er jetzt in der gleichen Funktion den Kontakt zu einer Gruppe irakischer Exilpolitiker, die allesamt hoffen, nach einem Sturz Saddams von den amerikanischen Besatzern an die Macht gehievt zu werden.

Amerikas Öl-Industrie winkt ein "Big Shot"

PNAC-Mann Khalilzad - dessen Kampf für ein "neues amerikanisches Jahrhundert" ebenso wie Bushs Wahlkampf von der Erdöl- und Rüstungsindustrie unterstützt wurde - konferiert und konspiriert vor allem mit den Saddam-Gegnern vom "Irakischen Nationalkongress" (INC). Dessen Sprecher haben sich, wie der Londoner INC-Bürochef Faisal Qaragholi, bereits öffentlich über ihre künftige Ölpolitik geäußert.

"Definitiv", sagt der frühere Erdöl-Ingenieur, würden nach dem Sturz Saddams sämtliche Verträge nichtig, die das alte Regime mit mehr als einem Dutzend ausländischer Ölfirmen ausgehandelt hat. Wem die Konzessionen bei der Neuverteilung durch eine Regierung von Washingtons Gnaden zufallen werden, ist kein Geheimnis.

Ahmed Chalabi, der Präsident des INC, favorisiert, wie er der "Washington Post" verraten hat, für die Entwicklung der irakischen Ölfelder ein Konsortium unter Führung der USA: Amerikanische Gesellschaften, so Chalabi, "will have a big shot at Iraqi oil".

Gemessen an der Beute wären die Kriegskosten "peanuts"


DER SPIEGEL

Reservetank der USA: Die arabischen Ölfelder


Zur Verteilung steht eine unglaublich fette Beute an. Die Rohölreserven des Irak - die zweitgrößten nach denen Saudi-Arabiens - werden von Fachleuten mit 112 Milliarden Barrel beziffert, ihr derzeitiger Wert mit 2,8 "billion" US-Dollar, also 2 800 Milliarden Dollar, ein Betrag, an dem gemessen die auf 80 Milliarden Dollar geschätzten jährlichen Irak-Kriegskosten der USA nur "peanuts" wären. Allerdings wird Washington darauf Wert legen, dass ein paar Kompagnons an der Ausbeutung beteiligt werden - vor allem Bushs Erzverbündeter Großbritannien, das von den Kerneuropäern schon als Trojanisches Pferd der USA auf dem alten Kontinent beargwöhnt wird.

Dem britischen Sozialdemokraten Tony Blair gehe es vor allem ums Öl, vermutet auch der deutsche Sozialdemokrat Hermann Scheer.


In einem SPIEGEL-ONLINE-Interview analysierte Scheer, Energie- und Rüstungsexperte der SPD-Fraktion, schon vorigen Monat: "Das Öl erklärt mehr als alles andere das britische Verhalten. Von den sechs größten Erdölgesellschaften sind zwei britisch, BP und Shell. BP ist sogar ein britischer Staatsbetrieb und hat 20 Jahre lang bis in die Verwaltung des Irak hineinregiert." Neben den Briten sollten gegebenenfalls auch die anderen Ständigen Mitglieder des Uno-Sicherheitsrates an der Bonanza beteiligt werden, hat der einstige CIA-Direktor James Woolsey, einer der führenden Lobbyisten für einen Irakkrieg, schon öffentlich angeregt.

Bush müsse, so Woolsey, den Regierungen Frankreichs, Russlands und Chinas als Gegenleistung für einen Veto-Verzicht in der Uno zusagen, "dass wir unser Bestes tun werden, um sicherzustellen, dass die neue Regierung und die amerikanischen Gesellschaften mit ihnen eng zusammenarbeiten werden". Allerdings: Sollten die drei Staaten im Sicherheitsrat gegen die angloamerikanischen Kriegspläne stimmen, werde es "schwierig bis unmöglich" sein, "die neue irakische Regierung zu überreden, mit ihnen zusammenzuarbeiten".

"Das Lebenselixier des American Way of Life"

Längst denken die Globalstrategen im Pentagon, in den Chefetagen der Erdöl- und Rüstungsfirmen und in deren Think Tanks weit über die Grenzen des Irak hinaus. Denn der Öldurst der USA, deren eigene Reserven allmählich zur Neige gehen, ist schier unersättlich.

Mit einem Pro-Kopf-Energieverbrauch, der um das Doppelte über dem der Deutschen liegt, sind die Vereinigten Staaten die energieintensivste Nation der Welt. Bis zum Jahr 2020 wird eine weitere Zunahme des US-Erdölbedarfs um 33 Prozent erwartet; dann müssten 70 Prozent des US-Bedarfs über Importe gedeckt werden.

Die US-Ökonomie sitze "mehr als jede andere Volkswirtschaft in der Ölfalle", wenn die Preise steigen, doziert der in Osnabrück lehrende Politikwissenschaftler Mohssen Massarrat: "Billigöl gilt als Lebenselixier des American Way of Life. Kein US-Präsident traut sich zu, diesen verschwenderischen Lebensstil anzutasten."

Ronald Reagan verwarf die "Alternativen zum Krieg"

Zwar hatten die USA vor 23 Jahren, unter Präsident Jimmy Carter, den Ausbau von erneuerbaren Energien angesteuert, um die Abhängigkeit von Öl-Importen zu vermindern. Eine einschlägige Studie trug den Titel "Alternativen zur Verletzlichkeit der Nation und zum Krieg." Doch dann zog der konservative Ronald Reagan ins Weiße Haus ein und zerschlug alle Ansätze zu einer Energiewende. Reagans Motive lagen auf der Hand. "Sein Wahlkampf", erinnert sich der deutsche Umweltpolitiker Scheer, "war genauso intensiv von der Ölindustrie gesponsert wie der von Bush."


DER SPIEGEL

Die Öl-Connection im Weißen Haus


Aus der Ölfalle, in der die USA stecken, führt nach Überzeugung der "Neo-Reaganisten" in den konservativen US-Denkfabriken nur ein Ausweg: Allein der Zugriff Washingtons auf die Ölhähne von "Greater Middle East" garantiere eine permanente Energieversorgung - und sichere überdies auch die globale Hegemonie der USA.

Mit der Kontrolle über die Quellen und den Preis des Schwarzen Goldes hätten die Amerikaner, argumentiert Professor Massarrat, eine "Ölwaffe" in der Hand, die sich nicht nur gegen Russland, China und Indien einsetzen ließe, sondern auch gegen andere potenzielle Konkurrenten: "gegen die eigenen Verbündeten, gegen die EU, ganz besonders gegen Deutschland, nicht zuletzt auch gegen Japan, dessen Abhängigkeit von Ölexporten extrem ist".

Zweifel an der "Dominotheorie" der US-Strategen

Bushs jüngste Beteuerung, es gehe vor allem darum, nach der Entmachtung Saddams auch all die anderen Diktaturen im Nahen Osten wie Dominosteine umkippen zu sehen und sie durch Demokratien abzulösen, stößt selbst in den USA auf Zweifel. Zu tief verwurzelt ist bei den Gebildeten im Lande die Erinnerung daran, dass die USA, wenn es um Öl-Interessen ging, immer wieder mit Finsterlingen paktiert haben, die alles andere als demokratisch waren - vom Schah von Persien über den Giftgaskrieger Saddam bis hin zu den Taliban, mit denen sie vor dem Afghanistan-Krieg über Pipelines für das kaspische Öl verhandelten. Seit die Falken ihre Krallen ins Weiße Haus geschlagen haben, gehe es der US-Regierung, so Experte Scheer, um die Kontrolle der gesamten Region am Golf, wo 26 jener 40 Riesenölfelder liegen, aus denen 60 Prozent der Welt-Erdölförderung stammen. Mit Sorge betrachten die USA vor allem die Entwicklung in Saudi-Arabien, dessen gewaltige Öl-Vorräte auf Grund schneller Ausbeutung rascher erschöpft sein werden als die irakischen Quellen und wo zudem die Gefahr eines islamistischen Umsturzes ständig wächst.

"Die Saudis sind verweichlicht und verwöhnt"

Im vorigen Herbst verlangte die rechte Kolumnistin Maureen Dowd denn auch in der "New York Times", die USA sollten statt in den Irak lieber in Saudi-Arabien einmarschieren: "Die Saudis anzugreifen wäre sogar noch einfacher. Sie sind verweichlicht und verwöhnt." Das Ganze sei ein Kinderspiel, vergleichbar mit "der Panama-Invasion während der Amtszeit von Bush I." Besser noch: "Sobald wir Saudi-Arabien in unsere Selbstbedienungstankstelle verwandelt haben, werden seine Nachbarn das Demokratie-Virus bekommen."

Auf solche Ratschläge mögen selbst die Bushisten wohl (noch) nicht hören. Denn eine Intervention im Land von Mekka und Medina, gibt der Energiefachmann Scheer zu bedenken, würde "einen Flächenbrand in der gesamten islamischen Welt auslösen". Scheer: "Deshalb ist der Irak das Substitut." Dabei besteht kein Zweifel, dass die Falken um Bush langfristig die gesamte Golfregion im Auge haben, deren Gesamt-Ölreserven von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Friedensforschung an der Universität Kassel auf einen derzeitigen Marktwert von 10.000 Milliarden Dollar taxiert werden - eine 1 mit dreizehn Nullen. Ernsthaft erwogen wurde eine Strategie gegen die Saudis bereits im einflussreichen Defense Policy Board, dem der PNAC-Mann und einstige Vize-Verteidigungsminister Richard Perle vorsteht.

"Die Heiligen Stätten ins Visier nehmen"

Im vorigen Herbst referierte dort der Rand-Corporation-Planer Laurent Murawiec über Möglichkeiten, mit einem "Ultimatum an das Haus Saud" Druck auszuüben, falls die Regierung keinen US-freundlichen Kurs einschlage, und gegebenenfalls "das saudische Öl, Geld und die Heiligen Stätten ins Visier zu nehmen" - was die "International Herald Tribune" zu einem (halbherzigen) Protest veranlasste.

"Lasst uns ehrlich sein," schrieb das Blatt: "Im Nahen Osten alles auf eine Karte zu setzen - auf Regimewechsel im Irak, im Iran, in Ägypten, Syrien und Saudi-Arabien zu drängen: So handeln nur Spieler. Das bedeutet nicht, dass es falsch ist, sondern dass es riskant ist - und aus diesem Grund verdient es eine besonders sorgfältige Debatte."

Zu dieser Debatte hat Vizepräsident Dick Cheney, Autor einer "Nationalen Energiepolitik" der USA und ebenso wie sein Chef George W. Bush Ex-Spitzenmanager in der Ölindustrie, das Argument beigesteuert, Ölpreissteigerungen dürften nicht hingenommen werden; sie würden "wie eine Steuer durch ausländische Ölexporteure wirken" und "das ökonomische Wachstum beeinträchtigen". Aus solchen Gründen, analysiert das Fachblatt "Petroleum Finance", sei es die "Strategie der US-Regierung, die Marktmacht der Opec zu schwächen, und ein Weg hierzu ist es, bestimmte Länder herauszulösen". Im Irak könnte das bald gelingen: Die Exilopposition, die demnächst unter dem Schutz der USA das Zweistromland regieren will, hat bereits angekündigt, aus der Organisation der Erdöl exportierenden Staaten austreten zu wollen.

Damit aber wären aus Sicht der US-Regierung die Voraussetzungen dafür geschaffen, sich endlich den Saudis zuzuwenden.

Nach einem Machtwechsel im Irak, so die "International Herald Tribune", werde "ein freundliches Nachfolgeregime ein wichtiger Ölexporteur in den Westen werden. Dieses Öl würde die US-amerikanische Abhängigkeit von saudischen Energieexporten reduzieren und es folglich erlauben, das saudische Königshaus damit zu konfrontieren, dass es den Terrorismus unterstützt" - ein neuer Kriegsgrund?

In der Öl-Industrie gilt: "Keep your lip zipped"

Die radikalsten unter den US-Hardlinern bekennen sich mittlerweile offen zu ihren An- und Absichten. "Man wirft Amerika vor, wegen Öl Krieg zu führen," sagt der Energiestratege Murawiec: "Das ist sogar ein sehr guter Grund."

Die Großen im Ölgeschäft hingegen betrachteten das Thema als "extrem sensitiv", wie Reporter von "Business Week" bei einschlägigen Recherchen erfuhren. Die mächtigen Berufskollegen des fiktiven TV-Ekels J. R. Ewing aus Dallas verhielten sich sämtlich nach dem Motto: Klappe halten, Bush vertrauen und allzeit bereit sein. Oder, im Originalton: "Keep your lip zipped, hope George W. is right, and go along for the ride."




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

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

[Joerver]

#260 Die Bilder dazu

[Joerver]

http://www.workingforchange.com/action_center.cfm?itemid=143…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

DEm Cowboy haben sie das Pferd geklaut

[Joerver]

Der Nächste bitte

U.S. diplomat resigns over Iraq war plans

Monday, March 10, 2003 Posted: 7:09 PM EST (0009 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) --A U.S. diplomat resigned from government service Monday in protest at President Bush`s preparations to attack Iraq, the second to do so in less than a month.

John H. Brown, who joined the U.S. diplomatic corps in 1981 and served in London, Prague, Krakow, Kiev, Belgrade and Moscow, said in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell made available to the media: "I cannot in good conscience support President Bush`s war plans against Iraq.

"Throughout the globe the United States is becoming associated with the unjustified use of force. The president`s disregard for views in other nations, borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy, is giving birth to an anti-American century," the diplomat added.

Brown has recently been attached to the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University in Washington. Immediately before that, he was cultural attache at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

A senior U.S. diplomat based in Athens, political counselor John Brady Kiesling, 45, resigned in protest at the Bush administration`s policy on Iraq last month.






Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/10/sprj.irq.diplomat.resignati…

[Joerver]

Der New York Times und CBS Poll vom 07.-09.03.02



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20030311_poll/…



http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20030311_poll1… Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
2/10-12/01 CBS 53 21 26
3/8-12/01 60 22 18
4/4-5/01 CBS 53 35 12
4/23-25/01 CBS 56 29 15
5/10-12/01 CBS 57 30 13
6/14-18/01 53 34 13
8/28-31/01 CBS 50 38 12
9/11-12/01 CBS 72 15 13
9/13-14/01 84 9 8
9/20-23/01 89 7 5
10/25-28/01 87 8 5
12/7-10/01 86 9 4
1/5-6/02 CBS 84 10 6
1/15-17/02 CBS 82 11 7
1/21-24/02 82 12 6
2/24-26/02 CBS 78 14 8
4/1-2/02 CBS 77 17 6
4/28-5/1/02 73 18 9
5/13-14/02 CBS 77 16 7
5/19-20/02 CBS 71 18 11
6/18-20/02 CBS 70 20 10
7/8-9/02 CBS 74 19 6
7/13-16/02 70 20 9
7/22-23/02 CBS 65 27 8
8/6-7/02 CBS 66 25 9
9/2-5/02 63 28 9
9/22-23/02 CBS 66 27 7
10/3-6/02 63 29 8
10/27-31/02 62 28 10
11/20-24/02 65 27 9
1/4-6/03 CBS 64 28 8
1/19-22/03 59 35 6
2/5-6/03 CBS 63 28 9
2/10-12/03 54 38 8
2/24-25/03 CBS 56 35 9
3/4-5/03 CBS 58 32 10
3/7-9/03 56 37 6




2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling foreign policy?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
3/8-12/01 52 18 30
4/4-5/01 CBS 48 34 18
4/23-25/01 CBS 53 31 16
5/10-12/01 CBS 53 24 23
6/14-18/01 47 31 22
10/25-28/01 74 16 10
12/07-10/01 75 13 12
1/15-17/02 CBS 73 14 13
1/21-24/02 70 14 16
2/24-26/02 CBS 65 22 13
4/1-2/02 CBS 65 23 12
4/15-18/02 CBS 62 26 12
5/13-14-02 CBS 63 25 12
5/19-20/02 CBS 63 25 12
6/18-20/02 CBS 59 27 14
7/8-9/02 CBS 64 23 13
7/13-16/02 68 22 10
9/2-5/02 54 36 11
9/22-23/02 CBS 58 34 8
10/3-6/02 57 33 11
10/27-31/02 54 34 12
11/20-24/02 54 33 13
1/4-6/03 CBS 56 35 9
1/19-22/03 52 41 8
2/5-6/03 CBS 59 34 7
2/10-12/03 47 44 9
2/24-25/03 CBS 51 41 8
3/4-5/03 CBS 51 39 10
3/7-9/03 51 42 7




3. How about the economy? Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
3/8-12/01 55 28 17
4/4-5/01 CBS 47 40 13
4/23-25/01 CBS 44 39 17
5/10-12/01 CBS 46 37 17
6/14-18/01 50 38 12
10/25-28/01 64 25 11
12/7-10/01 61 26 13
1/5-6/02 CBS 59 29 12
1/15-17/02 CBS 57 31 12
1/21-24/02 56 33 11
2/24-26/02 CBS 54 37 9
5/13-14/02 CBS 52 38 10
6/18-20/02 CBS 56 36 8
7/8-9/02 CBS 56 35 9
7/13-16/02 52 37 11
7/22-23/02 CBS 44 45 11
8/6-7/02 CBS 45 44 11
9/2-5/02 47 42 11
9/22-23/02 CBS 49 41 10
10/3-6/02 41 46 13
10/27-31/02 46 43 12
11/20-24/02 45 45 10
1/4-6/03 CBS 42 46 12
1/19-22/03 44 49 7
2/5-6/03 CBS 44 49 7
2/10-12/03 38 53 10
2/24-25/03 CBS 40 50 10
3/4-5/03 CBS 41 49 10
3/7-9/03 40 52 8




4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
2/10-12/03 53 42 5
2/24-25/03 CBS 52 44 4
3/4-5/03 CBS 54 39 7
3/7-9/03 51 42 6




RELATED TRENDS:


DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE WAY BILL CLINTON IS HANDLING THE SITUATION WITH IRAQ?
APPROVE DISAPPROVE DK/NA
6/931 59 21 20
9/96 63 19 8
2/1/98 CBS 68 16 16
2/8/98 CBS 66 17 17
2/17/98 CBS 69 21 10
2/98 58 29 13
12/16/98 CBS 67 21 12
12/17/98 72 22 6




1 SURVEY CONDUCTED WITH CALLBACKS FOLLOWING THE U.S. BOMBING OF IRAQ IN JUNE 1993. QUESTION READ: "...DEALING WITH IRAQ?"


DO YOU APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE WAY GEORGE BUSH IS HANDLING THE SITUATION WITH IRAQ?
APPROVE DISAPPROVE DK/NA
9/92A 49 40 11
10/92A 46 42 13




5. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with North Korea?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
2/10-12/03 44 25 31
3/7-9/03 45 35 20




SPLIT HALF Q6 AND Q7


6. Which of the following do you think is the most important thing for Congress to concentrate on: the war on terror, the economy, Iraq or North Korea?
War on terror Economy Iraq N. Korea None(vol.) DK/NA
2/10-12/03 29 41 16 7 1 5
3/7-9/03 28 42 19 5




7. Which of the following do you think is the most important problem facing the country today: the war on terror, the economy, or dealing with the situation in Iraq?
War on terror Economy Iraq N. Korea DK/NA
3/7-9/03 32 35 23 7 5




8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power?
Approve Disapprove DK/NA
2/24-26/02 CBS 74 18 8
6/18-20/02 CBS 70 20 10
7/8-9/02 CBS 73 21 6
8/6-7/02 CBS 66 26 8
9/2-5/02 68 24 8
10/3-5/02 67 27 5
10/27-31/02 64 25 11
11/20-24/02 70 23 6
1/19-22/03 64 30 5
2/5-6/03 CBS 70 21 9
2/10-12/03 66 29 5
2/24-25/03 CBS 66 29 5
3/4-5/03 CBS 69 26 5
3/7-9/03 66 30 4




9. How would you rate the way the United Nations is handling the situation with Iraq? Is it doing a good job or a poor job handling Iraq?
Good job Poor job DK/NA
2/10-12/03 46 48 7
3/7-9/03 34 58 8




SPLIT HALF Q10 AND Q11


10. When it comes to Iraq, do you think United States should so what it thinks is right no matter what its allies think, or should the U.S. take into account the views of its allies before taking action?
Do what it thinks right Take allies into account DK/NA
2/24-25 CBS 27 70 3
3/4-5/03 CBS 38 56 6
3/7-9/03 36 60 4




11. When it comes to Iraq, do you think the United States should do what it thinks is right even if countries like Russia, France or China vetoes the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, or should the United States take into account a veto of the resolution before taking action?
What it thinks right Take veto into account DK/NA
3/7-9/03 44 49 7




12. Do you think the Bush Administration has presented enough evidence to show that military action against Iraq is necessary right now, or haven`t they done that yet?
Enough evidence Not done that DK/NA
2/24-25/03 45 41 4
3/4-5/03 53 42 5
3/7-9/03 52 43 5

[Joerver]

Da stehen sie nicht alleine da.


Poll: Britons See Bush as Bigger Threat Than Saddam
Tue Mar 11, 9:31 AM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!



LONDON (Reuters) - The British public sees President Bush (news - web sites) as a greater threat to world peace than Iraq (news - web sites)`s Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), a poll published on Tuesday showed.

It also believes that as long as United Nations (news - web sites) weapons inspectors can do a useful job in Iraq, it would be wrong for the United States and Britain to attack. However, Britons say something has to be done about Saddam and suspect he is determined to hide his weapons of mass destruction from U.N. inspectors.


The poll, commissioned by Channel 4 Television, asked 1,000 people whether they believed Bush was a greater threat to world peace than Saddam. Forty-five percent agreed while 38 percent disagreed.


Two-thirds of those polled said it would be wrong to attack Iraq while inspectors felt they still had a useful job to do.


However, 64 percent of respondents said they agreed with Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)`s claim that "if the international community fails to act firmly now against Iraq, then the world will become a more dangerous place in years to come." Only 24 percent disagreed.


Those polled were also asked for their views on the following statement: "Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, and to hide as many as possible from the United Nations arms inspectors." Two thirds agreed with the statement while one in five disagreed.


Blair has wholeheartedly supported Washington`s campaign to rid Iraq of banned chemical and biological weapons. Iraq denies it has such weapons.


The British Prime Minister has struggled to convince the public of his case, and has faced serious dissent from members of his ruling Labour Party.


A poll conducted by Channel 4 in November produced similar results, with Bush seen as a bigger threat to world peace than the Iraqi President.

[Joerver]

Ich glaube ein wirklich überzeugender Kommentar über die USA.

``Hating America``
Printed on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 @ 01:09:17 EST ( )

By John Chuckman
YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada)

(YellowTimes.org) – Recently, there has been a thunderous outburst of accusations about "hating America" with lightning strokes crackling towards France and Germany. Some of this storm front rattled into Canada when a member of Parliament, upset over Mr. Bush`s relentless demand for war, made the mistake of muttering an aside about hating Americans, a statement which any thoughtful person understood immediately as frustration rather than hatred.

But how is it even possible to hate so vast and complex a thing as America?

America is sweaty, droning backwaters, and it is also great institutions of research and culture. America is shameful ghettos and shantytowns, and it is Frank Lloyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, Daniel Burnham, and Frederick Law Olmstead. It is the hateful shouting of right-wing radio personalities, and it is Studs Terkel reminiscing on great past events. It is Know Nothings, and it is Lincoln; lynchings and Roosevelt`s Four Freedoms. It is "freedom-loving" patriots who bought, sold, and beat slaves, ran Loyalists out of the country and stole their property when they didn`t just burn them out, and it is Benjamin Franklin. It is local sheriffs enjoying petty tyrannies, gangs running neighborhoods, crooked politicians fixing elections, and it is the Bill of Rights. It is a churning sea of selfishness and unprincipled grasping, a hideous noise of marketing and insincerity, and it is sacrifice and devotion to principles. America has a character historian Page Smith called, in a usage that is now dated and inaccurate but still understandable, "schizophrenic."

One of the threads holding together the vast, chaotic, noisy battle that is America is the simplistic patriotism instilled like religious fervor with anthems, uniformed marching bands, baton twirlers, slogans, color guards, and a pledge foisted on children that has always smacked of what one expects in authoritarian societies.

Patriotic excess has at least two roots. One is the desire by those with power to hold this explosive thing called America together and to use its resources and influence to their own ends. Thus, we almost never see figures like George Bush or Dick Cheney without American flag pins on their lapels and big American flags as backdrops to speeches, as though one could possibly forget from what country they come. These symbols are being used as powerful totems. You can`t sneer at the flag even when it is a pathetic mediocrity or when an essentially evil figure is wrapping himself in it.

The other root is the almost excruciating sensitivity many Americans feel about their national identity. This is something one expects to find in any young and raw society, but America does appear a bit slow in maturing beyond it. Undoubtedly, the discomforting nature (for some) of a highly diverse population whose composition actually keeps changing provides a retarding effect. So, too, does America`s crude social Darwinism. This is a land where it is not hard to find a lot of loneliness and anger, people ready to embrace those chest-thumping moments of presumed society.

Of course, a confident individual doesn`t need to strut or brag or threaten. Brash patriotic displays reveal a childish need for constant reassurance. This doubt and uncertainty is a theme running through American history with, for example, the highly self-conscious efforts of the Concord Group about seeing an American literature created, or with authors like Henry James, T.S. Elliot, or James Baldwin effectively fleeing either the excesses or the cultural sterility of their native land.

That is the more charitable explanation, and I believe it holds for the most part. But there also is that dark corner of the American soul with its attraction to fascism. After all, fascism represents in part a desire for certainty and predictability. Perhaps only the Hitler-tinged figures of the world feel the need for a vast dumb-show of patriotism every time they give a speech or make an appearance, and I believe what we see in George Bush, who is more given over to this display than most American presidents, hints at something quite dark and fearful.

Many outsiders do not understand that in American society, two or more great and divergent currents run simultaneously at all times on most issues. I refer to something more profound than the existence of two political parties, neither of which stands for any great principles. For example, many think of America as the land of casualness, lack of formality, hatred of bureaucracy, and the embrace of the individual. And in part, they are right, but only in part.

At the same time that noisy right-wing hawks blubber night and day about unlimited individualism, Americans in their ordinary lives experience some of the world`s more intense spasms of mindless bureaucracy and anti-liberalism, often the result of legislation created by the very same right-wing forces with their seemingly irresistible desire for control.

As any potential immigrant, even the spouse of an American citizen ostensibly entitled to live in the country, soon learns, the paperwork, restrictions, and bureaucratic hurdles of legal immigration to the United States are formidable, ungenerous, and costly, something that was true even before 9/11.

As anyone who has taken a mortgage in the United States knows, the transaction involves one of the largest and most complex piles of paperwork that can be imagined. Something like an inch-thick stack of legalistic documents no ordinary person can hope to understand must be signed.

As anyone who has filed income tax in the United States knows, the forms and rules must rank as among the ugliest, most complex, and indecipherable on the planet.

And, of course, there are the many intrusive, blundering public and secret agencies with which America abounds. The FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the ATF, the DEA, Homeland Security, military intelligence, naval intelligence, State Department intelligence, state and urban police security agencies, the INS… New ones are created regularly, especially when right-wing extremists enjoy power as they do now.

Albert Einstein wrote to a friend in 1947, "America has changed… It has become pretty military and aggressive. The fear of Russia is the means of making it digestible to the plebs." Since Einstein was a refugee from Nazi Germany and always displayed great sensitivity to signs of authoritarianism, his words offer an important historical insight to distinct change in the external policies of the United States. What has followed is a long series of colonial wars and interventions, a remarkable portion of which have been unsuccessful and pointlessly bloody or have resulted in the establishment of tyrannies. It is not hard for a thinking person to find things to "hate" here without reflecting on any broader concepts of America.

As for what Canadians represent, I can only think of Canada fighting Hitler two years before America, suffering in World War II about twice as many deaths per capita as Americans did. I think of America`s kidnapped diplomats in Iran and the brave Canadian diplomat who hid some of them from danger. I think of the wonderful people of Newfoundland generously, without charge, putting up hundreds American air-travelers grounded for days following 9/11. I think of the many generous gifts Canadians sent to 9/11 families. I think of Toronto sending a fleet of men and equipment to Buffalo, New York, when it was buried in seven feet of snow.

Anyone with sense would be grateful for a neighbor like that, but Canadians still have no use for your damned war.

[John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company. He has many interests and is a lifelong student of history. He writes with a passionate desire for honesty, the rule of reason, and concern for human decency. He is a member of no political party and takes exception to what has been called America`s "culture of complaint" with its habit of reducing every important issue to an unproductive argument between two simplistically defined groups. John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the country embarked on the pointless murder of something like three million Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."]

John Chuckman encourages your comments: [e-mail]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Published on Monday, March 10, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
The "Bush & God" Scam: Don`t Buy It
by Ira Chernus

"Bush & God," the cover of Newsweek announces, as if the two were business partners. That`s what the White House wants us to think. It is mounting a massive campaign to paint the president as a man on a divine mission, a man who sees himself as an agent of God.

Some of the reasons for this PR ploy are obvious. It`s so much easier to go to war if we believe that God is on our, and our leader`s, side. Wrap the flag around God, and who can question your moral credibility? If Bush stands with God, those who actively oppose his war must be down below with Satan. If Bush is so sincerely religious, those who question his motives must be misguided. Such a spiritual man would never send others to their death for crass motives like power and oil. Surely, he must have higher ethical principles in view.

There is a risk in this strategy. It makes Bush look like a fanatic. That could easily drive some of the undecided into the antiwar camp.

But making Bush look like a fanatic might very well be the point. If he really believes he is on a mission from God, why would he care what the French, the Russians, or even the American people think? Nothing can stop a religious fanatic from doing God`s work on earth. As antiwar sentiment mounts, the White House may be using this "Bush and God" gambit as a way to say: Forget it. March and lobby as much as you want. Nothing can stop this Christian soldier from marching out to war.

This is a new twist on Richard Nixon`s famous "madman" theory. Nixon wanted the North Vietnamese to believe that he was so irrational, he could easily nuke them into oblivion if they did not settle the war on his terms. Now the White House says that George W. is so irrationally sunk in his Christian beliefs, he must have U.S. policy settled on his terms.

The irony is that the White House has to spin this story precisely because George W. keeps turning back from the brink, as more and more of the world turns against his war. Remember when we were told that the war would have to start by February, to get it over with before the desert turned too hot? Then, as diplomatic resistance to war mounted, nature`s deadline was put off until later in the spring.

On March 7, facing a French and Russian veto in the Security Council, the U.S. did another backpedal. It amended its supposedly "final" resolution to include a deadline of March 17. All the amendment says is that Iraq must show it is disarming in good faith by the 17th. But most Security Council members, including the French and Russians, say Iraq is already disarming in good faith. So come the 17th, the Security Council will remain as paralyzed as ever. The amended resolution has no real teeth. It is another U.S. surrender.

But every time the Bush administration caves in to diplomatic pressure, the White House puts out the story that it`s more determined than ever to go to war. And the U.S. media dutifully buy it. The media heralded the March 17 date as a drop-dead deadline, an absolute proof that Bush will indeed have his heavenly war, come hell, high water, or UN veto. Of course, they may be right. But if you look at what the administration does, not what it says, the evidence points in the opposite direction.

The pressure is mounting against war. It would be a bad mistake for antiwar forces to swallow the line about "Bush and God" as proof that our protests are useless. The New York Times editorial board and its star pundit, Thomas Friedman, have come out against war. Even the more conservative Washington Post is calling for Bush to wait "a few more weeks," hoping for an international change of heart.

Sure, we progressive activists would like everyone to oppose the war on moral grounds, like we do. But if we have to ally with pragmatists like the Times, the Post, and the French government to get the job done, so be it. Our alliance is growing. We are on a roll.

Only two things can stop us. We could tear our alliance apart with internal squabbling and demands for ideological purity. More likely, we will slow our own momentum by convincing ourselves that war is inevitable, because Bush is an irrational fanatic. That is what I hear in antiwar circles, over and over again, far too often. The more we tell each other that our efforts are doomed to fail, the more we come to believe it.

This is a time for one last enormous push against the war. Who knows? God may be on Bush`s side. But it doesn`t matter. The political momentum is on our side. Let`s go out confidently to stop this war before it starts.

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder. [e-mail]

###

[Joerver]

Top 11 reasons Bush withdrew from a speaking commitment when the European host wouldn`t guarantee a standing ovation for his remarks on Iraq.

11. He`s become accustomed to one since toilet training.

10. Will use the snub as pretext to invade later.

9. It`s in his contract with the Fox network.

8. David Hasselhoff gets "standing-Os" in Strasbourg all the time.

7. How else can he measure the fealty of his subjects?

6. They always gave Clinton one.

5. Europe is such an arrogant country.

4. They seem to have forgotten how guys like his dad saved them from Nazi collaborators like his grandfather during World War 2.

3. He doesn`t buy $14,000 suits for polite applause.

2. It`s the least they can do if they`re not going to bow and curtsy.

1. If the free press of the United States caves-in to his every demand, why should he expect any less from the rest of the world?


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

[Joerver]

Siese Antwort läßt keine Fragen offen, nur alles eine Frage des Fehlens von männlichen Selbstbewusstseins. Sehr empfehlendswert:


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

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Wieviel UN-Resolutionen sind hier nicht beachten worden? Das Morden im Schatten des Krieges.

Violence in the shadows
What impact will the coming war in Iraq have on the long-running one between Israel and Palestine?

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday March 12, 2003
The Guardian

We`re all so fixated with the Middle East war that`s about to begin, we`ve stopped looking at the one that never seems to end. But the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis has not disappeared just because we`re no longer paying attention. It`s still pressing on, stealing lives and breaking hearts every single day.

In the last couple of months alone, Israel has killed more than 150 Palestinians - dozens in the last fortnight. In the same period, Palestinians have made more than 100 attempts on Israeli civilian lives; all failed, until last week`s Haifa bus bombing, which killed 17. Take yesterday as a random, typical day in the life of the conflict. Israel killed three Palestinians in Gaza, discovering the bodies of two of them next to knapsacks containing pipe bombs. Meanwhile, an Israeli soldier was killed while on patrol in Hebron. Each side will find it easy to dismiss the deaths of the other: those two men were "terrorists," that one was an "occupier". But they were all people and now they are dead.

So what`s been going in this most wearily protracted of conflicts while the world`s been looking the other way? And what impact might the coming war on Iraq have on the long-running one between Israel and Palestine?

The first answer is plenty. Israel has a new government, for one thing. The heart of it is still Ariel Sharon, though with his Likud bloc now much expanded and joined by some new partners. Internally, this new coalition may actually bring some much-needed progressive reform to the country: for the first time in decades the ultra-orthodox parties are not in government, handing the militantly anti-clerical Shinui party a rare chance to separate religion and state.

Externally, there`s much less cause for optimism. Sharon`s new government includes two hard right parties, ideologically set against any compromise with the Palestinians. And the new administration`s first acts have hardly been encouraging. Where once Israel made only brief raids into Gaza - targeting a suspected terrorist here, bombing a Hamas building there - now they seem to be digging in.

There are a clutch of explanations for this new, entrenched push into Gaza. First, Israel believes last year`s reoccupation of Palestinian cities in the West Bank worked, at least slowing the rush of suicide bombers able to make it into Israel: now they want to repeat the process in Gaza. Second, the slight brake represented by Labour in the last, "national unity" government is absent now; Sharon and his hawkish defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, have a free hand. Third, Israel`s near-complete destruction of Yasser Arafat`s Palestinian Authority has left a vacuum. Arafat still wants to be seen making the national decisions, most recently appointing PLO veteran Abu Mazen as his prime minister, but the PLO is not the dominant force it once was. "It`s Hamas that controls the streets now," says one Israeli government official. "The PA is not shutting Hamas down, so we`re having to do it."

There`s one more reason why Israel`s doing this now: because it can. Attention is not on Israel - we`re all glued to those pictures of the security council instead - so it`s a good moment to get any unpleasantness out of the way. There`s no reason to wait till the shooting war itself, say Israeli sources, because any attack on Iraq might be very short - perhaps the Middle East`s second Six Day war. Instead the window of opportunity is open right now.

That`s especially true because the US is in no mood to hold Israel back. Washington needs Sharon to follow the policy of "restraint" exercised by his predecessor, Yitzhak Shamir, during the last Gulf war: even when Iraq`s Scuds landed on Tel Aviv, Shamir did not hit back. This time round Saddam might deploy the Samson option, deciding that if he`s going to die he might as well bring the temple down with him - by hurling a few chemical weapons at Israel. Even with that provocation, Bush wants Sharon to sit tight rather than weighing in to what would fast become a regional conflagration. European diplomats believe that such is the need to keep Sharon on side, that Washington will say nothing to rile him in advance of war.

What about afterwards? How will an American victory in Iraq affect the Israel-Palestine conflict? It turns out that this is one of those intriguing questions that only the ill-informed pretend to know the firm answer to. Everyone else admits it could go either way - with a pile of evidence supporting two quite opposite scenarios.

The first imagines swift success in Iraq, leaving the US feeling pumped and under no obligation to anyone. European and moderate Arab whining about the need to pressure Israel into a peace process would be waved aside: after all, America would owe nothing to anyone. "The US could tell everyone to get stuffed - including Tony," says one Israeli official. The British PM, so vital now during the diplomatic endgame, would no longer have much leverage. Instead Washington`s hawks could claim vindication for the conviction that underpins their approach to the war on terror: that the only way to fight fire is with fire - the same philosophy advocated by Sharon. The hard right view of all peace processes - that they amount to little more than appeasement and the rewarding of terror - would be in the ascendant. Washington would also have a pragmatic reason to indulge, rather than lean on, Sharon: the 2004 presidential election cycle begins in the autumn of this year. No White House wants to immerse itself in such a thankless task as Middle East peace-brokering in a campaign year.

None of this, incidentally, is meant to endorse the more lurid fantasising that has appeared in some European commentary, suggesting not only that a post-victory US would go easy on Sharon but that somehow the very purpose of a war on Iraq is the furthering of Israel`s interests. That kind of talk, coupled with the pointed and constant lingering on the names of Bush`s Jewish advisers - Wolfowitz, Perle - etc is not that far from the age-old anti-semitic claim, raised before every major conflict, that "it`s the Jews who are dragging us into this war". Rest assured, the US right has plenty of reasons of its own for wanting this fight.

Indeed, there`s at least some reason to believe that Bush Jnr will follow the precedent of his father: flush from victory in the Gulf, George Bush Snr convened a Middle East peace conference in Madrid - and pressed a rightwing Israeli PM to attend. If the Gulf war of 2003 is slow and tricky, and America realises it needs allies, it might well have to heed the demand of Blair and the Europeans and start knocking Israeli and Palestinian heads together this time too. That might not be as much of a leap for Bush as it seems: after all he has already publicly committed himself to a viable Palestinian state - the first US president to do so.

So the impact the conflict will have on Israel and Palestine will depend on two things: how the war goes and what Bush truly believes. The trouble is, no one can know either for certain.

[e-mail]

[Joerver]

Achtung keine Satire. Echter Wahnsinn


French fries get new name in House restaurants
By Jim Abrams, Associated Press, 3/11/2003 19:50

WASHINGTON (AP) Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put ``freedom fries`` on the menu.

And for breakfast they`ll now have ``freedom toast.``

The name changes follow similar actions by restaurants around the country protesting French opposition to the administration`s Iraq war plans.

``Update. Now Serving in All House Office Buildings, `Freedom Fries,``` read a sign that Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter Jones of North Carolina placed at the register in the Longworth Office Building food court.

Jones said he was inspired by Cubbie`s restaurant in Beaufort, N.C., in his district, one of the first to put ``freedom fries`` on the menu instead of french fries.

``This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France,`` said Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Ney, whose panel oversees House operations, ordered the menu changes.

Officials at the French Embassy pointed out that french fries actually come from Belgium.

``We are at a very serious moment dealing with very serious issues and we are not focusing on the name you give to potatoes,`` said Nathalie Loisau, an embassy spokeswoman.

Ney said he was of French descent and ``once the French government comes around we can get back to talking about french fries.``

On a more serious note, Republican Jim Saxton of New Jersey has proposed a ban on Pentagon participation in this year`s Paris Air Show and restrictions on French participation in any postwar construction projects in Iraq.

But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a news conference that applying legislative sanctions to France was not necessary. ``I don`t think we have to retaliate against France. They`ve isolated themselves pretty well,`` he said.

[Joerver]

The Dean of the Congress --
The West Virginian of the 20th Century



Welcome to my home on the World Wide Web! Use this site to learn more about the federal government, the services that I offer, and the projects in which I am involved. If you have any questions or comments, please send me an e-mail .

Thank you for visiting!


Sincerely,






March 11, 2003


Senate Remarks: America the Peacemaker Becomes America the Warmonger


The United Nations is in diplomatic disarray today as the foreign ministers from the world`s most powerful nations scramble to find some scrap of common ground on the question of war with Iraq.

What a difference a few months makes. Last November, under the leadership of the United States, the 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, strengthening the weapons inspection regime and giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations.

The rapidity with which that unity has unraveled is astounding. What began as a constructive process to gain international support for war against Iraq has disintegrated into insults, accusations, and finger-pointing among the key members of the Security Council. Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States. With his insistence that the United Nations declare the inspection regime a failure and immediately authorize war against Iraq, the President has opened a chasm between the U.S. and Great Britain on one side and the remaining permanent members of the Security Council on the other.

The White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant if it does not authorize immediate war against Iraq, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is countering that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations will violate the U.N. charter.

The knock-down, drag-out in the Security Council has tarnished the images of both the United Nations and the United States, and it has imperiled the political career of at least one world leader, President Bush`s staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

What a high price to pay for the President`s insistence on blindly following a war-first, war-now policy on Iraq.

Despite feverish activity this week on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain to persuade a majority of members of the Security Council to support a second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, the President and his chief advisers have made it clear that the activity is merely window dressing and that the United States is prepared to act with or without U.N. support. For the Bush Administration, war with Iraq seems to be no longer a question of if, but when -- and the window on "when" is rapidly closing.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President`s National Security Advisor, declared over the weekend, "There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it`s important to know that we believe the authority is there."

In other words, the die has been cast. The rhetoric has hardened. U.S. forces are in place and poised to attack. The U.N. Security Council has been relegated to a classic Greek chorus of tragic protest while the United States takes center stage. The President has stopped listening.

The Administration`s strategy for war with Iraq is so far advanced that not only does the President have war plans on his desk, he also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq.

On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is soliciting bids from a handful of U.S. firms for a contract worth as much as $900 million dollars to begin the reconstruction of Iraq. According to the Journal, the contract would be the largest reconstruction effort undertaken by the United States since the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II.

With post-war contracts already in hand, can the onset of war be far behind?

My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein, but we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this nation, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq.

In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the UN on war with Iraq. The UN weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work. Citizens by the thousands have taken to the streets in countries around the globe, including the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, to protest the war.

The day after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, "We are all Americans!" Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed September 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this Administration`s heavy-handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq.

The latest report of the U.N. weapons inspectors only heightened the tensions in the Security Council and helped to precipitate the current scramble for a new resolution. On Friday, (March 7) Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reported progress in the disarmament of Iraq and predicted that the inspection process could be completed in months -- "not years, nor weeks, but months."

At the same meeting, Mohamed El Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush Administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts -- by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. El Baradei said the inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked.

Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq.

The world is awash in anti-Americanism. The doctrine of preemption enshrined in the Bush Administration`s national security strategy -- the policy on which the war with Iraq is predicated -- has turned the global image of the United States from that of a world class peacemaker into what many believe is dangerous warmonger.

The President is on the wrong track in insisting on rushing into war without the support of the international community, and specifically the United Nations. Not only is America`s reputation on the line, but so is our war on terror. The recent arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two of his cohorts in Pakistan is evidence that the United States is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al Qaeda organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the Middle East.

Pakistan`s cooperation is particularly important in the war on terror, yet the majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to war with Iraq. How or whether Pakistani opposition to the war against Iraq will affect the war against terror is one of many unknowns.

The United States cannot bring down al Qaeda alone. We need support and cooperation from friendly nations in the region. We risk losing their friendship, and possibly causing major upheavals in the Middle East, if the President defies world opinion and launches a U.S. led invasion of Iraq. The cost of war and the potential casualties -- not only to American military personnel but also to innocent civilians in and around Iraq -- are unknowns. The impact of war on the fragile fabric of the Middle East is also unknown. The Administration seems to think that war with Iraq will pave the way to peace and democracy in the Middle East, but I believe that is merely wishful thinking. Saddam Hussein is not the cause of the strife between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and his downfall will not erase the deeply rooted conflict between the two sides.

War against Iraq may prove to be a fatal distraction from the war on terror. The danger to Americans today is from al Qaeda. Intelligence officials predict that war with Iraq will precipitate a new wave a terrorism against the United States and its allies, and will serve as a powerful recruiting tool for anti-American extremists.

We need to keep the pressure on al Qaeda. We need to strengthen our defenses against a terrorist attack here at home. We need to focus the resources of our nation on the war on terror and dismantle the al Qaeda network before it can mount another catastrophic attack on the United States.

The hour is late, the clock is ticking, but if the President would only listen to voices outside his war cabinet, he might discover that it is not too late to stop the rush to war. There is still a chance that Saddam Hussein can be disarmed and neutralized short of war. As long as that possibility exists, the United States should drop its resistance to any slowdown in the march to war and should begin to talk with, and listen to, the other members of the Security Council.

The prospect of regaining unanimity within the United Nations on the question of Iraq is dim at best, but as long as there remains even a glimmer of hope, it is in the best interests of both the United States and the other members of the Security Council to regroup and strive to achieve that goal. The world community deserves nothing less.

###

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Immer die neusten Umfragen aus Usa.


http://pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[Joerver]

Lieder zur Gitarre

www.bushwatch.com/iraqsongbook.htm

Everybody Knows

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the wars aren`t over
Everybody knows that both sides lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That`s how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their son just died
Everybody waiting for the phone
Everybody wants to just go home
Not a blood red rose
Everybody knows

And everybody knows that it`s now or never
Everybody knows that it`s me and you
And everybody knows you don`t last forever
When you`ve lived a lie or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe`s still pickin` cotton
For our ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it`s moving fast
Everybody knows justice and freedom
Are just artifacts of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
And there`s a meter in your head
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that we`re in trouble
Everybody knows what we`ve been through
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary
To the beach of Malibu
Everybody knows it`s coming apart
Take one last look at the Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

by Leonard Cohen with additions by Jerry Politex, 03.08.03



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

`SCUSE ME, I GOT ALLIES TO BUY

U.N. HAZE ALL IN MY BRAIN
LATELY PUTIN`S NOT THE SAME
ACTIN` FUNNY I DON`T KNOW WHY
`SCUSE ME I GOT ALLIES TO BUY

U.N. HAZE ALL AROUND
CHIRAC AND SCHROEDER WEAR`N FROWNS
I`M NOT HAPPY, `N YOU KNOW WHY
`SCUSE ME, I GOT ALLIES TO BUY

HELP ME (UH)
HELP ME (OH)
I DON`T (UH) KNOW (OH)
YEAH!

U.N. HAZE ALL IN MY EYES
GOT ME WALKIN` A BRIDGE OF SIGHS
GOT ME BLOWIN`, BLOWIN` MY MIND
I`M A `VANGELIST, IT`S THE END OF TIME

BLAIR KNOWS (UH)
HELP ME COLIN (OH)
YEAH RUMMY (OW)
COME ON NOW TURKEY

TELL ME (UH)
TELL ME (OH)
I DON`T (UH) KNOW (OH)
YEAH!

"Purple Haze" --Jimi Hendrix with additions by Jerry Politex, 03/06.03



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

First We Take Baghdad, Then We Take Beijing

"After Baghdad, Beijing." --PNAC enthusiast

They sentenced me to 8 full years of Clinton
for trying to change the system from within
I`m coming now, I am coming to reward them
First we take Baghdad, then we take Beijing

I`m guided by a signal from the White House
I`m guided by the circle I am in
I`m guided by the beauty of our weapons
First we take Baghdad, then we take Beijing

I really hate to live beside you liberals
I loath your bodies and your spirit and your cloths
and you see that line that`s moving through the station
I told you, I told you, told you, I was one of those

You loved me as a loser, now
you`re worried I just might win
you know the way to stop me
but you lack the discipline
how many nights I prayed for
this to let my work begin
First we take Baghdad, then we take Beijing

I don`t like this peacenik business, mister
and I don`t like the drugs that keep you thin
I don`t like what`s happened to you, mister
First we take Baghdad , then we take Beijing

And I thank you for those items that you gave me
the vote machines and the Flor`da win
I practised every night, now I am ready
first we take Baghdad, then we take Beijing

Remember me , I used to live for Reagan
remember me , I did your think tanks in
well its Bush`s day , and every one is wounded
First we take Baghdad , then we take Beijing

"First we take Manhattan , Then we take Berlin" --Leonard Cohen with additions by Jerry Politex, 03.01.03 (listen)



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



Bush Watch is a daily political internet magazine based in Austin

[Joerver]

152 EXECUTIONS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

Although he said he was anguished by the decision, in an interview in Talk magazine, writer Tucker Carlson described Bush mimicking the woman`s final plea for her life. "`Please,` Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don`t kill me.`"
- Time Magazine

"I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death."
- Republican Candidate Gary Bauer

It must be said that George W. Bush is not responsible for the increased pace of executions, nor did he create Texas` arcane clemency procedures. But it cannot be denied that Bush has steadfastly opposed changing the clemency procedures in the face of stinging criticism by the courts.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,39180,00.h…
Mehr zu diesem Thema unter:

http://www.bushkills.com/index.html

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 12. März 2003, 13:12
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,239721,00.html
Propaganda-Feldzug

Die PR-Maschine der Bush-Krieger

Von Jochen Bölsche

Ein propagandistisches Trommelfeuer ohnegleichen prasselt auf die angloamerikanische Öffentlichkeit ein: Vor allem die TV-Sender und Billigblätter des Murdoch-Konzerns, obskure Psychokrieger aus dem Pentagon und PR-Agenten mächtiger Pressure Groups blasen zum Angriffkrieg und zur Minderheitenjagd - mit Phantasieberichten, Fälschungen und gezielter Irreführung.

Zunächst klang es noch ganz witzig. Als Frankreich begann, gegen die US-Kriegspläne Front zu machen, attackierte der rechte Kolumnist Jonah Goldberg die "Käse fressenden Kapitulationsäffchen". Und TV-Moderator Conan O`Brian blödelte, er wisse ganz genau, warum die Pariser Regierung Saddam nicht bombardieren wolle: "Weil er Amerika hasst, Liebhaberinnen hat und eine Baskenmütze trägt. Leute, der Mann ist Franzose."

Mittlerweile haben sich einige journalistische Hurra-Patrioten in wahre Hassorgien hineingesteigert. Die rechtskonservative "National Review" schwadroniert von einer "Froschpest", Kolumnist Christopher Hitchens bezeichnet den französischen Präsidenten als "Ratte, die brüllen möchte". Ähnlich operieren die Billigblätter des amerikanisch-australischen Medienzaren Rupert Murdoch: Seine "New York Post" zeigt Deutsche und Franzosen als Wiesel, in Amerika das Symbol für einen verlogenen Feigling. Murdochs britisches Boulevardblatt "Sun" bildet auf der Titelseite einer Extraausgabe Chirac als widerlichen Wurm ab.

"Was Rupert Murdoch gehört, steht für Krieg", urteilt der österreichische "Standard". Dem Presse-Tycoon gehört so einiges: In England kommen seine Blätter ("Sun", "Sunday Times", "Times" und "News of the World") auf einen Marktanteil von immerhin 36 Prozent, in den USA besitzt er neben der aggressiven "New York Post" auch die Fox-TV-Kanäle, die CNN mit ihren Zuschauerzahlen bereits überrundet haben.

Murdochs Fox-Sender plädieren seit langem dafür, missliebige Länder samt ihrer Zivilbevölkerung brutal zu attackieren, im Extremfall nach dem Muster des "moral bombing", mit dem die Angloamerikaner einst deutsche Städte wie Hamburg und Dresden in Schutt und Asche legten: "Die Leute eines jeden Landes sind verantwortlich für die Regierung, die sie haben. Die Deutschen waren für Hitler verantwortlich."

"Lassen wir sie Sand fressen"

"Fox"-Kommentator Bill O`Reilly propagierte die Abstrafung der afghanischen Bevölkerung: "Wenn Sie sich nicht gegen ihre Regierung stellen, verhungern sie, Punktum." Er rief nach Sanktionen gegen Libyen: "Lassen wir sie Sand fressen." Und natürlich drängt er nun darauf, die irakische Bevölkerung (die zur Hälfte aus Minderjährigen besteht) "ein weiteres Mal intensiven Schmerz spüren zu lassen".

Wer die Untertanen US-feindlicher Diktatoren auf diese Weise gleichsam zu lebensunwertem Leben erklärt, den interessiert kaum die Zahl der zivilen Opfer der bisherigen Sanktionen gegen den Irak (schätzungsweise 500.000 Kinder) oder die von der internationalen Ärztevereinigung "medact" prognostizierte Zahl der Opfer des nächsten Irakkrieges (bis zu 260 000 Tote) - Meldungen, die in der Regel in den Papierkörben der Raketen- und Revolverjournalisten landen.

Dank einiger liberaler Qualitätsblätter kann von einer Gleichschaltung der US-Presse nicht die Rede sein. Doch ein beträchtlicher - und wirkungsmächtiger - Teil der angloamerikanischen Medien lässt sich einspannen für die Interessen eines obskuren Propagandaapparates, der weitgehend im Dunkeln operiert.

In einem Ausmaß wie kaum je zuvor füttern das Weiße Haus samt Pentagon und die Geheimdienste die amerikanischen Medien mit so genannter "schwarzer" und "weißer" Propaganda. Darüber hinaus versuchen auch PR-Agenturen, beauftragt von mächtigen Pressure Groups, das Volk im Interesse ihrer Auftraggeber in Kriegsstimmung zu versetzen.

"Systematische Manipulation der Meinung"

"Seit dem Vietnamkrieg gab es keine so systematische Verzerrung nachrichtendienstlicher Erkenntnisse, keine so systematische Manipulation der öffentlichen Meinung mehr," urteilt der US-Diplomat John Kiesling, Ex-Berater der US-Botschaft in Athen. Kiesling quittierte letzten Monat den Dienst - aus Protest gegen die politische Propaganda der Regierung Bush.

Washington habe den "Terrorismus zum Werkzeug der Innenpolitik" gemacht, schrieb der Diplomat in einem Offenen Brief an Außenminister Colin Powell: "Wir haben Verunsicherung und übertriebene Furcht in das kollektive Bewusstsein gepflanzt, indem wir Terrorismus und Irak, zwei Probleme, die nichts miteinander zu tun haben, verknüpften."

Hin und wieder fliegen krude Fehlinformationen auf - so etwa, als der von Washington gestreute Verdacht platzte, Hussein habe Anthrax-Briefe in den USA verschicken lassen; so auch jüngst, als sich eine angebliche britische Geheimdienststudie über den Irak als vergilbter Studentenaufsatz herausstellte.

Gefälscht vom Briefkopf bis zur Unterschrift

"Vollständig aus den Angeln gehoben" sah die "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" ("FAZ") vorige Woche die Behauptung Powells, Saddam Hussein habe in Afrika Nuklearmaterial zu kaufen versucht: Ein entsprechendes Schreiben, mit dem der Außenminister die UN-Inspekteure in Verlegenheit bringen wollte, erwies sich, vom Briefkopf bis zur Unterschrift, als Fake.

Dass die Regierung des mächtigsten Staates der Welt eine so primitive Fälschung präsentierte, um einen Angriffskrieg zu legitimieren, habe dazu beigetragen, dass sich in der Uno "der Wind gedreht" hat, analysierte die "FAZ": "Seit deutlich wird, welch grobe Fälschungen die Geheimdienste der Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritanniens, aber auch anderer Staaten offenbar für authentisches Material gehalten haben, sind die Inspekteure in der Vorhand."

Nur spekuliert werden kann darüber, welche Dunkelmänner ein Interesse daran haben, mit so üblen Tricks die Weltöffentlichkeit für einen Angriffskrieg gegen den Irak zu gewinnen.

Niemand weiß Genaues. Die Mutmaßungen über die Quellen reichen vom israelischen Geheimdienst Mossad, dessen Regierung auf einen Sturz Saddams drängt, bis hin zu bewährten Profis aus amerikanischen Public-Relations-Agenturen.



Über besonders reiche PR-Erfahrungen aus dem vorigen Golfkrieg verfügt die Großagentur Hill & Knowlton, deren Chef damals Craig Fuller war, ein Freund und früherer Stabschef von Präsident George W. Bush senior.

Fullers PR-Agenten erfanden, beauftragt offenbar von kuweitischen Kunden, nicht nur die berüchtigte Gräuelgeschichte von den 312 irakischen Brutkasten-Babymorden, auf die zeitweise sogar Amnesty international hereinfiel. Aus ihrer Werkstatt kamen auch bewegende Bilder eines krepierenden Kormorans, die Saddamsche Umweltsünden an der Golfküste belegen sollten; die Aufnahmen stammten, wie sich später herausstellte, aus Kanada.

Image-Kosmetik für Schlächter und Folterer

Der Erarbeitung der Babymord-Story sollen Erhebungen vorausgegangen sein, welche Horrorgeschichten am ehesten geeignet sind, im Publikum Rache- und Kriegsgelüste zu wecken. Dass die Kampagne rein humanitären Motiven entsprungen ist, darf ausgeschlossen werden; zu den sonstigen Kunden der Image-Kosmetiker zählten auch Schlächter und Folterer wie der Haiti-Diktator Duvalier.

Mit den Psycho-Aktionen zur Vorbereitung des Feldzuges gegen Serbien wiederum war die Konkurrenzfirma Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs beauftragt. Deren Präsident James Harff sah sich vor die schwierige Aufgabe gestellt, im US-Establishment Sympathie für die traditionell als antisemitisch verrufenen Kroaten und Bosnier zu wecken.

Das gelang Harff nach eigenem Bekunden, indem er die serbische Gegenseite "in der öffentlichen Meinung mit den Nazis gleichsetzte". Durch gezielte Verwendung von Begriffen wie "ethnische Säuberung, Konzentrationslager und so weiter, bei denen man an Nazideutschland, Gaskammern und Auschwitz denkt", sei es ihm geglückt, brüstet sich Harff, die amerikanischen "Juden auf unsere Seite zu ziehen" und die Öffentlichkeit für eine militärische Intervention zu gewinnen.

Rudolf Scharping drehte sich der Magen um

Sein Verständnis von Public Relations umriss Harff mit den Worten: "Es ist nicht unsere Aufgabe, Informationen auf ihren Wahrheitsgehalt zu überprüfen... Unsere Aufgabe besteht darin, Informationen, die unserer Sache dienlich sind, schneller unter die Leute zu bringen und zu diesem Zweck sorgfältig ausgewählte Zielpersonen anzusprechen."

Dass bloße Gerüchte bereits politische Wirkung entfalten, zeigte sich, als Verteidigungsminister Rudolf Scharping im Kosovo-Krieg vor Journalisten Gräuel vom Hörensagen referierte: "Wenn beispielsweise erzählt wird, dass man einer getöteten Schwangeren den Fötus aus dem Leib schneidet, um ihn zu grillen und dann wieder in den aufgeschnittenen Bauch zu legen; wenn man hört, dass systematisch Gliedmaßen und Köpfe abgeschnitten werden; wenn man hört, dass manchmal mit den Köpfen Fußball gespielt wird, dann können Sie sich vorstellen, wie sich da einem der Magen umdreht."

Engagierte Menschenrechtlern, etwa in den Reihen von Amnesty International, dreht sich auch bei anderen Gelegenheiten der Magen um: wann immer sie wahrnehmen müssen, dass Meldungen über Gräueltaten je nach politischer Opportunität negiert oder instrumentalisiert werden.

Vom Helfershelfer zum Dämonen

Musterbeispiel Irak: Noch Ende der achtziger Jahre waren Berichte über massivste Menschenrechtsverletzungen durch Saddam in den USA auf taube Ohren gestoßen; eine von mehreren Staaten geforderte UN-Untersuchung wurde von den USA strikt abgelehnt - Saddam galt in Washington keineswegs als der Unmensch, der er tatsächlich auch damals schon war, sondern als eine Art Sicherheitspartner.

Schon 1963, in jungen Jahren, soll er der CIA geholfen haben, linke Intellektuelle zu liquidieren und den damaligen Präsidenten Abdel Karim Kassem zu stürzen; auf Kassems Programm standen, zum Missfallen der USA, eine Aufhebung des KP-Verbots und eine Verstaatlichung der Erdölindustrie. In den achtziger Jahren verhandelte Saddam unter anderem mit dem US-Sicherheitsberater Zbigniew Brzezinski sowie dem damaligen US-Sonderbotschafter (und heutigen Verteidigungsminister) Donald Rumsfeld über ein gemeinsames Vorgehen gegen den iranischen Fundamentalisten Ayatollah Chomeini.

So wichtig war der Tyrann von Bagdad den USA damals als Helfershelfer, dass sie ihm für seinen Krieg gegen den Iran heimlich Splitterbomben und Nährböden für Biowaffen wie Anthrax und Pockenkeime lieferten, wie jüngst der "Süddeutsche"-Reporter Hans Leyendecker berichtete. Die amerikanischen Freunde sprangen Saddam sogar noch bei, als irakische Giftgas-Massaker an der kurdischen Bevölkerung publik geworden waren: Bagdad wurde durch eine ominöse US-Geheimdienststudie entlastet, die nicht den Irak, sondern den Iran des Giftgas-Einsatzes beschuldigte.

Pressure Groups machen Propaganda

Dämonisiert wurde der Despot erst, nachdem die neokonservativen US-Globalstrategen und -Energieplaner Pläne für eine "neue Weltordnung" entwickelten und den Irak in ihr Machtkalkül für die US-Interessensphäre "Greater Middle East" einbezogen hatten.

Einen vorläufigen Höhepunkt erreichte die Propaganda für einen Entmachtungskrieg gegen Saddam, als voriges Jahr in Washington ein "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq" (CLI) gegründet wurde, dessen Führer sich zugleich in diversen anderen rechten Pressure Groups tummelten:


Der Komitee-Chef und Ex-Geheimdienstoffizier Bruce Jackson, ein ehemaliger langjähriger Rüstungsmanager, trommelte schon für eine Osterweiterung der Nato, fädelte in Polen die Lieferung von F-16-Flugzeugen ein und wirkte jüngst als Drahtzieher hinter dem Protest zehn mittel- und osteuropäischer Länder gegen den Anti-Kriegs-Kurs der Kerneuropäer Schröder und Chirac (siehe Teil 7 dieser Serie: "Der Ex-Agent und die diplomatische A-Bombe");

sein "Executive Director" Randy Scheunemann arbeitete als "Sicherheitsberater" für diverse republikanische Spitzenpolitiker, organisierte Geldmittel für jene US-nahen irakischen Exiloppositionellen, die in der Nach-Saddam-Ära die irakischen Ölquellen privatisieren wollen, und streitet seit Jahren im PNAC, dem "Project for a New American Century" (siehe Teil 8 dieser Serie: "Der Krieg, der aus dem Think Tank kam").
Das Personal dieser und anderer Lobbygruppen überschneidet sich auf mannigfache Weise - zum Beispiel mit dem des offiziösen "Defense Policy Board" (Vorsitz: PNAC-Mann Richard Perle), der das Pentagon berät, an dessen Spitze mit Donald Rumsfeld und Paul Wolfowitz wiederum zwei PNAC-Mitglieder stehen.

Im Labyrinth dieser und anderer wohldotierter Zirkel vermuten Sachkenner wie der einstige UN-Chefinspekteur Scott Ritter die Urheber der erfolgreich lancierten Propagandalüge von einer "Irak-Connection" der (überwiegend saudischen) Attentäter vom 11. September 2001.

Im einem Artikel für den "Christian Science Monitor" ortete Scott die Quellen solcher Desinformation im Kreis um den US-nahen irakischen Oppositionsführer Ahmed Chalabi "und seine amerikanischen Sponsoren" - Scott nannte namentlich Wolfowitz, Perle und Ex-CIA-Chef James Woolsey.

"Die größte PR-Agentur ist das Weiße Haus"

Die im US-Fernsehen omnipräsenten Meinungsmacher aus den Hardliner-Klubs haben nach dem Urteil des US-Lobbyforschers Jim Lobe einiges gemeinsam - vor allem politische Gerissenheit, polemische Begabung und exzellente Medienkontakte.

Und: Sie verachteten die Vereinten Nationen ebenso wie die Eliten des alten Europa, weil sie, so Lobe, "absolut überzeugt" davon seien, dass Amerika dem Rest der Welt überlegen und daher "zur dauernden Erlöser-Mission" verpflichtet sei.

Seit ihr Protegé Bush nach verwirrenden Wahl-Rankünen im Weißen Haus gelandet ist, hat sich für die schwarzen Falken einiges geändert. Sie sind nicht mehr allein auf Spenden und PR-Agenturen angewiesen, um ihre elitäre Weltsicht und ihre friedensbedrohenden Omnipotenzfantasien unters Volk zu bringen - das lässt sich jetzt mit dem Geld der amerikanischen Steuerzahler bewerkstelligen.

"Die größte aller PR-Agenturen ist das Weiße Haus," sagt der Psychokriegsexperte John MacArthur, Autor des Buches "The Second Front". Verglichen mit der PR-Maschinerie des Bush-Regierung stünden sämtliche PR-Agenturen "wie Zwerge" da.

Lesen Sie demnächst, mit welchen Methoden staatliche Psycho-Krieger versuchen, Bush-Kritiker einzuschüchtern, und mit welchen Strategien sich die neu erstarkte US-Friedensbewegung gegen die Meinungsmacht der Meinungsmacher zu wehren versucht.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

[Joerver]

Verständigungsprobleme

OLD WEST VS. OLD EUROPE
It`s About Courage, Indepence: "Come Back, Shane"
You say we`re cowboys like it`s a bad thing
Andrew Bernstein
Sunday, March 9, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


Those who oppose war with Iraq -- from foreign heads of state to homegrown anti-war protesters -- employ a common expression of contempt for the American war effort. America, they sneer, is acting like a "cowboy."

A mock interview with Saddam Hussein conducted by a European intellectual is written to show, in one news report`s summary, "what out-of-control cowboys the Americans are."

A recent New York Times article explains that to some Europeans, the "major problem is Bush, the cowboy." Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., agrees, saying that America must not "act like a unilateral cowboy."

These smears imply that the heyday of the cowboy in the Old West was a lawless period when trigger-happy gunmen shot it out with reckless abandon and brute force reigned.

But to most Americans, the cowboy is not a villain, but a hero. What we honor about the cowboy of the Old West is his willingness to stand up to evil and to do it alone, if necessary. The cowboy is a symbol of the crucial virtues of courage and independence.

The original cowboys were hard-working ranchers and settlers who tamed a vast wilderness. In the process, they had to contend with violent outlaws as well as warlike Indian tribes. The honest men on the frontier did not wring their hands in fear, uncertainty and moral paralysis; they stood up to evil men and defeated them.

The Texas Rangers -- a small band of lawmen who patrolled a vast frontier --

best exemplified the cowboy code. Whether they fought American outlaws, Mexican bandits or marauding Comanches, they were generally outnumbered, sometimes by as much as 50 to one. It was said of them: "They were men who could not be stampeded." For example, when Ranger officer John B. Armstrong boarded a train in pursuit of the infamous murderer John Wesley Hardin, he was confronted by five desperadoes.

Armstrong took them on single-handedly, killing one and capturing Hardin.

In describing their independence and courage, Ranger captain Bob Crowder said: "A Ranger is an officer who is able to handle any situation without definite instructions from his commanding officer or higher authority."

The real-life courage of such heroes has been properly memorialized and glorified in countless fictional works. The "Lone Ranger" television show, Jack Schaefer`s classic novel, "Shane," and dozens of John Wayne movies, among others, have captured the essence of the Western hero`s character:

His unshakeable moral confidence in the face of evil. It is this vision of the cowboy, not the European slander, that Americans find inspiring. That`s why, when President Bush said of Osama bin Laden, "Wanted: Dead or Alive," most Americans cheered.

The only valid criticism of Bush, in this context, is that he is not true enough to the heritage of the Lone Star State. When the Texas Rangers went after a bank robber or rustler, they didn`t wait to ask permission of his fellow gang members. Yet Bush is asking permission from a U.N. Security Council chaired by Syria, one of the world`s most active sponsors of terrorism.

Today, the terrorists responsible for blowing up our cities are far more evil than the bandits and gunmen faced by the heroes of the Old West. To defeat them, we will require all the more the cowboy`s virtues of independence and moral courage.

Even as our European critics use the "cowboy" image as a symbol of reckless irresponsibility, they implicitly reveal the real virtues they are attacking. European leaders assail Americans because our "language is far too blunt" and because we see the struggle between Western civilization and Islamic fanaticism in "black-and-white certainties."

They whine about our "Texas attitude" and whimper that "an American president who makes up his mind and then will accept no argument" is a greater danger than murderous dictators. In short, they object to America`s willingness to face the facts, to make moral judgments, to act independently and to battle evil with unflinching courage.

These European critics are worse than the timid shopkeeper in an old Hollywood Western. They don`t merely want to avoid confronting evil -- they seek to prevent anyone else from recognizing evil and standing up to it.

Texas Ranger captain Bill McDonald reputedly stated: "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that is in the right and keep on a-comin`."

If America fully embraces this cowboy wisdom and courage, then the Islamic terrorists and the regimes that support them had better run for cover. They stand no chance in the resulting showdown.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Autry`s Cowboy Code 1. The Cowboy must never shoot first, hit a smaller man, or take unfair advantage.
2. He must never go back on his word, or a trust confided in him.

3. He must always tell the truth.

4. He must be gentle with children, the elderly and animals.

5. He must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.

6. He must help people in distress.

7. He must be a good worker.

8. He must keep himself clean in thought, speech, action and personal habits.

9. He must respect women, parents and his nation`s laws.

10. The Cowboy is a patriot. . c. Autry Qualified Interest Trust

Andrew Bernstein, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org/medialink) in Irvine.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Peter Lee: `Dead dope walking`
Date: Wednesday, March 12 @ 09:49:28 EST
Topic: War & Terrorism


By Peter Lee

The war party and the Republicans can take their cue from Bush`s zombie-like performance at his weekend press conference.

They are dead meat.

White House spinmeisters are attempting to draw solace from the most recent NY Times poll, which shows support for the invasion has increased to 55%.

But this figure represents exasperated impatience, not martial eagerness. America wants the aggravation of Iraq and if necessary Iraq itself erased from its consciousness. The best Bush can say is that his cynical efforts to sabotage the inspections and discredit the U.N. have succeeded in destroying faith in a peaceful outcome, at least domestically.

But it`s Bush`s war and people are sick of it before it even starts.



Indeed, the International Herald Tribune retitled the article from "Growing Number in U.S. Back War, Survey Finds" to the more accurate "Americans` patience over Iraq runs out".

Earlier this year Bush probably fantasized about the war as a gratifying Middle East bodice ripper in which our pint sized Fabio briskly ravished a pleading, yielding, and ultimately grateful Iraq . Instead, we have a bad porn film where Bush and the other guys are standing around looking embarrassed and shaking their dicks struggling to raise some wood for a mean, ugly whore with a heavy black moustache. And the American people are yelling from the sticky seats for Bush to get it on or go home.

It`s not good news for Bush. His disapproval ratings have reached their healthy, pre-9/11 peak of 37%. The Quinnipiac poll revealed that the Democrats would defeat Bush in the next election if only they could come up with someone called "unnamed Democrat" who would run with a paper bag over his head.

The bad news keeps piling up for Bush: U.N. roadblocks, botched diplomacy, declining support, evaporating credibility, tanking economy, disastrous fiscal policies. Democrats are daring to show a little backbone. And gas prices have cracked $2.00 and are headed north.

The Iraq war, which was cynically conceived as a glorious adventure that would whisk Bush into his second term, has turned into something about as unpleasant as root canal both for "43" and the country.

Even "41" is so turned off to the war he publicly criticized George Jr. in an address at Tufts late last month (Elder Bush Cites Importance of Friends, Washington Post, 3/9/03). The American papers, ever solicitous of our pocket Napoleon`s feelings, declined to push the story.

And now the self-styled leader of the free world, God`s annointed in the battle against terror, has to work the phones every damned day and commiserate with the president of some goddam flyspeck country named Guinea (or was it Guyana? Whatever) about the state of his failing kidneys. And the swing six want him to prolong this Godawful process for another 45 days?!

No wonder George doesn`t want any more palaver and extensions. Just fire up the bombers and get it over with. Maybe the war will play like another one of those shoddy, stage-managed "reality TV" shows (Coming on Fox...When Idiots Attack!), a one-month watercooler wonder before the next sensation hits.

Bush might be encouraged that the NY Times poll also revealed that the Willful Ignorance Index is holding strong at 45%. This is the percentage of respondents who replied in the affirmative to the question, "Do you think Saddam was personally involved in the 9/11 attacks?"

It isn`t enough to dismiss these Americans as stupid, misinformed, or bamboozled by right-wing talk radio. I think the Saddam -9/11 link is an indication of what Americans feel the Iraq war should be about--patriotism, national defense, and honor--not necessarily what they think it is really about.

For many Americans, the war with Iraq is not a moral abstraction. The ethos of military service permeates America, particularly the "red states" that form the bedrock of Bush`s electoral support. Everybody has a relative in the service, or knows somebody who does.

The war is a reality that must be acknowledged, accommodated, and, if necessary, rationalized. It is a matter of choice and opportunity, obligation and self-esteem, prestige and employment for millions of Americans and their families.

When someone we know is involved in the war, be it dropping bombs or servicing candy machines on an aircraft carrier, we don`t want to be told the war is wrong, immoral, and stupid.

We don`t like the idea that Cameroon--described breathlessly as the country named most corrupt in the world for an unprecedented two consecutive years--is called to sit in judgement on the legitimacy and legality of this war.

We don`t like it when the wartime paradigm of reflexive patriotic loyalty and solidarity is undercut by Frenchmen and peaceniks who don`t care if our jobs gets a lot harder and more unpleasant.

So we`ve decided not to think about that for a while.

It`s not surprising that the U.N., a victim of the usual Bush campaign to trivialize and delegitimize opposition and debate and reviled as the bearer of unpalatable truths about how other people regard us and our pretensions to moral and political leadership, is doing worse than Bush--disapproval at 58%.

Let`s concentrate on the thought that Saddam Hussein is a bad enough guy to do something like 9/11 and deserve the immense onslaught we`re preparing. Even if he didn`t actually do it. Let`s get the war on.

Maybe George W. Bush will be vindicated by the war. Or maybe he`ll be able to hide the truth beneath a big enough pile of rubble and bodies that we can slink to our graves preserving the guilty secret that we colluded in an act of reckless, vicious aggression.

Fat chance.

In its heart, America knows this war is, in Napoleon`s words, worse than crime--it is a blunder. And it has George W. Bush`s fingerprints all over it.

The American public is letting the war go ahead, as a matter of personal pride as much as national credibility. Just as a long -suffering spouse gamely smiles as her drunken husband careens through the cocktail party with a lampshade on his head. But when they get home, behind closed doors, there will be hell to pay.

Both Left and Right are already starting to look at our country and our place in the world and sharing the thought, we could do a lot better than George W. Bush.

Too bad it will take $100 billion dollars and thousands of lives before these thoughts are voiced and acted on, and George W. Bush takes his place in history as a catastrophic one-term aberration.

Copyright 2003 Peter Lee

Peter Lee is the creator of the anti-war satire and commentary website Halcyon Days. He can be reached at [e-mail].

[Joerver]

Secretive U.S. `Information` Office Back
By CONNIE CASS
Associated Press Writer

March 10, 2003, 2:52 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- A Cold War-era office with a shadowy name and a colorful history of exposing Soviet deceptions is back in business, this time watching Iraq.

The Counter-Disinformation/Misinformation Team`s moniker is more impressive than its budget. It`s a crew of two toiling in anonymity at the State Department, writing reports they are prohibited by law from disseminating to the U.S. public.

The operation has challenged some fantastic claims over the years -- a U.S. military lab invented AIDS, rich Americans kidnapped foreign babies for their organs, the CIA plotted to kill Pope John Paul II.

Since the office reopened in October, it`s been responding to Iraqi claims about America, which tend to be more plausible and sometimes remain in dispute.

In coordination with the CIA, FBI and others, the team helps U.S. embassies identify and rebut other nations` disinformation, most often fabrications about the United States planted in foreign newspapers or television shows and, these days, on the Internet.

It`s part of a broader Bush administration project to shore up America`s reputation when sentiment against a possible war with Iraq is running high overseas.

It`s not the stuff of James Bond movies, but disinformation has long been a tool of the world`s secret operatives, including America`s.

Reports that a new Office of Strategic Influence might dabble in disinformation caused such an uproar this year that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered it closed, insisting the Pentagon doesn`t spread lies.

Even so, in Afghanistan last year, the U.S. military dropped leaflets with a doctored photograph showing Osama bin Laden beardless in a Western-style suit. And some of the administration`s claims about links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida have been stretched.

In these days of war preparation, the pressure to peddle the U.S. version of events is enormous, and civil libertarians question how far the government should go.

"When you`re fighting an enemy not constrained by social norms or morals, do you get down in the gutter or do you stick to certain rules of behavior?" asked Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. "It`s important to question where do we draw the line."

Tucker Eskew, White House global communications chief, says the administration can`t concern itself with shooting down every lie about America.

"Yet we do have to more aggressively promote the truth about our foreign policy and about our society in the face of distortion," he said.

Eskew said the team helped write a report issued by the White House in January, "Apparatus of Lies: Saddam`s Disinformation and Propaganda."

"The regime uses a combination of on-the-record lies, covert placements of false news accounts, self-inflicted damage and fake interviews," the report says.

The report recalls that, during the Persian Gulf War, Iraqis showed reporters a bombed-out factory with a hand-lettered sign that read "Baby Milk Plant" in English and Arabic. The White House says the factory had been converted to a biological weapons laboratory. Disagreement lingers to this day.

Dennis Kux, who coordinated counterdisinformation for the Reagan administration, said ignoring false stories is risky.

"It`s like drops of water falling over a stone," Kux said. "In one year, five years, 10 years, you`ve worn a hole in the stone -- in this case, the U.S. reputation."

A decade after the Soviet Union`s collapse, the KGB is remembered as a disinformation virtuoso, especially creative in faking documents.

"We saw forgeries signed Ronald Reagan, Jerry Ford, Jimmy Carter," said Herbert Romerstein, who ran the original counterdisinformation office during most of the 1980s. Once, a phony memo appeared under Romerstein`s own letterhead.

The KGB even faked letters from the Ku Klux Klan, threatening to kill African and Asian athletes at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, Romerstein said. The Soviets were boycotting, in retaliation for America`s boycott of the Moscow games, and hoped to scare other nations away.

In 1992, former Russian spymaster Yevgeny Primakov admitted the KGB made up the AIDS story. The "baby parts" tale was an urban legend exploited and spread by the Soviets, Romerstein said.

"One of the more bizarre stories the Soviets developed was called the `ethnic weapon,`" he recalled. "Supposedly the Americans were developing a bomb that would kill blacks and keep whites alive."

In 1996, State laid off the last man in the counterdisinformation office, Todd Leventhal. He was rehired in October; now he has a researcher and a part-time writer, too.

* __

On the Net: White House "Apparatus of Lies": http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/printer.html

State Department: http://www.state.gov

[Joerver]

NYT

March 12, 2003
Ex-Judges and Prosecutors Fight Milestone Execution in Texas
By PETER T. KILBORN


AUSTIN, Tex., March 11 — With only the governor or the United States Supreme Court remaining possibly to intervene, Texas plans on Wednesday to execute a black man convicted by an all-white jury 23 years ago of killing a white 16-year-old and fleeing with his car.

On Monday, a state appeals court and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied moves to halt the execution.

The man, Delma Banks Jr., 44, who has long claimed innocence, rejected a plea bargain 15 years ago for life in prison in return for a confession. He could become the 300th person executed in Texas since 1976. A team of former federal judges and prosecutors, including William S. Sessions, former F.B.I. director, has taken up the case with the Supreme Court.

Mr. Banks`s lawyers argue that he received ineffective counsel and that prosecutors blocked eligible blacks from the jury pool, suppressed evidence, secretly paid one of the two most incriminating witnesses and let the other lie.

"It`s an execution that should not go forward," said John J. Gibbons, former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia.

Judge Gibbons, with Mr. Sessions; Timothy K. Lewis, a former Third Circuit judge; and Thomas Sullivan, a former United States attorney, have appealed to the Supreme Court to halt the execution. In their brief, they wrote, "The questions presented in Mr. Banks`s petition directly implicate the integrity of the death penalty in this country."

With all other appeals lost, only the Supreme Court or Gov. Rick Perry can stop the execution. Mr. Perry can grant a one-time 30-day reprieve.

"The case is still under review," Kathy Walt, a spokeswoman for the governor, said.

Mr. Perry has granted two other reprieves, but the executions later proceeded.

Mr. Banks`s case has drawn widespread attention to the death penalty and, in particular, Texas. Tonight in a less controversial case, Bobby Glen Cook, 41, who admitted killing a sleeping man with six shots and leaving him in the back of a pickup, became the 299th person executed, the 10th in the state this year.

Governors or legislators in most of the 38 states that allow the death penalty have begun reconsidering it. Illinois commuted all outstanding death sentences this year.

But Texas remains fully committed. It has performed more than a third of all 834 executions since the United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, more than the total of the next five states, Virginia, Missouri, Oklahoma, Florida and Georgia.

Mr. Banks is the eldest of six children of Delma and Ellean Banks, who live in Nash in Bowie County, near Texarkana and the Texas-Arkansas line. He and the youth, Richard Wayne Whitehead, 16, a high school student in Texarkana, knew each other through work at a Bonanza Steak House.

On April 11, 1980, according to uncontested accounts, Mr. Whitehead left a school dance and met Mr. Banks at a bowling alley. Mr. Banks asked for a ride. They bought beer and drank it in a park until the early morning. Mr. Whitehead`s body, with a shot through a shoulder and another between the eyes, was found in the park the next morning.

The state said Mr. Banks killed Mr. Whitehead, took the Ford Mustang and drove it to Dallas, where he met an acquaintance, Charles Cook, an ex-convict who was facing new charges of arson. Mr. Banks says he was already in Dallas at the time of the murder. At the trial, Mr. Cook testified that Mr. Banks had told him that he had killed someone and took his car. The car has never been found. The police found the weapon at Mr. Cook`s house.

About three years ago, defense investigators obtained a transcript of the prosecutors coaching Mr. Cook in his testimony. "The suppressed transcript substantially undermines the reliability of the state`s principal guilt-phase witness," Mr. Sessions said in court papers. "The transcript demonstrates the testimony was false and that Mr. Cook`s testimony was extensively rehearsed."

James Elliott, a lead prosecutor in the case, acknowledged that an informer had been paid and that Mr. Cook had been coached. But Mr. Elliott said that there were other credible witnesses and that the verdict and sentence were correct.

"No case is perfect," he said. "No case is error free. The question is, `Do errors rise to a level such as you doubt the verdict?` "

The evidence against Mr. Banks, he said, still dwarfs the errors.

Mr. Banks`s lead lawyer, George Kendall of the NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, said the trial smacked of racial discrimination. Of 60 or 70 people in the original jury pool, Mr. Kendall said, some blacks were removed for cause.

"But four who remained were well qualified," he said. "The evidence shows that in the five years leading up to the trial Bowie County prosecutors accepted 82 percent of the white jurors and struck 90 percent who were black."

Today, Mr. Banks`s mother, Ellean, recalled talking with her son`s lawyer, Lynn Cooksey, before the sentencing and after the conviction.

"What are they going to do to my son?" Mrs. Banks said she asked. "He said: `They`re going to kill him. That`s what they`re going to do.` I said, `You know my son is innocent.`

" `I know it,` he said, `and the judge knows it. But I have to look in your face and tell you we have a lot of prejudiced people in Texarkana.` "

" `If that had been a black boy,` " she said Mr. Cooksey told her, " `Your son would probably have got probation. But that was a white boy.` "

Defense lawyers have said Mr. Cooksey provided an inattentive defense, including declining to interview witness whom Mrs. Banks lined up to defend her son in the sentencing phase of the trial.

Texas legal authorities are showing exasperation with appeals that have stretched the case twice as long as most. The Board of Pardons and Paroles rejected an appeal because Mr. Kendall filed it a week beyond the 21-day deadline before an execution.

Explaining the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals` rejection on Monday, Judge Cathy Cochran wrote: "After 23 years of litigation, review and re-review by this court and the federal courts, applicant has had his fair share of due process in our state criminal justice system."

Visiting Mr. Banks today on death row in Livingston, Mrs. Banks said: "My son is in good spirit. It surprised me. He said, `Jesus made a difference.` He has accepted the Lord since he`s been there.

"He said, `Mother, if they let me go, I`ll be home with you and all the family. If they don`t, I`ll be with Jesus.` "



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Und hier noch ein Vorbericht zu den Veränderungen in der Fernsehlandschaft.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

#287 Bericht der NYT. 300. Hinrichtung in Texas, davon Bush 152. Kein Glückwunsch.

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 13. März 2003, 8:26
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,239936,00.html
Texas

Aufschub für Todeskandidat Banks

Nur zehn Minuten trennten Delma Banks Jr. noch von seinem Tod. Sein Ende durch die Giftspritze sollte das 300. vollstreckte Todesurteil in Texas werden. Doch der Oberste Gerichtshof der USA verfügte den Aufschub der Exekution. Denn der Mann ist möglicherweise unschuldig. Eine Gruppe von Richtern und Anwälten kämpft für sein Weiterleben.
Austin/Washington - Der Oberste Gerichtshof begründete den Aufschub nicht. Der wegen Raubmordes verurteilte Schwarze Delma Banks, der seit fast 23 Jahre in der Todeszelle sitzt, hatte immer wieder seine Unschuld beteuert. Er soll im Jahr 1980 einen 16-Jährigen erschossen und dessen Auto geraubt haben. Der Fall war umstritten. Sogar der frühere FBI-Direktor William Sessions und zwei pensionierte Richter hatten sich für Banks eingesetzt und die damalige Prozessführung scharf kritisiert. Der Mordprozess gegen den nicht vorbestraften jungen Mann im Jahr 1980 dauerte nur einen Tag und in der Geschworenenjury saßen nur Weiße. Es gab kaum Indizien gegen den heute 44-jährigen Banks und der Hauptzeuge gegen ihn war, wie viel später bekannt wurde, ein bezahlter Informant der Polizei.

Der Supreme Court in Washington hatte 1976 den Weg für eine Wiedereinführung der Todesstrafe freigemacht, nachdem sie zuvor für verfassungswidrig erklärt worden war. Die meisten Bundesstaaten verabschiedeten in den darauf folgenden Jahren entsprechende Gesetze. Seitdem sind landesweit 836 Menschen hingerichtet worden, und mit 300 mehr als ein Drittel davon in Texas. Die nächste Hinrichtung in Texas ist jetzt für den 20. März angesetzt.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

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

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Pax Bushiana

Otto E. Rössler 13.03.2003
Präsident Bushs Strategie nach dem Vorbild von Truman ist nur der zweitbeste Weg

Wenn die Macht herausgefordert ist, muss sie handeln. Sie handelt immer nach den gleichen Regeln - denen des wahrscheinlichsten Machterhalts. Solange sie das tut, kann man sie normalerweise nicht kritisieren. Die gegenwärtige Situation ist anders aus zwei Gründen. Erstens repräsentiert der Herausforderer die Mehrheit. Zweitens ist das Risiko, die Mehrheit anzugreifen, unkalkulierbar. Nicht nur wird das Überleben eines kleinen Landes bewusst aufs Spiel gesetzt - Israel -, sondern auch das der eigenen Bevölkerung in den mächtigen Minderheitsstaaten. Diese Situation ist präzedenzlos.






Nicht ganz. Präsident Truman stand einmal vor derselben Frage: Wird die Zündung der ersten Atombombe - in Alamogordo in Neu Mexiko, 3 Wochen vor Hiroshima - die gesamte Erdatmosphäre in eine gigantische wasserstoffbombenähnliche Fusionsreaktion einbeziehen? Der befragte Wissenschaftler, der mir einmal vorgestellt wurde, gab Präsident Truman die Antwort: 1 %. Der Präsident informierte seine Wähler nicht über das Risiko, dem er sie aussetzte.





Welchen Rat kann man Präsident Bush geben? Ich meine, er sollte die Wahrheit offen auf den Tisch legen, obwohl die Macht das normalerweise nicht tut. Vielleicht hat er ein größeres Vertrauen in den Himmel als andere und wagt es deshalb, der Bevölkerung zu sagen, welchem Risiko er sie aussetzt? Das Risiko heißt - nach neuester Sprachregelung - "humanitäres Töten": sowohl unter der gegnerischen Bevölkerung, die zu 50 Prozent aus Kindern unter 15 Jahren besteht, als auch unter der eigenen Bevölkerung. Letztere weiß aus der Erfahrung früherer Kriege, dass ihr gewöhnlich nichts passiert. In Deutschland wurde die Frage "Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg?" einmal öffentlich gestellt und mit "Ja" beantwortet. Präsident Truman bekam sein "Ja" nachträglich durch die öffentliche Nichtdiskussion des Geschehenen. Was gut gegangen ist, wird nicht mehr als Risiko erlebt.

Aber ist es wirklich so riskant im gegenwärtigen Fall, wie Präsident Bush das durch seine eigene Pockenimpfung allen Bürgern signalisiert hat? Er hofft wie Truman, dass die Gefahr nicht so groß ist. Und dass, wenn alles überstanden ist, man sich wieder in einer stabilen Phase der Menschheitsgeschichte befindet - als sein Werk. Das ist eine sehr ehrenwerte Hoffnung.


Die moderne Technik ändert die stabile Entfernungsabhängigkeit von Bedrohungssituationen


Doch was spricht dagegen? Wenn man von der in Kauf genommenen Grausamkeit absieht, spricht die moderne Technik dagegen - zusammen mit der Tierpsychologie. Letztere kennt das Bild von den beiden verschieden stark gefüllten Luftballons, die gemeinsam in eine quaderförmige Kiste gepresst werden. Das Territorium des stärkeren und das des schwächeren Artgenossen (zweier Buntbarsche in einem Aquarium) hat genau dieselbe Struktur, wie Lorenz zeigte: Trotz des Druckunterschieds zwischen den beiden Ballons kommt es in der Kiste - und im Aquarium - zu einem Gleichgewicht. Das liegt im letzteren Fall daran, dass der kleinere Fisch das Zentrum seines Mini-Reviers so heftig verteidigt, dass es dem größeren am äußersten Rand seines eigenen großen Reviers das Risiko nicht wert ist. Dadurch überleben beide trotz des Machtgefälles. So war es auch oft in der Geschichte der Menschheit.

Doch die moderne Technik ändert die stabile Entfernungsabhängigkeit von Bedrohungssituationen. Die Errungenschaften der mikrobiologischen Technik lassen im Verein mit denen der Transporttechnik Entfernungsgradienten unwirksam werden. Hinzu kommt, dass der biologisch Schwächere (die Minderheit) der militärisch Stärkere ist, was das teure klassische Waffenarsenal angeht. Er beansprucht trotzdem weiter die globale wirtschaftliche Vorherrschaft. Der an Kraft kleinere Herausforderer (die Mehrheit) macht ihm das erstmals streitig seit dem 11. September. Der Aufmarsch der Minderheit ist subjektiv reine Verteidigung. Er besitzt den weiteren Vorteil, dass er die Mehrheit zum Stillhalten zwingt, bis der Angriff begonnen hat. Das erzwungene Stillhalten stellt eine sichtbare Schwäche dar, die die revoltierenden Gruppen der Mehrheit das Vertrauen ihrer Geldgeber kosten kann: eine geniale Strategie.

Auch Präsident Truman wagte das Risiko und wurde dafür von der Struktur der Welt belohnt. Ebenso könnte die Zerschlagung der revoltierenden Gruppen der Mehrheit (wenn es sie wirklich gibt) gelingen - auf Jahre oder Jahrzehnte hinaus. Die Weltordnung wäre wiederhergestellt in einer "Pax Bushiana".


Der schwache Gegner kann das Überleben aller gefährden


Warum rate ich dennoch ab? Dass ich Grausamkeit immer verabscheue, ist nicht mein Argument. Es ist die in der modernen Technik schlummernde Gefahr. Die Geiselnahme Israels und die Geiselnahme der amerikanischen Bevölkerung durch ihren Präsidenten ist nicht zu verantworten. Obwohl eine "pazifizierte Welt" das höchste Ziel jeder rationalen globalen Politik seit Cäsar ist, gilt dies heute nicht mehr.

Die Welt ist zu klein geworden, der "Diffusionsweg" zu kurz. Ein pockenähnliches Virus kann die Zivilisation auslöschen. Der schwache Gegner kann, als die Mehrheit, das Überleben aller gefährden, hat aber trotzdem subjektiv fast nichts zu verlieren.

Diese Art von Logik wurde bisher ein einziges Mal in der Geschichte verstanden - von Frederick de Klerk, als sie ihm von Nelson Mandela vorgestellt wurde. Aus irgendeinem Grund hielt Bin Laden dieselbe Logik Bush bisher nicht vor: Ich vermute, weil er getötet wurde. Oder, weil die Mehrheit sieht, wie er schweigt: Schweigen kann Stärke bedeuten vor denen, die wissen, dass sie nichts zu verlieren haben. Möglicherweise existieren die revolutionären Zellen, die daraus ihre Legitimation schöpfen, auch gar nicht. Doch die, die die Logik von Mandela ("minimale Gewalt") eingesogen haben, wissen, dass sie unbesiegbar sind: Weil sie überall sind, nichts zu verlieren haben und jederzeit ersetzbar sind, solange das Menschenrecht der armen Mehrheit auf Gleichberechtigung unerfüllt ist.

Vielleicht glaubt Präsident Bush nicht, dass er sich in derselben Situation befindet wie Präsident de Klerk - obwohl ich das für unwahrscheinlich halte. Er hat vermutlich ebenso wenig wie ich die Logik der Geschichte von Hegel und Marx gelesen, sieht aber die Logik der Gleichberechtigung mit seinem Herzen ein. Seine Gegner nehmen ihm nicht ab, dass er so fromm wäre wie sie, solange er nicht bestätigt, dass die Rechte, die sie für sich beanspruchen, durch die amerikanische Verfassung allen Menschen gebracht wurden. Man glaubt auf Grund seiner Äußerungen, dass er diese Rechte auf amerikanische Bürger ausreichenden Wohlstands beschränkt wissen will.

Der Geist Jeffersons macht die potenziellen revolutionären Zellen stark. Mandela bekam seine Existenzgarantie für die Mehrheit in Südafrika von de Klerk geschenkt. Es ist bis heute ein steiniger Weg, aber es ist ein Weg. Ich fordere fast ebenso lang (seit 1994) Lampsacus ein, die Heimatstadt aller Menschen auf dem Internet, als Existenzgarantie für die Mehrheit der Menschen auf dem Planeten ( Die Evolution des Wissens). Zuletzt habe ich Präsident Saddam Hussein gebeten, es einzurichten; er schweigt. Vielleicht ist die Heimatstadt den revolutionär gesinnten Vertretern der Mehrheit nicht durchsichtig genug als leicht einzurichtende Existenzgarantie. Die reiche Minderheit weiß, Lampsacus wird der größte Arbeitgeber und das größte Geschäft der Geschichte. Doch keine Regierung und kein Bill Gates wagt es.


Römer haben bislang immer gleich reagiert


Vielleicht wird Präsident Bush es einführen, sobald die nächste ruhige Phase der Weltgeschichte erreicht ist, die er durch sein eigenes Sich-nicht-imponieren-Lassen einzuläuten versucht. Ich würde ihm Glück dazu wünschen. Nur: Wie bringen wir die Menschen in den armen Ballungszentren der Welt dazu, dass auch sie glauben können, dass an sie und vor allem ihre Kinder gedacht wird? Werden sie nicht lieber die Rechte der Mehrheit einfordern, sofort?

Das Überleben Israels und das Überleben der reichen Länder steht auf dem Spiel, wenn Präsident Bush das Risiko von Alamogordo erneut eingeht. Es ist wieder wohlkalkuliert. Wir kennen die Zahl. 1 %, dass Rom und nicht nur Rom untergeht. Römer haben bisher immer gleich reagiert (mit Ausnahme des Rätsels de Klerk).

Lieber Herr Präsident Bush: Bitte, glauben Sie einem einfachen Chaosforscher, dass das Risiko zu groß ist. Ich erzähle Ihnen dann gerne zur Belohnung, warum auch der "Big Bang", jener andere, heute von allen für unverzichtbar angesehene große Knall in der Vergangenheit des Kosmos, sich als unnötig erweist, wenn man der Logik des Chaos folgt. Letztere Logik war in der Antike immer mit der des Himmels (des Geistes) verknüpft.

Für Jonas, meinen verstorbenen kleinen Sohn.

http://www.cs.wayne.edu/~kjz/lampsacus/

[Joerver]

Das Ende ist nah!

Blair is plunging Britain into a crisis of democracy

Threat of war has created an unprecedented globalisation of public opinion

Seumas Milne
Thursday March 13, 2003
The Guardian

This has already been a desperate week for Tony Blair. First, his handling of the Iraq crisis was openly denounced as "reckless" by a member of his own cabinet, Clare Short. He then advertised his growing political weakness by failing to sack her, emboldening parliamentary defiance and triggering the first calls by Labour MPs for his replacement. The following day, as Blair was slow handclapped by a television audience, the French president, Jacques Chirac, appeared to close off Blair`s last hope of any new UN security council resolution that could be presented as authorising war by declaring: "Whatever the circumstances, France will vote no."
Now, most gallingly of all, the prime minister has been stabbed in the back by the very US administration for whom he has put his own leadership on the line. By publicly calling into question Blair`s ability to join a US attack on Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld was clearly signalling the Pentagon`s impatience with the chaotic diplomatic quadrille in New York and letting it be known that Blair`s usefulness to his US patrons may be close to being exhausted. Some have suggested the US defence secretary was merely trying to be helpful, but given Downing Street`s frenzied reaction and Rumsfeld`s unilateralist convictions, that seems deeply implausible.

The two sides were busy talking down the transatlantic rift yesterday, but the worst of the week may not yet be behind Blair. President Bush has insisted there will be a vote on a new security council resolution by the weekend. The terms of the ultimatums being cooked up for it - including a requirement that Saddam Hussein gives a televised confession of his mendacity - make clear it is designed to be rejected by the Iraqi regime and pave the way for an immediate US invasion. And unless Chirac decides to perform a self-defeating volte-face, the expectation must be that the resolution - now mainly being fought for to save Tony Blair`s political skin - will be vetoed.

If he sticks with the US none the less, Blair will then find himself at the heart of the political nightmare he has so long hoped to avoid: facing a likely wave of resignations from government, a parliamentary rebellion that might leave him dependent on Tory support, an explosion of mass opposition in the country and the likelihood of a challenge to his position as prime minister. He would also be party to an act of aggression that the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, warned on Monday would be a violation of the UN charter and therefore illegal.

Without an explicit UN resolution backing war, Blair will face a choice. He could try to ride out the tide of opposition in the hope that the war would be short, the known casualties relatively few and the military occupation at least initially welcomed on the streets of Iraqi cities. Alternatively, but improbably, he could perform a historic u-turn and refuse to take part in an unlawful at tack opposed by a clear majority of the British people. A third option would be to go for a low profile backup role in a US invasion of the kind floated by Rumsfeld and certainly discussed in Downing Street as a possible fallback position over the past few weeks - though that might seem the worst of both worlds, neither pacifying opponents nor offering full entitlement to the political and commercial spoils.

But whichever way he turns, the prime minister will not avoid being seriously damaged by the fallout, either at home or abroad. He is after all a leader who has staked everything on the benefits of his embrace of the Bush administration, his moral determination to act against Saddam Hussein, his ability to lead his own people, his commitment to multilateral action through the UN, his credibility as a principled international statesman. Some, or even most, of these hopelessly inflated claims will not survive the conflagration of the coming weeks. And it is not only Blair, but his government as a whole, that will be irreversibly weakened as a result.

That it has come to this pass is the product of a sustained failure of political judgement from which Blair`s reputation can never fully recover. The prime minister now knows that he has decisively lost the battle for public opinion. And as the UN inspectors oversee the destruction of Iraqi missiles, the latest polls suggest that scepticism about the case for war is actually hardening. Blair nevertheless shows every sign of intending to send British troops to war without the consent of the British people. The prime minister argued this week that "you can`t actually take these decisions simply by opinion polls". And of course, when it comes to many decisions in government - involving conflicting public views and the need for policy coherence - that argument has some force. But it has no force whatever in the the case of war on Iraq, which has been trailed and exhaustively debated for getting on for a year and about which public opinion has been remarkably consistent all along.

When it comes to issues of life and death, a country`s fundamental relationship with the rest of the world and what Blair himself regards as international morality, it is simply absurd to argue that settled public opinion should not be decisive in a democracy. Blair insists that history will be his judge - which may be true in the long run, but in the meantime that role will played by the British people.

A majority say they now regard their prime minister as an American poodle - in other words, the agent of a foreign power - while almost half the British people believe the US is currently the greatest threat to peace in the world. Any doubts as to where the real impetus for war on Iraq came from should have been dispelled by the pattern of events in the aftermath of September 11 2001. For months, Downing Street and Foreign Office officials ridiculed the background chatter coming out of Washington that Iraq would be the next target in the war on terror. Then about a year ago, the briefers went into abrupt reverse - when the US administration took the decision to go for Iraq.

The looming war has plunged Britain into a crisis of sovereignty as well as of democracy. But even if it`s sharpest in Britain, because of Blair`s role as senior cheerleader for the US, that crisis is also a global one. Across the world, public opinion is now overwhelmingly opposed to war on Iraq, as measured in countless opinion polls, including in those states - such as in eastern Europe - hailed by the Bush administration for supporting US war plans. With the shaky exceptions of Israel and the US itself, there now appears to be no country in the world where a majority backs war on Iraq without UN authorisation. As the established international institutions buckle under the weight, we are witnessing an unprecedented globalisation of public opinion. Those who defy it may find they pay a far higher price than expected.

[e-mail]

[Joerver]

Gauging promise of Iraqi oil: U.S. and British firms stand to reap a windfall
Date: Wednesday, March 12 @ 09:57:14 EST
Topic: Corporate America


Ousting Hussein could open the door for U.S. and British firms. Chinese, French and Russian rivals would lose their edge.

By Warren Vieth and Elizabeth Douglass, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- Maybe it`s a coincidence, but American and British oil companies would be long-term beneficiaries of a successful military offensive led by the United States and Britain to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Industry officials say Hussein`s ouster would help level the playing field for U.S. and British firms that have been shut out of Iraq as Baghdad has negotiated with rivals from other countries — notably France, Russia and China, three leading opponents of war.

A post-Hussein Iraq also would be a bonanza for the U.S.-dominated oil-services industry, which is in the business of rehabilitating damaged infrastructure, reversing declining output from aging fields and providing essential support work to drillers and explorers. A leader in that industry is Halliburton Co., where Dick Cheney was chief executive before becoming vice president.



The confluence of foreign policy objectives and commercial interests is fueling suspicions that U.S. and British war plans are motivated in part by a thirst for Iraqi oil. Those concerns would be magnified, experts caution, if Washington winds up calling the shots in a postwar Baghdad.

"All over the world, people will be watching very carefully," said Issam Al-Chalabi, who ran Iraqi National Oil Co. for four years and served as Hussein`s oil minister for three.

"Even if they give only 10% of the work to Americans, people will say the Americans are being favored if there is supervision by the United States," said Al-Chalabi, now a consultant in Amman, Jordan. "But let the Iraqis decide, and no one can say they`ve been under pressure, even if they give 50% to American companies."

Experts say it would make sense for U.S. and British firms to get a significant share of any repair and development jobs in Iraq, because they are such major players in the global industry with arguably the best technology and professional expertise. That would be recognized, analysts say, even if the United States left all postwar decision-making to Iraqis.

And with the door open to companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. of Irving, Texas, and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of London, the losers could be the French, Russian and Chinese oil companies that have either signed contracts or negotiated preliminary agreements to drill in Iraq.

That the three countries wield veto power in the U.N. Security Council is widely believed by industry experts and U.S. officials to be one reason their companies received favorable treatment in Baghdad, although Hussein`s government also has negotiated with companies from at least two dozen other countries.

The company with perhaps the most at stake is Paris-based TotalFinaElf, which in recent years negotiated, but never signed, agreements to develop two of Iraq`s largest oil fields, Majnoon and Nahr Bin Omar. The contracts, valued at $7 billion, could ultimately double Total`s oil reserves and boost its production by 400,000 barrels a day.

Total CEO Thierry Desmarest declared last month that he was not about to cede the field to U.S. and British rivals. Desmarest acknowledged that France`s opposition to a likely war could make Total`s standing in Iraq "more complicated," but he expressed confidence the company could land new contracts if allowed to engage in good-faith negotiations.

"We have shown in the past that we are able to defend ourselves on an equal footing with our peers even in some areas where there was a reputation of significant American influence," Desmarest said.

The French, among the original members of the international consortium formed in 1928 to develop Iraq`s reserves, continued to enjoy favored treatment in Baghdad after Iraq nationalized its oil industry in 1972. Russia`s oil industry also had special access after Iraq tilted toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

After the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the U.S. government prohibited American firms from engaging in any commercial activities or business negotiations with the Iraqi government. United Nations sanctions barred foreign companies from investing in Iraq`s oil sector, though they were allowed to negotiate deals for the future. One reason Total`s contracts were never consummated was that the company wanted to include language making the work contingent on the lifting of sanctions, and Hussein`s government refused.

Major oil companies might not be the only commercial casualties of war.

Petrel Resources, a tiny oil firm in Dublin, Ireland, has been negotiating with Hussein`s government since 1978 for exploration rights in Iraq`s western desert, and recently signed a contract. It`s unclear whether the contract would be recognized by a new regime. And if U.S. and British companies also are in the game, Petrel could be out of luck.

"We`ve done some very good work, but we can`t compete with the multinationals," said Petrel Chairman John Teeling. "They`ll crunch us and jump on us as much as they can."

The reason: Only Saudi Arabia has more oil than Iraq. Iraq`s proven reserves total about 112 billion barrels, and industry experts figure as many as 250 billion more await discovery. To develop the proven reserves to their full potential over the next 10 years or so will cost as much as $40 billion, according to think tanks and petroleum consultants.

Presuming a U.S.-led military victory, industry officials and experts expect the postwar work to proceed in two phases.

For the first year or two, companies that provide repair, rehabilitation, engineering and construction services — including Halliburton, Schlumberger Ltd., Baker Hughes Inc. and BJ Services Co. — would receive an estimated $3 billion to $5 billion in contracts from an interim government.

As part of that first phase, engineering and construction project specialists such as Aliso Viejo-based Fluor Corp. could be in the running for contracts to repair and upgrade Iraqi oil facilities.

Fluor spokesman Jerry Holloway declined to discuss the company`s possible involvement in any postwar oil and gas projects. But he confirmed that Fluor submitted a bid, at the U.S. government`s request, for possible work through the U.S. Agency for International Development — work that is said to focus on humanitarian projects such as repairing roads, sanitation systems and hospitals.

The second phase would begin after the installation of the new government, according to U.S. officials. That`s when multinational exploration and production companies would be invited to negotiate long-term exploration and development deals.

So far, most multinationals are circumspect in their public comments about their plans — though not necessarily about Iraq`s potential.

"We know where the best reserves are in the world. We covet the opportunity to go get those someday," said Archie Dunham, chairman of ConocoPhillips in Houston.

Britain`s BP said it would be interested in Iraq, but only if the circumstances were right.

"If there is a change of governments and if sanctions are lifted and if the government in Iraq wants foreign investment, then BP would obviously consider the opportunities that were available," said spokesman Toby Odone.

Royal Dutch/Shell said it discussed opportunities with Hussein`s government in the mid-1990s — and was ready to resume the dialogue if a new government is installed.

"We`re not doing any business in Iraq at the moment," said spokesman Justin Everard in London. "But we`re interested in doing business in countries that have large reserves of oil, and Iraq is one of those."

At Halliburton, spokeswoman Wendy Hall declined to discuss the possibilities for the company in Iraq. But the opportunities are more than theoretical: Last week, the Pentagon announced it intended to use a plan developed by Halliburton`s Kellogg Brown & Root unit to control oil well fires that might accompany a military offensive.

As soon as the smoke clears in Iraq, some in the industry say, the jockeying will begin in earnest. Teeling, the Petrel Resources chairman, predicts "a Wild West, frontier rush" for reserves that are plentiful and relatively easy to access compared with offshore fields where so many of the major oil companies are focused.

"In the last three or four years, most of the world`s oil companies have either visited Iraq or opened offices or had representatives there," he said. "They have no choice. It`s the world`s cheapest oil. They have to be there."

Teeling saw it firsthand during one of his initial trips to Baghdad in 1998. Standing in line in the lobby of the Al-Rashid Hotel, he said, he spotted what he assumed to be another European waiting to check in.

"I peeked over his shoulder. He had an American passport. It turns out he was representing an American oil company," Teeling said, declining to identify the firm.

Vieth reported from Washington and Douglass from Los Angeles.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

[Joerver]

#286 Siehe auch: Secretive U.S."Informatioon" Office Back. Unbedingt lesenswert.

Ernest Partridge: `The view from Wonderland`
Date: Wednesday, March 12 @ 09:46:39 EST
Topic: War & Terrorism


By Ernest Partridge, The Crisis Papers

Are the people who are caught up in a mass delusion ever aware that they are living in a malignant fantasyland? Did the puritans of the Salem colony suspect that they were not hanging real "witches," but instead were collectively engaged in a monstrous injustice? Did the "good Germans" in the thirties, ever doubt that Adolf Hitler was anything less than what the captive press said he was: the "savior of the nation and the protector of the Aryan race?" Did the "good patriots" of the fifties ever ask for proof that Senator Joe McCarthy really had a list in his hand of "known communists in the State Department?" (The number changed with each speech). How long did we persist in believing the telegenic Generals` reassurances that "we`ve turned the corner in Viet Nam," and that "there was a light at the end of the tunnel?"

When society has gone mad, does the "conventional belief" somehow "feel different" to those within the society? The question virtually answers itself and history confirms that when reason departs and collective insanity takes over, it all seems "perfectly sensible" from the inside.



True, in all such cases, a few discerning individuals stand apart, like the child who saw no clothes on the Emperor. But such individuals are quickly marginalized as they are denounced as "traitors," shouted into silence, exiled if they are lucky, and liquidated if they are not. After the madness has passed, statues are cast and monuments built in their name -- names familiar to us all: Dietrich Bonheoffer, Klaus von Stauffenberg, Hans and Sophie Scholl, Andrei Sakharov, Joseph Welch, Edward R. Murrow, George Ball, Daniel Ellsberg, John Dean.

These heroes see what almost anyone might see -- anyone who prizes his and her liberty and independence, whose wits are operational, and whose moral principles are intact. Add to this, the courage to speak out against the madness and to defend the betrayed moral principles, whatever the cost, and you have a hero.

When a society has gone collectively bonkers, this can be readily recognized by succeeding historians (no one defends the Salem witch trials today), by onlookers from outside that society (for example, in Europe and Canada where they still have a free press), and even by discerning individuals within. All these, and particularly those within, can do so by the exercise of familiar and ordinary principles of critical thinking: logic (tests of consistency and coherence), evidence, objectivity (suppression of bias), and recognition of common fallacies.

In the present crisis that has befallen our republic, there is still access to relevant information and there is an abundance of fallacy in "the official version" to be exposed, so that those of us with eyes to see, ears to hear, and the ordinary smarts to think it over, are quite able to come up with a reasonable assessment of our peril, and of our most prudent means to deal with it.

For in point of fact, the case for war against Iraq is so pathetically flimsy that it would not survive a preliminary hearing before Texas judge. Time and again, the Bushistas have come up with "evidence" against Saddam, and time and again it has been knocked down by "burly truth." We know the particulars, but let`s review them again if only to contemplate the accumulating weight of this folly:
Bush and his defenders, citing a document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, continue to this day to tell us that Saddam came within six months of developing a nuclear weapon. The UN agency denies that there is, or ever was, such a document.
The alleged meeting in Prague of 9/11 hijack leader, Mohammed Atta and Iraqi agents, never took place. Determined attempts by US and Czech officials to obtain evidence of such a meeting has come up empty.
It is claimed that the UN inspectors have discovered aluminum tubes intended for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Physicists and nuclear engineers have stated unequivocally that the tubes are totally unsuited for such purposes. Nonetheless, the charge persists.
In his UN "show and tell" speech, Colin Powell displayed photographs of trucks allegedly used as "mobile chemical weapons labs." The UN inspectors have examined the trucks, and found that they are used for food shipments. No such labs have been discovered.
Powell also showed a photo of an "al Qaeda training camp and chemical weapons facility" in northern Iraq. What he didn`t say was that the area was under the control of the Kurds, and thus readily accessible for inspections. And sure enough, when inspected, there was no evidence of a "training camp" or a "weapons lab" (which, due to residual chemicals, would be impossible to conceal).
A "secret report" cited by Powell at the UN and by Tony Blair before Parliament, turned out to be a plagiarized student paper, written a decade earlier.
In his recent (so-called) "press conference" Bush repeatedly said that we must fight Saddam to rid the world of terrorism such as the 9/11 attacks -- thus furthering the wide-spread belief that Saddam is directly involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center. The CIA, FBI and NSA have all reported to the White House that there is no evidence of such a collaboration. Still the myth is broadcast far and wide, and most Americans believe it. (More about this below).
In that same "scripted" news conference, Bush also told of hidden microphones that were present during interviews of Iraqi scientists. No confirming evidence of this was presented or reported by the inspectors. We have also been told by Colin Powell that even as the Iraqi missiles are being destroyed, still more are being assembled in "secret" factories. Again, no evidence is presented -- not to the public, and not to the UN inspectors, whose job it is to locate and disclose such facilities.
Documents "proving" the shipment of uranium from Niger to Iraq have proven to be forgeries.
In short, the Bush gang`s "case for war" consists of a series of false leads, embarrassing concoctions and outright fraudulent "evidence."

In the meantime, the UN inspectors have failed to come up with any evidence of significant production or storage of weapons of mass destruction. To this, Donald Rumsfeld has famously replied, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Even less is "absence of evidence, evidence of presence" -- though some "chicken-hawks" have gone so far as to assert that the failure of the inspectors to find contraband weapons only "proves" the effectiveness of Saddam`s deception. (Still worse, we are told: "Our justification for war is to stop Saddam`s production of WMDs. You want evidence that Iraq has WMDs? Just wait till we take Iraq, then we`ll show you plenty of evidence." The mind boggles at this circularity).

And so, with the Iraqi military decimated by the Gulf War and under constant surveillance through 1998 by the UN, and thereafter by US satellites, aircraft, and media monitors, we are about to embark upon the greatest military mismatch since the marines took Granada. And we are to launch this war with a "shock and awe" attack of 3000 cruise missiles -- ever careful, of course, that we keep "collateral damage" (i.e., dead Iraqi women and children) to a minimum. After we have leveled their cities and massacred their civilians, the survivors, we are assured, will greet their "liberators" with flowers and kisses.

We must do this, we are told, because Saddam Hussein, who has attacked no one in a dozen years, "threatens us." One is reminded of how World War II was launched on September 1, 1939, on the pretext that the Wehrmacht and the Lufftwaffe, at the time the mightiest military forces in history, were being "threatened" by the Polish biplanes and horse cavalry.

Saddam`s alleged military "threat` is but one morsel in the revolving menu of justifications. Others include the alleged "alliance" between Saddam and al Qaeda, for which not a scrap of evidence has been produced. Another is our altruistic desire to "bring democracy" to Iraq and the benighted Middle Eastern states.

I submit that the qualifications of the United States as a "bestower of Democracy" is a bit tainted. Iran had an operating democracy, with an elected government and Prime Minister in the fifties -- a government that decided that Iran deserved a fair share of the oil revenues. Our answer (via the CIA) was to give them the Shah and his dreaded secret police, the Savak. The Chileans democratically elected Salvador Allende. But Henry Kissinger said that "we can`t allow the Chileans to elect a Marxist." And so we "gave" them Agusto Pinochet. And so on, with Somoza in Nicaragua and Marcos in the Philippines. The most recent democracy to fall victim, of course, was that of the United States of America. Accordingly, with a record like this, an Iraqi with even a modest awareness of recent history might be forgiven if he is a bit skeptical about the next "bestowal" of democracy by the current government of the United States.

(Standard disclaimer: Saddam Hussein is without question an unmitigated disaster to Iraq and its people, who will be well-rid of him. Of this we can be certain. We can be much less certain that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and the lasting enmity of hundreds of millions of Arabs and Moslems from Morocco to Indonesia is an acceptable price for this removal).

In a poll just released, 54% of the US population has expressed a willingness to go to war with Iraq, even without the sanction of the Security Council. But other polls have indicated that over two-thirds of the population believes that Iraqis were among the 9/11 hijackers, and that Saddam Hussein was involved in that attack. Hell, if I believed that, I too would be among those calling for war with Iraq. But it is a simple and demonstrable fact that there were no Iraqis among the hijackers, and as we have noted, the CIA, the FBI and the NSA have, despite exhaustive investigations, all failed to come up with any evidence of a Saddam - al Qaeda connection.

Clearly, the big lie of "Saddam-sponsored terrorism" repeated ad nauseum by both the Bush supporters and its media flacks, has taken hold of the American public. That is truly shocking. But equally shocking is the fact that the American media has made no effort to disabuse the public of this misinformation. One can only conclude from this that the media no longer regards itself, and no longer functions, as a source of facts to the public and as a forum for the open discussion of urgent public issues. Instead, it serves to promulgate false information and propaganda at the behest of the Bush regime and the corporate interests that put him in power and that dictate his agenda.

But we knew that already, didn`t we?

In the final and fourth part of his brilliant and unfortunately forgotten PBS series, "The Public Mind" (c. 1989), Bill Moyers studied "group-think," and examined in particular, four "case studies:" The Bay of Pigs fiasco, Watergate, the Viet Nam War, and the Challenger disaster. In all these cases, a focus by the "decision makers" upon a desired objective drew them all into a chorus of concurrence ("group think") which shut out discordant reality and blinded them to the possibility of unintended consequences and disastrous failure. When such thoughtless policies are also promulgated to the public through a subservient and uncritical media, skillful in the black arts of propaganda and public relations, the "group think" infects the public at large.

Only after the disaster, as the nation faces the grim task of rebuilding from the wreckage, do they ask, "how could this have happened?"

Consider the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion. Ill-trained Cuban expatriates were landed , without air support, in a swamp on the northern shore of Cuba. The CIA assured the Kennedy team that, according to their "best intelligence," this landing would be a catalyst to a popular uprising that would overthrow Castro. (Precisely what the chicken hawks predict will happen in Baghdad). The day after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, when the second thoughts crept in and the team looked back at the suppressed "realities," Kennedy asked, "how could I have been so stupid?"

In an interview with Moyers, psychologist Daniel Goleman replies: Kennedy`s advisors let him "be stupid." "They wanted it to be true. They suppressed all their doubts. They censored themselves. They did all the things that would make the operative belief seem to be true."

Kennedy learned well from this bitter lesson. When the next, far greater emergency -- the Cuban Missile crisis -- arose, he took great care to have a multitude of opinions present, and always a "devil`s advocate" to offer an answer to the question, "why not?" It was a far more painful, more unsettling, more drawn-out process that produced a much more subjectively uncertain conclusion. But such a process is far more likely to bring forth an wiser decision. As several historians have noted, by altering the mode of White House decision-making, the Bay of Pigs may have, ironically, saved the world from a thermonuclear disaster.

One can scarcely imagine George Bush undergoing such an ordeal of cognitive dissonance. He has a much simpler and more immediate mode of decision-making: his "gut." As he told Bob Woodward: "I can only just go by my instincts ... I`m not a textbook player, I`m a gut player."

Gawd help us all!

George Bush`s "gut," fed by the far-right ideologues that surround him, has led the American public into a kind of "alternative universe," detached from the reality which we in fact inhabit. It is a universe in which there is no global warming and pollution has no harmful effects, a reality in which all social problems can be solved by the free market, and economic growth is best accomplished by starving social services and education, and giving still more money to the very wealthy. And, it is a universe in which one super-power can establish "hegemony" over all the nations of the earth and expropriate their resources, whereupon the peoples thereof will simply be grateful to that power for "establishing order," bringing "democracy," and vanquishing the "evil-doers." It is a universe comprehended by "gut instinct" unconfounded by science, practical experience, or even common sense; a universe without unintended consequences, or unfortunate side-effects.

It is, of course, a fantasyland -- not remotely like the world we inhabit. And we know that Bush`s fantasy isn`t reality -- or at least we can know this.

Once we free ourselves from Bush`s fantasies, we still we have a large advantage over those who experienced the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, Viet Nam and the Challenger. They lived through their disasters. Ours, now directly before us, has not yet happened. And before it does, we can still reflect:

Most of us remember Viet Nam and acknowledge it was a terrible mistake.
We know that history refutes the American promise of "bringing democracy."
We know "the Gulf of Tonkin incident" was a lie.
We know that before the onset of the Gulf War, we were told lies about the incubator babies and the Iraqi troops reported to be assembling along the Saudi border.
Today, we can, with a modest effort, identify the lies that we are now being fed.
And we can, if we wish, learn from our mistakes.
The facts are "out there" for all to see, albeit they may have to be ferreted out from the remaining free media abroad, the few surviving independent voices at home, and of course, the internet.

The facts are out there, and yet public at large does not recognize that theirs is a view from Wonderland. The Bushevik regime does not want us to wake from our dogmatic slumbers, and the captive media is all to willing to oblige them. We are the corporate media`s mushrooms: it is their task to keep us in the dark, and feed us BS.

Thus the American public is, by and large, captivated by a collective delusion, and no more aware of this than the faithful puritans of Salem, the "good Germans" who followed their leader, and the mass of loyal American citizens, determined to avenge the destroyer Maddox, "ruthlessly attacked" in the Bay of Tonkin.

We are drifting rudderless toward disaster. Time is running out.

Can we escape from the disaster that is immediately before us? The prospects are not good. But not to attempt this escape is the worst betrayal -- a betrayal of hope and a betrayal of the future.

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" (www.igc.org/gadfly) and co-edits the progressive website, "The Crisis Papers" (www.crisispapers.org).


Hinweis auf eine interessante Seite:

http://www.crisispapers.org/

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Wird fortgesetzt

[Joerver]

Die immer gut informierte Murdock-Presse, diesmal die New York Post. Hurra wir haben einen neuen Kanzler Hans Schröder, muß wohl der Bruder von Gerhard sein.

DUBYA`S DUTY


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



March 13, 2003 -- It was six months ago yesterday that President Bush went before the United Nations and warned the world body that it would either "serve the purpose of its founding" by moving against Saddam Hussein or become "irrelevant."
Saddam remains in power.

And the United Nations has proven itself to be, if not irrelevant, then impotent. Clearly, the Security Council never meant to enforce fulfill the strict conditions of its Resolution 1441, passed unanimously last fall.

And it hasn`t.

Instead, Bush finds himself in the humiliating position of begging nations like Angola, Guinea, Mexico and Chile to support yet another resolution.

To hell with it.

To hell with Jacques Chirac of France and Hans Schroeder of Germany and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Summer is arriving in the Persian Gulf - with a vengeance.

"Fierce winds swept across desert camps near the Iraqi border Wednesday," reported the Associated Press, "enveloping soldiers in blinding clouds of sand and rattling tents like a drum roll.

"Weatherwise, the worst is yet to come: A summer of stifling heat and choking sandstorms."

That`s not the only reason why President Bush needs to quit groveling before self-important leaders of countries that once mattered and get on with the dispossession of Saddam Hussein.

But it`s as good as any.

Every day that passes without decisive action allows Saddam`s soldiers more time to get ready to kill Americans.

And every diplomatic sashay sows more confusion among America`s allies - which America`s enemies then seize upon further to weaken allied solidarity.

It`s a vicious circle.

It has to end sometime.

Why not now?

Today!

Yesterday, the talk was of just a little slippage in the (supposed) March 17 deadline for action - either by Saddam or against him.

But `til when?

`Til summer arrives in the Gulf in full blast-furnace ferocity?

Let`s be clear: What`s happening at the United Nations has nothing to do with avoiding war.

It doesn`t even have anything to do with finding a non-violent way to genuinely disarm Iraq.

The charade is all about containing U.S. power and influence.

Pure and simple, it`s envy and resentment over America`s emergence as the world`s lone post-Cold-War superpower.

There`s a subtext, to be sure: A bid to create a new world order with Europe at its center. Though not all of Europe: Mostly just France and Germany and yappy little lapdogs like Belgium.

And, of course, a little cheap chiseling on the side: Chile, temporarily ensconced on the Security Council, is standing with its hand out looking for its payday - U.S. approval for NAFTA membership, perhaps.

What Chile needs - and should get straight away - is a cuff behind the ear.

That would serve Santiago right - and serve also as an example to all the other extortionists on the council.

They make Saddam look almost honorable in comparison.

But every time he successfully thumbs his nose at yet another U.N. resolution, America`s ability to fight terrorism is diminished.

Four months ago, Bush warned that "the old game of cheat-and-retreat, tolerated at other times, will no longer be tolerated."

Yet that`s exactly the game Saddam Hussein is managing to play.

He is a desperate man, who has nothing to lose - and everything to gain - from untoward delay.

Answer this question:

What will a new resolution - no matter how strictly worded or how tough the conditions - mean to a man who has so ignored all the others?

All 17 of them.

So far, successfully.

Dragging out the inevitable also demoralizes those, here and abroad, who have stood strong with America.

Yes, further compromise may achieve consensus on a new resolution.

But, again, so what?

France, all of a sudden, is going to abandon its agenda?

Germany is going to support war?

Saddam, after 12 long years of dissembling and defiance, is going to come clean?

Not a chance.

The time has come.

Pull the trigger, Mr. President.

Home


NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Joerver]

Thursday, March 13, 2003
French kiss
Diplomat hopes democracies can turn the other cheek
By RICK BELL, CALGARY SUN


Your mother wears army boots. As a kid, when you had nothing to say, when you couldn`t come up with a quick come- back, you could always resort to calling names.

And so you accuse your friend`s mom of wearing army boots without quite knowing what the insult means.

So it is now, for some, with France. Along with most of the world, the French do not want to march with the Bush brigade.

They do not want to unleash the dogs of war at this time while inspections in Iraq still go on, they counsel caution and ask questions while the Americans muddle toward an attack on Iraq with few clear objectives beyond the sinking of Saddam.

For this position, France and things French and even things named French that aren`t French, are ridiculed and reviled, in the States and to a lesser degree here.

French fries are freedom fries. The French are cheese-eating surrender monkeys, a cowardly cog in the axis of weasels, pathetic arrogant has-beens in a Europe gone to seed.

Websites market T-shirts and thongs proclaiming France stinks. Boycotts of fine French goods, wine, mineral water, fashion and cosmetics, blossom.

Jean-Yves Defay, Vancouver-based consul general for France, that country`s top diplomat for Alberta, B.C., Yukon and the N.W.T., sees this tirade, this temper tantrum.

"The reaction hurts because it is so illogical, so incoherent, so baseless. America is a democracy, Canada is a democracy, France is a democracy. We see differences but one democracy is no better than the other. We all try our best," says Defay, who has been in his country`s service for three decades.

"People do not really know we all want the same -- nobody wants dictatorial government dangerous to anyone. Maybe some do not know the number of countries opposing war as an ultimatum is much higher than the other countries.

"The problems are complicated, nobody is right and nobody is wrong. It is more complicated than that."

Defay laughs at changing the names of anything with the word French.

"If it was not so sad, it would be funny. It cannot be taken seriously. We do not call bread French bread or fries French fries. We are not that pretentious.

"And here we receive many, many more nice words than words of aggression. It may be 1 to 12, or 1 to 15. It is totally overwhelming. But we are not asking to be applauded. No."

Defay, however, neither laughs nor blasts the boycotting of French goods, a strategy usually reserved for enemies. The veteran diplomat accepts a minority may stop buying French.

"What can we do? We regret, but people are free. It`s OK. Should we stop buying American products? That would be ridiculous. We don`t have a grudge. The world does not work this way; it is not a one-way world. If that world ever did exist, it does not exist now."

For five years, Defay served in Washington. Through this entire conversation, he is remarkably good-humoured and never returns a slur or bad word to the U.S.

"In Washington, I was very happy in my relations with my American friends. I had agreeable duties."

One duty was the annual celebration of the American victory at Yorktown, winning the revolution for the U.S. after a fearless French naval blockade of the British.

"It is at the celebrations I witnessed mutual friendship and much more than that. Of course, we thank Americans for their great help in 1917 and 1944. Nobody will ever forget, for sure.

"But at Yorktown we did everything to give the U.S. political power. We even obliged the British general Cornwallis to turn over his sword to General Washington.

"You know, France and the U.S. are and will remain not only allies but friends. There is no doubt about that.

"We are democratic countries, yes, with different styles, but we democratic countries are not too many in the world. Whether it is over or it is not over, we have to be together."
Man kann alles auch positiv sehen.

[Joerver]

Ein Beispiel aus dem Chatroom der NYT. Sehr fein die Unterscheidung zwischen Texas und den USA.

dforcg0, you do have a point there. However, sooner or later, everybody falls. Rome fell, Hitler fell, Comunism fell, Milosevic fell... America will fall sooner or later. I would rather help trying to build my "dream world" rather than falling pray to the warmogers of the world telling me why I should hate and fear my neighbour, and allow my "elected representatives" to kill them. Also, the very fact that $12 is what each human being in this planet owns on average gives us an idea as to what is so wrong with the wold. It is not Saddam... it is mostly hunger, poverty, death, un-hope. Rather than contributing with 1.000.000 corpses to some terrorist`s cause, we should be thinking how to address the real problems of this world. Gotta go. But thanks for this discussion.


elaurens2 - 07:50am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 22230 of 22233)

Greetings:

Being Welsh, I was relieved today to read in this paper that Ari Fleisher had said he expected "England" to contribute to the war against Saddam. Listen up, folks, it`s Texas that`s declaring war on Iraq ...!


allemankunl - 07:53am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 22231 of 22233)

CNN propaganda wants to tell the us piblic that iraq- military started negotiations.

a good easteregg from bush`s administration to deceive the people shortly before the war starts.


adolf_w_bush - 08:02am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 22232 of 22233)


>>Save the distances, isn`t the US`s new "Preventive War" foreign policy the same as Hitler`s back in the 40`s? Different flag, different propaganda arguments... but the same "we will kill off of "them" before they become a bigger problem for us"?
You are right, there are similarities, but not really in every case, there are some differences.

What really reminds me on that time is the misinformation propaganda of the bush administration and the murdoch empire. The last propaganda joke was the thing with the balsa drone. Argh, that´s as embarrassing as Blairs´ transcripted report. The proofs of the bush posse are absurd and absolutely unbelievable and the world must condemn them as untrustworthy. Only the fact that the fascistic Murdoch empire works well is the reason why 50% americans are pro war.

A few days Michael has posted the interesting question if the troops should be sent home without a pro war decision at the security council. That somehow was the wound spot of the so called "weasel" section and the peace movement. After long discussion I personally came to the conclusion: Yes, the troops must be sent home after a specific period though the danger of another ignoration of resolution 1441 of the hussein regime is possible. But then it would be a different situation.

It´s because the security council has the power to appropriate what to do and what not. A ignoration of the security council and the breaking of international laws cannot be accepted. This action would be comparable with and on the same level as Hitlers descent to Poland. Therefor the troops will have to be sent home because the security is the highest international entity.

The US administration should accept the power of the security council, also the international court of justice for war crimes (actually denied along with china(!), israel(!!) and iraq(!!!).


jc12341 - 08:04am Mar 13, 2003 EST (# 22233 of 22233)

"dforcg0, you do have a point there. However, sooner or later, everybody falls. Rome fell, Hitler fell, Comunism fell, Milosevic fell... America will fall sooner or later."

I believe that this comment is very true. Uncle Sam might be the biggest power right now, but don`t expect that to last forever.

Coming over the horizon we have China...

Right now much of their economy is little more than subsistence agriculture...but make no mistake they are becoming industrialised very quickly.

Chinese workers get paid a fraction of US/European workers and it`s only a matter of time before Chinese produced goods undercut Western ones and take over "our" markets.

China is therefore the biggest strategic threat to the US...not some peasant called Saddam.

The other main danger that the US faces is the state of your economy which is fast disappearing down a blackhole.

So what is the biggest threat to Joe Six-Pack`s security...the state of the economy, and therefore the job market....or some Dictator, who is thousands of miles away, in a country that Dubya could not even find on the world map ?

Wake up USA....and stay at home and sort out your own problems...

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

New York verabschiedet Resolution gegen einen Irak-Krieg

Florian Rötzer 13.03.2003
Der Stadtrat schließt sich damit vielen anderen US-Städten an, lässt aber in der Resolution ein Schlupfloch offen

Ausgerechnet die Stadt, die am stärksten unter den Terroranschlägen vom 11.9. gelitten hat und zum Symbol für den notwendigen Kampf gegen den Terrorismus wurde, hat sich nun der Bush-Politik im Hinblick auf den Irak verweigert. Wie schon viele andere Städte, vor kurzem auch Los Angeles, hat nun auch der City Council von New York mit großer Mehrheit für eine Antikriegs-Resolution gestimmt.

Den überwiegend demokratischen Mitgliedern des Stadtrats dürfte die Entscheidung nicht leicht gefallen sein, die für die Kriegspolitik der Bush-Regierung ein herber Rückschlag sein dürfte und deutlich macht, dass auch die Unterstützung im eigenen Land abnimmt und unsicher wird. Und gerade jetzt, wo die Entscheidung im Sicherheitsrat Spitz auf Knopf steht und die US-Regierung auf einen schnellen Kriegsbeginn drängt, dürfte die Entscheidung zwar nichts ändern, aber als innen- und außenpolitisches Signal höchst unwillkommen sein.


Monatelang wurde heiß und emotional diskutiert, ob man sich den 125 anderen Städten, den Bundesstaaten Hawaii und Maine sowie einigen Counties anschließen soll ( Auch Los Angeles hat eine Antikriegs-Resolution verabschiedet). Gestern stimmten schließlich 32 für und 17 gegen die Resolution, die sich gegen einen präventiven Militärschlag richtet. Ein Krieg sei nur dann gerechtfertigt, so heißt es im Einklang mit dem Völkerrecht, wenn es eine unmittelbare Bedrohung gebe. Und nur wenn alle anderen Mittel erschöpft worden seien, den Irak zu entwaffnen, könne als letztes Mittel der Politik der Krieg stehen.

Dass ein Angriff nur mit Billigung des Sicherheitsrats stattfinden dürfe, war noch in der ersten Version der Resolution enthalten, wurde dann aber wie manche scharfe Kritik an der Bush-Regierung herausgenommen, um eine Zustimmung zu sichern. So steht man nicht ganz gegen den Krieg und gegen die US-Regierung und könnte einem Angriff doch noch zustimmen.

Gegen die Resolution stimmten auch demokratische Abgeordnete wie Peter Vallone, der sagte, er sei sehr enttäuscht: "New York City wurde von den Terroristen ein paar Blocks von dem Ort entfernt angegriffen, an dem diese Debatte stattfand. Ich kann das nicht vergessen. Wenn wir jetzt nicht Saddam entwaffnen, werden wir nicht genug Straßen haben, um sie nach den Opfern des nächsten Attentats zu benennen."

Genau die fehlende Verbindung zwischen den Terroristen, die den Anschlag vom 11.9. ausgeführt hatten, und dem Irak lag der Entscheidung von vielen Stadträten zugrunde, die sich weigerten, die zerstörten WTC-Türme als Legitimation für den Irak-Krieg verwenden zu lassen. "Man kann den 9.11. nicht mehr als Grund für einen Krieg verwenden", sagte etwa der Demokrat Charles Barron. "Es gibt keine Verbindung zwischen Saddam Hussein und dem 11. September." Der Stadtrat Bill Perkins erinnerte daran, dass normalerweise der Krieg von denen erklärt werde, die dann nicht an ihm teilnehmen. Der Stadtrat hat offenbar ganz im Sinne der meisten New Yorker entschieden. Nach Umfragen sind 75 Prozent der Bürger dieser Stadt gegen einen Krieg ohne UN-Resolution.

New York hatte für den Aktionstag am 15. Februar nicht einmal Antikriegsdemonstrationen genehmigt, sondern nur eine Versammlung unter vielen Schikanen erlaubt. Viele Demonstranten wurden gehindert, daran teilzunehmen. Man wollte ganz offensichtlich vor allem in der für den militärischen Kurs der US-Regierung wichtigsten, weil symbolischen Stadt, die das Trauma wach halten soll, die Präsenz von großen Protesten verhindern. Trotzdem kamen Hunderttausende ( Große Antikriegskundgebung in New York). Allerdings erhielten die Demonstrationen wenig Beachtung in vielen amerikanischen Medien, die sich hier regierungstreu verhalten.

Für Murdochs New York Post, die hinter der Bush-Regierung steht, für den Krieg trommelt und Kriegskritiker im Land sowie im alten Europa beschimpft, war die Entscheidung des Stadtrats natürlich eine weitere Möglichkeit, die heimischen "Wiesel" anzugreifen. Die Stadträte hätten "in die Gesichter der Tausenden von Frauen und Männer gespuckt, die im Irak für unser Land zu kämpfen bereit sind". Jetzt wüssten sie, dass manche Menschen Zuhause nicht besser als die Franzosen seien.

[Joerver]

Die Grafik läßt doch hoffen

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

March 14, 2003
George W. Queeg
By PAUL KRUGMAN


board the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush`s quart of strawberries?

Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. There`s a long list of pundits who previously supported Bush`s policy on Iraq but have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn`t want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think — including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon — don`t just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America`s leadership has lost touch with reality.

If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy — a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance.

Mr. Bush`s inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don`t work on the rest of the world. They`ve made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don`t trust their word. They`ve made threats. They`ve done the aura-of-inevitability thing — how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They`ve warned other countries that if they oppose America`s will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks.

Wasn`t someone at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters nonmilitary, the U.S. isn`t all that dominant — that Russia and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours, that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do and that in much of the world public opinion matters? Apparently not.

And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration`s eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale.

What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don`t feel like dealing with right now.

I`ve talked in this column about the administration`s eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn`t allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don`t bother me, I`m busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair.

Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il`s nuclear program isn`t a rumor or a forgery; it`s an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it`s a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim.

The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush`s `Waco.` . . . This time, it`s Kim Jong Il (and Saddam) playing David Koresh. . . . Sober minds wrestle with how to break into the mind of George Bush."

We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons — and there will be a heavy price to pay.

Alas, the epiphanies of the pundits have almost surely come too late. The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
U.S.-Backed Resolution Appears Doomed
Talks on Iraq Will Continue Until Monday

By Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 14, 2003; Page A01


UNITED NATIONS, March 13 -- A U.S.-backed U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing war against Iraq appears doomed to fail, senior U.S. officials and foreign diplomats said today, though the Bush administration agreed to a British request to continue negotiations until Monday before calling for a vote or withdrawing the measure.

U.S. officials in recent days have claimed, without providing evidence, that they were within striking distance of reaching the necessary nine votes on the deeply divided Security Council. But officials were noticeably gloomy today after a British compromise offered Wednesday was largely rejected by the six countries that are officially undecided.

In addition to an almost certain French veto, and the possibility of a Russian veto, officials said they were convinced they would not even achieve what they call the "moral victory" of nine votes among the council`s 15 member nations.

"It looks pretty grim," one senior administration official said. Another senior U.S. official said: "There is no reason to believe positions will change today or tomorrow."

The apparent defeat of the resolution would be a stunning diplomatic setback for President Bush and his closest partner, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. U.S. officials have made it clear that they only agreed to pursue a second resolution at the request of Blair, who needed the imprimatur of the Security Council for a war against Iraq to shore up political support at home. But the failure to win all but a handful of votes for military action is an unusually public rebuff of the United States.

Diplomatic tension ran high today, as U.S. and British officials assailed what they considered high-handed intransigence on the part of France, which rejected the British proposal even before Iraqi officials did so in Baghdad. Jeremy Greenstock, Britain`s ambassador to the United Nations, appeared wan and haggard as he attempted to gather support for a compromise that would lay out conditions for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to meet to avoid a war.

But diplomats said the U.S. insistence that Hussein be given only until next week to disarm was too much and too fast for the other countries on the council. "A lot of us feel bad about doing Saddam`s bidding but that appears no worse than carrying out a war for the Americans," said a diplomat from one of the undecided nations.

Though administration officials rejected proposals from the undecided nations to let weapons inspectors continue for a few more weeks, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told military experts at the Pentagon today that a delay of a month or more in invading Iraq could easily be dealt with by the military and would not increase American casualties.

White House officials said they are proceeding with plans for Bush to address the nation once the diplomatic process is over. The speech would include a final "ultimatum to avoid war" to Hussein, and would serve as the signal for international officials, foreign diplomats and journalists who might choose to evacuate Iraq that war is imminent.

U.S. officials also began laying the groundwork today for Bush to reverse his pledge to call for a Security Council vote, no matter how bad the vote count looked, because "it`s time for people to show their cards." Under one scenario, the administration could say the resolution was being withdrawn at the request of the co-sponsors, Britain and Spain.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told lawmakers on Capitol Hill today: "The options remain go for a vote and see what members say, or not go for a vote. But all the options that you can imagine are before us and we will be examining that today, tomorrow and over the weekend."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer sidestepped questions about whether Bush would still call for a vote. "Your premise is suggesting that in the conducting of diplomacy there can be no room for flexibility," he told reporters. "And as the president travels the last bit of this road, he is going to work to consult with our allies and friends."

Bush did not attend a St. Patrick`s Day luncheon on Capitol Hill so he could take an urgent phone call from Blair, who asked for several more days to make the case to Security Council members after defeat appeared certain in a vote that had been scheduled for Friday, a senior administration official said.

Due to face Parliament on the Iraq question Tuesday, Blair hopes that delaying what appears to be inevitable defeat until Monday will enable him to tell the House of Commons that he made the maximum negotiating effort. "He`s got a big day in Parliament on Tuesday," the U.S. official said. "He didn`t want either a vote or a withdrawal of the resolution to happen today or tomorrow."

Unlike the Bush administration, British officials said that they are not resigned to defeat and that Bush and Blair will continue intensive telephone diplomacy this weekend as they try to persuade at least five of six publicly uncommitted council members to vote for the measure. "We wouldn`t waste the president and the prime minister`s time this weekend if we didn`t think it was worth it," a British official said.

Still, another British official conceded, "We aren`t there yet, and I can`t say we will get there. We are asking people to take a hard decision, and quite a lot of people want to have clean hands and leave hard decisions to others."

In a rare moment of levity at a tense closed-door Security Council session Wednesday night to discuss the British compromise, one participant said the Guinean ambassador, who is council president this month, remarked about the British compromise: "It was better to have a bad document than no document at all."

The British resolution, co-sponsored by the United States and Spain and also supported by Bulgaria, needs nine of the 15 council votes for passage, and no veto by any of the five permanent members. Two permanent members, France and Russia, have indicated they would veto the measure, and France repeated that even a revised version was "unacceptable."

In the face of likely vetoes, Britain and the United States have been struggling to secure the nine votes. To get there, they need at least five of the six uncommitted members -- Guinea, Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico and Pakistan -- to add to the four original supporters.

In addition to France and Russia, Germany, Syria and China, which also is a permanent council member, have indicated they will not vote for the resolution. Although final decisions are now likely to be put off until Monday, Chile and Mexico were expected to tell Britain that they will not support the measure.

U.S. and British officials believe that the French veto promise has made it easier for uncommitted governments to turn against the resolution since it has no chance of passage. All of them, particularly the Latin American nations and Pakistan, face widespread antiwar pressure at home.

In Baghdad, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri rejected the British compromise outright. "It is a dressing up of a rejected proposal, an aggressive plan for war," he said.

DeYoung reported from Washington.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Das Spiel zum Krieg oder der Krieg zum Spiel


http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml


Achtung! Ist ein Joke.

[Joerver]

J.R.Ewing einer der erfolgreichsten Manager im Ölbusiness und Prof.Hickel ein renomierter Wirtschaftswissenschaftler.

Texas has the Bomb

Ulrich Berger und Christoph Stein 14.03.2003
Überlegungen zu den Motiven des Irak-Kriegs und ein Interview mit J. R. Ewing II., CEO von Ewing Oil Inc., Dallas, Texas

Der Irak-Krieg birgt Rätsel. Warum ist die Regierung Bush II so fest entschlossen ihn zu führen, gegen einen weltweiten Widerstand, Protesten im eigenen Land und ungeachtet der wahrscheinlichen Folgen? Uns ist es gelungen J.R. Ewing II, CEO von Ewing Oil Inc., Dallas, Texas in dieser Sache zu befragen.

Kriegsfolgen

Abschätzbar sind die ökonomischen und politischen Folgen dieses Krieges. Der Bremer Ökonomen Rudolf Hickel hat ausgehend von den Berechnungen des Yale-Ökonomen William D. Nordhaus die ökonomischen Kollateralschäden durchgerechnet. Sein Resultat ist niederschmetternd. Das Worst Case Scenario fasst er in der folgenden Tabelle zusammen:

Schwerpunkte der Kosten
Langer Krieg (Worst Case)
Militärische Ausgaben (direkt) 140 Mrd. $
Folgekosten (indirekt) für die Dekade von 2003 bis 2012
Besatzung und Friedenserhaltung 500 Mrd. $
Wiederaufbau und Infrastruktur 105 Mrd. $
Humanitäre Hilfeleistungen 10 Mrd. $
Auswirkungen des Ölpreiseffekts 778 Mrd. $
Makroökonomische Auswirkungen (Keynes Effekt) 391 Mrd. $
Direkte und indirekte Kosten 1.924 Mrd. $
Angenommen wird ein Anstieg des Ölpreises auf 75 $ für längere Zeit sowie internationaler Gegenterror. Eine tiefe Vertrauenskrise breitet sich aus. Der Konsum bricht zugunsten des Angstsparens zusammen. Sinkende Gewinnerwartungen führen zum Rückgang der Sachinvestitionen. Die Aktienkurse stürzen ab. Die Weltwirtschaft stürzt endgültig in die Rezession.

Der forcierteVerfall des US $ gegenüber dem Euro führt zu einem Rückzug des ausländischen Kapitals aus den USA. Die Finanzierung des Doppeldefizits- öffentlicher Haushalt und Leistungsbilanzdefizit - durch ausländisches Kapital bricht in sich zusammen. Die Vorteile aus der US $-Abwertung für die Exportwirtschaft vermögen diese Nachteile nicht aufzuwiegen. Die Geldpolitik schaltet wegen wachsender Inflationsrisiken - vor allem durch die hohen Ölpreise - auf restriktiven Kurs um. Die Finanzpolitik verliert mit den wachsenden Staatsschulden an Manövrierfähigkeit. Insgesamt stürzt die Gesamtwirtschaft in eine tiefe Rezession.

Noch nicht berücksichtigt wurden in diesem Szenario zwei weitere krisenverschärfende Belastungen. Einerseits würde ein Krieg im Irak die gesamte Region massiv destabilisieren. Eine sich schnell ausbreitende islamische Bewegung könnte die Öloligarchien in den Golfstaaten zum Einsturz bringen. Zum anderen wäre mit einem neuen Schub beim internationalen Terrorismus zu rechnen.


Fazit: Ein Krieg gegen den Irak wäre heller Wahnsinn


Man darf davon ausgehen, dass auch der Regierung Bush II diese Kriegsfolgen bekannt sind, schließlich besteht sie zu wesentlichen Teilen aus Managern der Ölindustrie. Damit stellt sich die verstörende Frage: Was verspricht sich die Regierung Bush II von einer Weltwirtschaftskrise, bzw. warum hat sie keine Angst davor ?

Die Erklärungen, die auf dem Markt gehandelt werden, leiden an einem entscheidenden Mangel: Sie sind unplausibel.


Blut für Öl


Blut für Öl. Die Hypothese: Marx lebt!

Bush, so wird unterstellt, will das Öl des Irak für die amerikanischen Ölkonzerne erobern, und diese wollen dann den Weltölmarkt beherrschen und den Ölpreis auf 10$ pro Barrel drücken.

Diese Hypothese hat einen entscheidenden Mangel: Die Ölförderung ist teuer, aufwendig und anfällig gegen Sabotage. Die Irakische Ölförderung liegt nach 10 Jahren Embargo am Boden, man müsste erst einmal eine neue Förderinfrastruktur aufbauen, das dauert Jahre und kostet Milliarden, mehr Kapital als die US-Konzerne allein aufbringen könnten. Sie müssten also internationale Konsortien bilden und dann müsste man weitere Jahre ungestört und in Frieden das Öl vermarkten.

Nur, wo soll der Frieden herkommen nach einem Überfall auf den Irak? Wahrscheinlicher ist eher, das der Irak in Bürgerkrieg und Revolution untergeht, der Partisanenkrieg, der bisher auf Palästina begrenz ist, ubiquitär wird und auch noch andere Ölförderländer im Chaos versinken. Und welcher Konzern investiert schon dreistellige Milliardensummen in die Unsicherheit? Statt Gelegenheit zu profitabler Investition zu schaffen, gefährdet ein Irakkrieg vorhandene Investitionen. Die internationale Gilde der Ölmanager ist daher auch strikt gegen diesen Krieg. Man darf wohl davon ausgehen, dass die Ölmanager in der Bush Administration dies auch wissen. Warum wollen sie trotzdem diesen Krieg?

Wenn es um die Kontrolle des irakischen Öls und einen niedrigen Ölpreis ginge, dann wäre eine gänzlich andere Politik erfolgversprechender: Die sofortige Aufhebung der Sanktionen gegen den Irak und das Anwerfen der großen Korruptionsmaschine. Die Hypothese "Blut für Öl" funktioniert schon aus technischen Gründen nicht zur Erklärung der Politik von Bush II. Was J.R. Ewing von ihr hält, haben wir ihn gefragt.


Das neue Rom


Das neue Rom. Die Hypothese: Sir Halford Mackinder und Carl Schmitt leben!

Es geht nicht ums Öl, es geht um Geostrategie, so ist die Annahme. Bush II nutze ein kurzes Zeitfenster, (die Europäer sind zerstritten und daher schwach, ihre handlungsfähige Einheit ist erst auf dem Weg, Russland ist ruiniert und China ist noch nicht so weit) um geostrategische Pflöcke einzuschlagen. Das Ziel sei es mit Hilfe von Militärpräsenz und Marionettenregimen eine Neuordnung der ganzen Region von Ägypten bis zur Südgrenze Russlands und zur Westgrenze Chinas nach amerikanischen Bild herbeizuführen, treue Vasallen zu schaffen, die den american way of live übernehmen und so die amerikanische Vorherrschaft für das 21. Jahrhundert auch an dieser Flanke zu sichern.

Die Methode ist die alterprobte, die schon in verschiedensten Staaten, von Deutschland bis Chile äußerst erfolgreich war: Man fördere blutrünstige Diktatoren, stürze sie dann und man wird danach im eroberten Lande als selbstloser Kämpfer für Demokratie und Freiheit begeistert gefeiert. Das ganze nennt sich nation-building und soll auch bei einer Demokratisierung des Irak funktionieren. Dies soll dann auf andere Feudalstaaten ausstrahlen, namentlich auf Saudi-Arabien, Ägypten und den Iran.

Am Ende steht die Vision eines neuen Rom, ein weltweites amerikanisches Imperium mit loyalen Untertanen.

Der Mangel dieser Hypothese ist, dass die Methoden von Bush II für dieses Ziel höchst ungeeignet erscheinen. Das Romische Reich funktionierte nur, weil es auf zwei Säulen ruhte: auf seiner Militärmaschinerie und auf dem römischen Recht. Ohne Bürgerrechte für alle Völker des Imperiums hätte das Imperium wohl kaum Stabilität gewonnen, da es keine Loyalität gegeben hätte. Was damals das römische Recht war, ist heute das internationale Völkerrecht. Und mit diesem kann Bush II bekanntlich wenig anfangen. Für eine Politik des neuen Roms war die Politik Clintons daher allemal erfolgreicher. In seiner Regierungszeit gab es eine globale Loyalität mit den USA, Bush II zerdeppert sie gerade. Auch diesen Komplex haben wir in unserem Interview mit J.R.Ewing angesprochen.


Das neue Jerusalem


Das neue Jerusalem. Die Hypothese: Wir leben wieder im 16 Jahrhundert.

Bush II hatte, so berichtet die Legende, ein religiöses Erweckungserlebnis und liest seitdem täglich in der Bibel. Mit ihm sei der christliche religiöse Fundamentalismus an die Macht gekommen. Seit 9/11 gibt es einen weltweiten Religionskrieg zwischen dem islamischen Fundamentalismus und dem amerikanischen. Und Amerika, "God`s own country", hat eine Mission, einen göttlichen, eschatologischen Auftrag die Welt zu erlösen. In diesem endzeitlichen Kampf zwischen Gut und Böse kann es keine Kompromisse geben. Wer nicht für uns ist, ist gegen uns und wer gegen uns ist, ist ein Vertreter des Antichrist. Und deshalb muß der Krieg gegen den Irak geführt werden.

Auch diese Hypothese hat ihre Mängel. Es ist recht unwahrscheinlich, dass die amerikanische Regierungsmannschaft, die zu einem großen Teil aus Industriemanagern und erfahrenen höheren Beamten besteht, ein kollektives religiöses Erweckungserlebnis hatte, das sie blind macht für die Folgen ihres Tuns.

Um Klarheit zu gewinnen haben wir J.R. Ewing II, CEO von Ewing Oil Inc. Befragt.


Was gut ist für Texas, ist gut für Amerika









Mr. Ewing, wir freuen uns, dass Sie Zeit für unsere Fragen finden konnten.

J.R.Ewing: Sie haben 10 Minuten.


Mr. Ewing, was denken Sie über den Krieg gegen den Irak?

J.R.Ewing: Ich denke, unsere Jungs in Washington machen eine sehr gute Arbeit.


Der Ökonom der Yale-Universität, William D. Nordhaus, hat enorme Folgekosten eines Irak Krieges errechnet. Er schätzt sie in einem Worst Case Scenario auf fast 2000 Mrd. $.

J.R.Ewing: Wenn er Professor an der Yale Universität ist, wird er wohl rechnen können.


Nordhaus schätzt das der Ölpreis für längere Zeit über 75 $ pro Barrel steigen wird.

J.R.Ewing: Davon muss man ausgehen.


Analysten hoffen nach einem schnellen Sieg auf einem Ölpreis von 10$ pro Barrel und auf das Ende des OPEC Kartells.

J.R.Ewing: Um Gottes willen! Schon bei einem Preis unter 30$ wird es für einige von uns eng, erst ab 40$ brummt das Geschäft, aber wir hoffen auf weit mehr. Die OPEC, die garantiert doch keinen vernünftigen Ölpreis mehr. Überlegen Sie doch mal, warum wir soviel Dollars hingelegt haben, um unsere Jungs an die Regierung zu bringen.


Die USA sind der zweitgrößte Ölproduzent der Welt. Aber die Ressourcen gehen zur Neige.

J.R.Ewing: Jetzt haben Sie das Problem verstanden. Deshalb ist ein anständiger Preis das alles Entscheidende.


Politische Beobachter rechnen mit einem Umsturz der Öloligarchien in den Golfstaaten, z.B. in Saudi Arabien.

J.R.Ewing: So ein ähnliches Projekt hatte ich auch schon einmal, das war, glaube ich, in der Folge 220 und später. Ich wollte damals die saudische Ölproduktion sabotieren, aber natürlich mit viel bescheidenderer Mitteln. Das ging gründlich schief und ich bekam gewaltigen Ärger mit dem Justizministerium. (flucht bei dem Gedanken, beruhigt sich aber wieder) Aber heute haben wir ja zum Glück unsere Jungs in der Regierung.


Der schon erwähnte Ökonom der Yale-Universität, William D. Nordhaus rechnet mit einem Totalabsturz der Aktienkurse.

J.R.Ewing: Ja, aber doch nicht beim Kurs unserer Ölaktien.


Es könnten eine Reihe amerikanischer Konzerne Pleite gehen.

J.R.Ewing: Sie meinen, wie Enron? Die meisten sind doch eh völlig marode und können ihre Pensionen bald nicht mehr bezahlen. Da muss sowieso aufgeräumt werden. Und wir brauchen ja auch Anlagemöglichkeiten für unsere bald wieder sprudelnden Ölmilliarden.


Ökonomen rechnen mit einer Weltwirtschaftskrise.

J.R.Ewing: Europa und China können sowieso einen Dämpfer vertragen, die sind in letzter Zeit zu aufmüpfig geworden. Und die USA brauchen immer eine neue Herausforderung.


Viele Beobachter rechnen mit neuen terroristischen Anschlägen, so wie bei den WTC Anschlägen in New York.

J.R.Ewing: Wir sind hier in Dallas, Texas. New York ist über 1,500 Meilen weit entfernt.


Präsident Bush gilt als sehr religiöser Mann. Welchen Anteil spielt ihrer Ansicht nach sein christlicher Glaube bei seiner Politik?

J.R.Ewing: Die meisten Texaner gehen jeden Sonntag in die Kirche. Wir leben hier nach dem Grundsatz: Gott hilft dem Erfolgreichen.


Wenn alles so kommt, wie skeptische Beobachter und Ökonomen erwarten, also Explosion des Ölpreises, Absturz der Aktienkurse, weltweite Wirtschaftskrise und neue Terroranschläge könnte es schwierig werden mit der Wiederwahl von Bush.

J.R.Ewing: Wieso? Was gut ist für die texanische Ölindustrie, ist auch gut für Texas, und was gut ist für Texas, ist gut für Amerika.


Leidet unter der Politik von Bush nicht das Ansehen der USA?

J.R.Ewing: Wieso? Was gut für Amerika ist, ist auch gut für die Welt. (guckt auf die Uhr) Leider habe jetzt keine Zeit mehr für Sie, Termine, Sie verstehen.


Herr Ewing, wir danken für das Gespräch.

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 14. März 2003, 8:07
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,240019,00.h…
Bushs zweite Front

Angst vorm Dolchstoß aus der Heimat

Von Jochen Bölsche

Die "Achse des Bösen", fürchten US-Konservative, ragt tief hinein in God`s Own Country. Zur Festigung der Heimatfront forciert das Weiße Haus "schwarze" Propaganda-Aktionen, Terrorismus dient Hardlinern als Vorwand, Dissidenten einzuschüchtern und Bürgerrechte abzubauen. Ex-Präsident Jimmy Carter sieht Amerika schon auf dem Weg in den Unrechtsstaat.

What a wonderful war. "Intelligente Waffen" zischen über den Nachthimmel, mit "chirurgischer Präzision" lösen sie schaurig schöne Detonationen aus - Bagdad 1991.

Alles Schwindel. Ein Jahrdutzend nach dem Golfkrieg räumt der TV-Sender CNN ein, dass die einst gesendeten Bilder "genau das Gegenteil von dem suggerierten, was sie tatsächlich beinhalteten": 56.000 Tonnen Sprengstoff, rund 70 Prozent der von der Air Force auf den Irak abgeworfenen Bomben, verfehlten ihr Ziel, Zigtausende von Zivilisten kamen um.

Selbstkritisch bekennt der Sender auf seiner deutschen Website, damals von den Militärs instrumentalisiert worden zu sein, die das Fernsehen als Waffe entdeckt hatten: Nachdem Horror-Fotos aus dem Vietnamkrieg in den Sechzigern dazu geführt hatten, "dass die `Heimatfront` in den USA und im Rest der Welt zusammenbrach", habe sich führenden US-Militärs erschlossen, dass fortan "Kriege an den Fernsehern der Nation entschieden werden".

Der Nachrichtensender CNN mag seither etwas skeptischer geworden sein im Umgang mit den bunten Kriegsbildern. Dafür nimmt sich der in den USA mittlerweile dominierende Konkurrenzkanal "Fox" des Medienzaren Rupert Murdoch fast aus wie ein Soldatensender.

"Fürs Militär sein oder das Maul halten"

George W. Bushs Schwarzweiß-Parolen sind dort allgegenwärtig. "Wenn der Krieg beginnt", dröhnt ein Fox-Moderator, "erwarten wir von jedem Amerikaner, entweder für das Militär zu sein oder das Maul zu halten. Amerikaner und auch unsere ausländischen Verbündeten, die aktiv gegen uns sind, gelten dann als Staatsfeinde."

Das Weiße Haus operiert mittlerweile raffinierter denn je, um die Kriegsberichterstattung zu beeinflussen. So berief Washington mit der (jüngst aus Gesundheitsgründen zurückgetretenen) PR-Expertin Charlotte Beers eigens eine Staatssekretärin für "Public Democracy and Public Affairs", um die "weiße", halbwegs transparente Propaganda zu verstärken.

Beers, die einst "Uncle Ben`s Reis" beworben hat, verbreitete beispielsweise regierungsamtliche Hochglanzbroschüren mit Halbwahrheiten über den dämonischen Saddam; darin wird etwa dessen einstige Giftkriegsführung gegen die kurdische Minderheit beschrieben, sein damaliger Verbündeter, die USA, aber verschwiegen.

Psychoverteidigung in eigener Sache


Insbesondere war von Beers erwartet worden, das Ansehen der Vereinigten Staaten in der muslimischen Welt zu stärken - angesichts der Bush-Politik ein Ding der Unmöglichkeit. Als die PR-Expertin jüngst aus nicht näher beschriebenen gesundheitlichen Gründen zurücktrat, sahen Kenner der Szene darin einen Akt des Protests gegen den Irak-Kurs.

"Sie musste die amerikanische Politik in einem positiven Licht darstellen und hatte doch keine Möglichkeit, diese Politik in einer Richtung zu beeinflussen, dass diese für den Rest der Welt und vor allem für die muslimische Welt besser hätte akzeptiert werden können," zitierte die "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" einen Sprecher des Rates für Amerikanisch-Islamische Beziehungen.

Mehr als von offenen PR-Aktionen versprechen sich Hardliner wie der Pentagon-Chef Donald Rumsfeld offenbar von der "schwarzen" Propaganda. Als erstes allerdings musste sein voriges Jahr gegründetes "Office of Strategic Influence" (OSI) Psychoverteidigung in eigener Sache treiben.

"Zerstörung, Degradierung, Leugnung, Spaltung"

Nachdem die interne Aufgabenliste ("Zerstörung, Degradierung, Leugnung, Spaltung, Täuschung und Ausnutzung") durchgesickert war und internationale Proteste ausgelöst hatte, wurde die Märchenfabrik geschlossen - und flugs durch einen Bush direkt unterstellten Dienst mit einem weniger verfänglichen Titel ersetzt: "Office of Global Communications" (siehe SPIEGEL-Reportage "Mediale Mobilmachung").

Ausländische Beobachter meinen die Effekte derartiger Bemühungen bereits wahrzunehmen. In den USA, urteilt der deutsche Journalist und Geheimdienstexperte Hans Leyendecker, seien "Journalismus und Geheimdienst kaum noch von einander zu unterscheiden".

Ob von den Schattenkriegern des Pentagon lanciert oder von einem der vielen US-Geheimdienste gestreut - eine Fülle zweifelhafter, nie belegter Meldungen, etwa über angebliche Kontakte zwischen dem Terrorpiloten Mohammed Atta und Saddams Geheimdienst, dienten dazu, im Land eine "ständige emotionale Alarmbereitschaft aufrecht zu erhalten", glaubt der PR-Spezialist und Fachautor Sheldon Rampton.

Kritiker werden eingeschüchtert und mundtot gemacht

Denselben Effekt haben die diffusen, selten spezifizierten Warnungen vor allzeit drohenden Anschlägen, die Katastrophenübungen in Schulen und Kindergärten oder die Äußerungen über eine militärische Gefährdung der USA durch den Irak - obwohl es "gegenwärtig keine Bedrohung der Vereinigten Staaten durch Bagdad gibt", wie etwa Ex-Präsident Jimmy Carter erklärt, der sich in seinem Urteil im Einklang mit "den Verbündeten und verantwortlichen Politikern früherer Administrationen" sieht.

Die vorherrschende Alarmbereitschaft konserviert nicht nur die Zustimmung zum Kurs der Bush-Krieger, sondern schafft auch ein Klima, das geeignet ist, Regierungskritiker einzuschüchtern und mundtot zu machen - erkennbares Ziel der (weltweit 175) Zeitungen und der TV-Kanäle des Medienzaren Murdoch.

"Die PR-Schlacht zu gewinnen ist fast ebenso wichtig wie der militärische Sieg", postuliert Murdochs "Sunday Times". Andere Blätter stellen Skeptikerinnen wie die CNN-Reporterin Christiane Amanpour als "Kriegsschlampe" an den Pranger. Kritischen TV-Fragestellern wird mangelnder Patriotismus unterstellt und das Wort abgeschnitten, Pazifisten werden zu Talkshows gar nicht erst eingeladen.

"Hitler`s children" für den Frieden

"Sind die Medien tatsächlich ein Spiegelbild der Macht, ist die hegemoniale Rolle Amerikas schon jetzt von einer imperialen abgelöst", urteilt Thomas Nehls, Leiter des New Yorker ARD-Hörfunkstudios, über die Meinungsmache vieler Mainstream-Medien: "Nicht einmal mehr das Freund-Feind-Denken wird thematisiert; die gedanklichen Feinde sind - auch von den Medien - für irrelevant erklärt."


Weitgehend weggefiltert oder verstümmelt werden auf diese Weise die Warnungen amerikanischer Mahner wie der Publizistin Susan Sonntag, des Schriftstellers Norman Mailer oder des einstigen Golfkrieg-Generals Norman Schwarzkopf, aber auch abweichende Stimmen aus dem Ausland, nicht nur von nonkonformen Regierungschefs.

Fotos von der Berliner Friedensdemonstration, an der 500.000 Menschen teilnahmen, erschienen mit dem Bildtext "Hitler`s children". Kommentatoren suggerieren, die widerspenstigen Deutschen seien entweder Nazis oder Saddam-Freunde - jedenfalls Leute, die wieder einmal "einem Mann mit Bart" folgen.



Der langjährige US-Diplomat John Kiesling fürchtet, dass die informationelle Selbstabschottung der Supermacht rasch zu ähnlich verhängnisvollen Wahrnehmungsdefiziten führen könnte, wie sie bereits die Machthabenden in Moskau und Tel Aviv befallen haben.

Auch die USA, schrieb Kiesling an Außenminister Colin Powell, drohten taub zu werden "wie Russland in Tschetschenien und Israel in den besetzten Gebieten - taub für unseren eigenen Rat, dass überwältigende militärische Macht nicht die Antwort auf Terrorismus sein kann".

Strafen für "Give Peace A Chance"

Schon wurden vorige Woche in Hollywood Erinnerungen an die McCarthy-Ära Anfang der Fünfziger wach, als eine Art Gedankenpolizei in der Künstler-Szene nach "unamerikanischen Umtrieben" fahndete; schon müssen Jugendliche wegen T-Shirt-Texten wie "Give Peace A Chance" mit Schulstrafen und Hausverboten in Einkaufszentren rechnen; schon melden US-Bibliotheken, Nutzer schreckten aus Angst vor Bespitzelung vor der Lektüre regierungskritischer Bücher zurück - überm Horizont steigt schemenhaft ein Orwellscher Überwachungsstaat auf.

Hält der Trend an, wäre das ganz im Sinne all der alten Krieger aus der Reagan-Ära, die Bush junior Anfang 2001 in seine Administration geholt hat. Die Hardliner sehen mit Wohlgefallen, dass die von Geheimdiensten und Medien verstärkte Hysterie nicht nur die Aggressionsbereitschaft fördert, sondern auch die Neigung, den Abbau von Bürgerrechten hinzunehmen. Beides ist durchaus gewollt.

"Gut und böse, richtig und falsch"

Zu den schrillsten Advokaten eines scharfen Rechtskurses zählt der Oldtimer William Bennent, einst Erziehungsminister unter Ronald Reagan, später oberster Drogenbekämpfer unter George Bush senior, jetzt einer der militantesten Kämpfer im neokonservativen "Project For A New American Century" (PNAC) und zudem Präsident eines PNAC-Ablegers namens "Americans For Victory Over Terrorism" (AVOT).

Bennents Mitstreiter - darunter Pentagon-Chef Rumsfeld und Ex-CIA-Chef James Woolsey - fürchten, dass die nach den Attentaten des Jahres 2001 empor geschnellte Rüstungs- und Kriegsbereitschaft der Bevölkerung irgendwann erlahmen könnte. Dem wollen sie, ganz im Sinne des mächtigen militärisch-petroindustriellen Komplexes, durch mentale Aufrüstung vorbeugen.

"Unmittelbar nach den Anschlägen des 11. September erreichte unsere Nation einen Moment der moralischen Klarheit, in dem gut von böse unterschieden wurde, richtig von falsch", sagt AVOT-Chefideologe Bennent. Fortan gelte es, "diese Klarheit zu bewahren".

"Die beste Verteidigung ist ein guter Angriff"

Ein Nachlassen der "nationalen Entschlossenheit" könnte dazu führen, dass die Rüstungslobbyisten ihre im AVOT-Gründungsaufruf markierten Ziele verfehlen: "eine Erhöhung des Verteidigungshaushalts, die Erforschung und Aufstellung eines Raketenabwehrsystems und eine weitere Stärkung des Militärs".

Noch mehr Geld für Waffen braucht die seit ohnehin mit Abstand stärkste Militärmacht des Planeten nach Ansicht der PNAC- und AVOT-Streiter schon deshalb, um, notfalls im Alleingang, gleichzeitig mehrere der von Bush angekündigten Vorbeugungs- und Entwaffnungskriege führen zu können (Bennent: "Die beste Verteidigung ist ein guter Angriff") - und um sich der Rache der so Angegriffenen zu erwehren: "Amerika", so das AVOT-Manifest, "muss die militärische Fähigkeit haben, die es uns ermöglicht, uns zu verteidigen, während wir die Terroristen ausrotten."

Die Gelegenheit ist günstig, gleich auch noch den Feind im Inneren zu schwächen: die Nestbeschmutzer und Wehrkraftzersetzer, Friedenskämpfer und Querulanten, die aus Sicht gläubiger Bushisten die Achse des Bösen bis weit hinein in God`s Own Country verlängern.

"America first" kontra "Blame America first"

"Die Bedrohungen, denen wir heute gegenüberstehen, sind sowohl äußere als auch innere", formuliert die AVOT. Gefahr gehe bereits von jenen aus, die statt "America first" Losungen wie "Blame America first" (Amerika ist selber schuld) verbreiteten.

Dass die Strategie der Hardliner nicht zuletzt auf den Abbau demokratischer Rechte zielt, ist spätestens offenkundig, seit die PNAC- und AVOT-Freunde in der Bush-Administration zwei Paragraphenwerke präsentiert haben, die sich lesen, als kämen sie direkt aus den "Think Tanks" der mächtigen Bush-Förderer:


Im Herbst 2001, in den von Panik erfüllten Wochen nach dem grauenvollen WTC-Attentat und den dubiosen Anthrax-Briefen, wurde ein 345 Seiten umfassendes Gesetz ("Patriot Act") durch den US-Kongress gepeitscht, das zum Beispiel Buchhändler zwingt, Fahndern heimlich die literarischen Vorlieben ihrer Kunden preiszugeben und darüber selbst gegenüber ihrem Anwalt Stillschweigen zu bewahren (siehe SPIEGEL-ONLINE-Reportage "Big Brother liest mit"),

derzeit entwirft die Bush-Regierung einen "Patriot Act II", der es dem FBI erstmals erlauben soll, nach lateinamerikanischem Vorbild US-Bürger als mutmaßliche Terroristen festzunehmen und in Haft zu halten, ohne dass die Angehörigen informiert werden müssen, oder aber Delinquenten mit US-Pass auszubürgern und abzuschieben - etwa in Länder, in denen ihnen verschärfte Befragungen nach Guantanamo-Art drohen(siehe SPIEGEL-ONLINE-Reportage "Vom `Land of the free` zum Überwachungsstaat").
"Amerika wird zum Unrechtsstaat"

Zeitweise schien es, als würde das "Land of the Free" unwidersprochen hinnehmen, was die "geheime Nebenregierung" der Bush-Freunde produzierte: "Der Mehrheit der amerikanischen Bevölkerung, in den Fängen der Angst, ist das alles egal", notierte die "New York Times".

Doch seit der Texaner im Weißen Haus offen einen Angriffskrieg - auch im Alleingang und ohne eindeutige völkerrechtliche Legitimation - gegen den Irak ansteuert, regt sich mehr und mehr Widerstand im Land. "Mittlerweile versucht eine Gruppe von Konservativen, lang gehegte Ambitionen unter dem Deckmantel des Krieges gegen den Terrorismus zu verfolgen", warnte Ex-Präsident Carter in der "Washington Post" vor dem PNAC-Kurs.

Derart "fundamentale Veränderungen" wie der gegenwärtige Abbau von Bürgerrechten in den USA erinnerten Carter an "Unrechtsstaaten, die von amerikanischen Präsidenten in der Vergangenheit immer verurteilt wurden".

Stück für Stück stirbt die Demokratie

"Die Bush-Regierung nutzt die Terrorgefahr, um den Menschen Angst zu machen. Die Demokratie wird Stück für Stück abgegraben, bis keine Demokratie mehr da ist", konstatierte der Bürgerrechtler Jameel Jaffer von der American Civil Liberties Union vorigen Monat gegenüber SPIEGEL ONLINE und kündigte verstärkte Gegenwehr an.

Zwei Programme der Bush-Regierung sind mittlerweile an öffentlichen Protesten gescheitert: das Total Information Awareness, mit dem das Internet kontrolliert werden sollte, und das so genannte TIPS, mit dem der Staat Blockwarte zur Bespitzelung der Nachbarschaft anheuern wollte.

Und je mehr Bush sich in Widersprüche über seine Irak-Kriegsziele verwickelt, je häufiger Fälschungen auffliegen, desto rascher wächst das Misstrauen gegen die Regierenden - und die Zahl derer, die auf Friedensdemonstrationen gehen und "We shall overcome" singen.

Lesen Sie demnächst warum der "Ekel, angelogen zu werden", mehr und mehr Amerikaner erfasst und ins Internet treibt und warum Wissenschaftler im Irak mit einem neuen Hiroshima rechnen.




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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Joerver]

Democracy in Iraq doubtful, State Dept. report says
Social, economic obstacles work against transformation
Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times
Friday, March 14, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


Washington -- A classified State Department report expresses deep skepticism that installing a new regime in Iraq will foster the spread of democracy in the Middle East, a claim President Bush has made in trying to build support for a war, according to intelligence officials familiar with the document.

The report exposes significant divisions within the Bush administration over the so-called democratic domino theory, one of the arguments that underpins the case for invading Iraq.

The report, which has been distributed to a small group of top government officials but not publicly disclosed, says that daunting economic and social problems are likely to undermine basic stability in the region for years, let alone prospects for democratic reform.

Even if some version of democracy took root -- an event the report casts as unlikely -- anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.

"Liberal democracy would be difficult to achieve," says one passage of the report, according to an intelligence official who agreed to read portions of it to the Los Angeles Times. "Electoral democracy, were it to emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American elements."

The thrust of the document, the source said, "is that this idea that you`re going to transform the Middle East and fundamentally alter its trajectory is not credible."

Even the document`s title appears to dismiss the administration argument. The report is labeled "Iraq, the Middle East and Change: No Dominoes."

The report was produced by the State Department`s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the in-house analytical arm.

It is dated Feb. 26, officials said, the same day Bush endorsed the domino theory in a speech to the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

"A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region," Bush said.

Other top administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, have made similar remarks in recent months.

But the argument has been pushed hardest by a group of officials and advisers who have been the leading proponents of going to war with Iraq. Prominent among them are Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel.

Wolfowitz has said that Iraq could be the first Arab democracy and that even modest democratic progress in Iraq would "cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world."

Similarly, Perle has said that a reformed Iraq "has the potential to transform the thinking of people around the world about the potential for democracy, even in Arab countries where people have been disparaging of their potential."

White House officials hold out the promise of a friendly and functional government in Baghdad to contrast with administration portrayals of President Saddam Hussein`s regime as brutal and bent on building his stock of biological and chemical weapons.

The domino theory also is used by the administration as a counterargument to critics in Congress and elsewhere who have expressed concern that invading Iraq will inflame the Muslim world and fuel terrorist activity against the United States.

But the theory is disputed by many experts and is viewed with skepticism by analysts at the CIA and the State Department, intelligence officials said.

Critics say even establishing a democratic government in Iraq will be extremely difficult. Iraq is made up of ethnic groups deeply hostile to one another. Ever since its inception in 1932, the country has known little but bloody coups and brutal dictators.

Even so, it is seen by some as holding more democratic potential -- because of its wealth and educated population -- than many of its neighbors.

By some estimates, 65 million adults in the Mideast can`t read or write, and 14 million are unemployed, with an exploding, poorly educated youth population.

Given such trends, "We`ll be lucky to have strong central governments (in the Middle East), let alone democracy," said one intelligence official.

The official stressed that no one in intelligence or diplomatic circles opposes the idea of trying to install a democratic government in Iraq.

"It couldn`t hurt," the official said. "But to sell (the war) on the basis that this is going to cause 1,000 flowers to bloom is naive."

The obstacles to reform outlined in the report are daunting.

"Middle East societies are riven" by political, economic and social problems that are likely to undermine stability "regardless of the nature of any externally influenced or spontaneous, indigenous change," the report said, according to the source.

The report cites "high levels of corruption, serious infrastructure degradation, overpopulation" and other forces causing widespread disenfranchisement.

The report concludes that "political changes conducive to broader and enduring stability throughout the region will be difficult to achieve for a very long time."

Middle East experts said there are other factors working against democratic reform, including a culture that values community and to some extent conformity over individual rights.

Bush has responded to such assessments by assailing the "soft bigotry of low expectations."

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die Sendung mit der Maus: Kriegslexicon

March 13, 2003

A Glossary of Warmongering
by PAUL de ROOIJ

"War is obsolete"

-- Anatol Rapoport

The propaganda leading up to wars debases language. In an effort to counter the inevitable prostitution of language, and to perhaps become aware of a different reality, a glossary of commonly post-Gulf War abused terms is presented below. It is an analogous development to the "Glossary of Occupation", which was meant to clarify the abused terms found in the Israeli-centric discourse.

There is one specific limitation to this glossary; it only discusses terms generally abused in the US-centric discourse. Now, Americans don`t want to talk about what they have been doing to the Iraqis, and therefore there is a tendency for there to be NO words to describe what they do. Americans have no interest in describing, let alone coining terms for the Iraqi condition. For example, there are no words for the myriad cancer patients who don`t have the requisite medicines. There are no words for the huge areas of Iraq polluted by depleted uranium bombs, and so on. Similarly, the media discourse has no words to describe the Iraqi condition because it has adopted a US-centric point of reference. For this reason, defining terms in a glossary is not satisfactory; it only looks at the glaring problems, the instances where there is a descriptive word.

Abused Terms Translation

Collateral damage: Civilians killed--mentioned after the war. Issue not arising before a war, and all references to civilians killed during "no-fly-zone bombing runs" are vigorously denied. When you hear: "Accidental deaths caused by a bomb" ponder what Joan Baez said during her trip to Vietnam: "there is no such thing as an accidental bomb".

Cost of war: Diversion from profits of war. People moan about costs, but don`t look at the profits. Who cares about a few bucks here and there, just look at the profits gushing forth in a year`s time. If the second UN resolution passes, then get others to pay for the war. Remember Japan was forced to pay $15bn to cover the expenses of the first Gulf War. France and Germany may be shaken down in a similar fashion this time around.

"And consider too the sheer, unadorned hubris of men like Wolfowitz and his assistants. Asked to testify to a largely somnolent Congress about the war`s consequences and costs they are allowed to escape without giving any concrete answers, which effectively dismisses the evidence of the army chief of staff who has spoken of a military occupation force of 400,000 troops for 10 years at a cost of almost a trillion dollars." -

--Edward Said, "Who is in Charge?", March 2003

Democracy: A useful dictatorship of the remaining banana republic.

"once big powers start to dream of regime change -- a process already begun by the Perles and Wolfowitzs of this country -- there is simply no end in sight. Isn`t it outrageous that people of such a dubious caliber actually go on blathering about bringing democracy, modernization, and liberalization to the Middle East? God knows that the area needs it, as so many Arab and Muslim intellectuals and ordinary people have said over and over. But who appointed these characters as agents of progress anyway? And what entitles them to pontificate in so shameless a way when there are already so many injustices and abuses in their own country to be remedied? It`s particularly galling that Perle, about as unqualified a person as it is imaginable to be on any subject touching on democracy and justice, should have been an election adviser to Netanyahu`s extreme right-wing government during the period 1996-9, in which he counseled the renegade Israeli to scrap any and all peace attempts, to annex the West Bank and Gaza, and try to get rid of as many Palestinians as possible. This man now talks about bringing democracy to the Middle East, and does so without provoking the slightest objection from any of the media pundits who politely (abjectly) quiz him on national television." -

- Edward Said, A monument to hypocrisy, Al Ahram, Feb. 13, 2003.

"Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more."

-- Edward Said "Who is in Charge?" March 2003.

Depleted uranium aka du ammo: Weapons of indefinite destruction.

"Under the economic embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council, now in its 14th year, Iraq is denied equipment and expertise to decontaminate its battlefields from the 1991 Gulf War.

"Professor Doug Rokke, the US Army physicist responsible for cleaning up Kuwait, told me: `I am like many people in southern Iraq. I have 5,000 times the recommended level of radiation in my body. Most of my team are now dead. We face an issue to be confronted by people in the West, those with a sense of right and wrong: first, the decision by the US and Britain to use a weapon of mass destruction: depleted uranium. When a tank fired its shells, each round carried over 4,500g of solid uranium. What happened in the Gulf was a form of nuclear warfare.

`In 1991, a United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority document reported that if 8 per cent of the depleted uranium fired in the Gulf War was inhaled, it could cause `500,000 potential deaths`. In the promised attack on Iraq, the United States will again use depleted uranium, and so will Britain, regardless of its denials.

-- John Pilger, "Inside Iraq--The Tragedy of a People Betrayed", The Independent, February 23, 2003

Dual Use: Justification to reject large proportion of Iraqi requests for imports.

While food and medicines are technically exempt, the Sanctions Committee has frequently vetoed and delayed requests for baby food, agricultural equipment, heart and cancer drugs, oxygen tents, X-ray machines. Sixteen heart and lung machines were put `on hold` because they contained computer chips. A fleet of ambulances was held up because their equipment included vacuum flasks, which keep medical supplies cold; vacuum flasks are designated `dual use` by the Sanctions Committee, meaning they could possibly be used in weapons manufacture. Cleaning materials, such as chlorine, are `dual use`, it seems, considering the frequency of their appearance on the list of `holds`.

As of October 2001, 1,010 contracts for humanitarian supplies, worth $3.85bn, were `on hold` by the Sanctions Committee. They included items related to food, health, water and sanitation, agriculture and education. This has now risen to goods worth more than $5bn. This is rarely reported in the West.

-- John Pilger, "Inside Iraq--The Tragedy of a People Betrayed", The Independent, February 23, 2003 [NB: this is a reprinted chapter from a book published before SCR1409]

Since SCR1409 (14 May 2002), the Sanctions Committee only deliberates on items on the Goods Review List. The vast majority of goods have always been given import licenses, but often one or two components being held up and would scupper the effectiveness of the permitted imports (e.g., if essential tech components of a water treatment plant are held up, then the percentage of holds is less relevant than their nature).

Evidence: Any rotten factoid to prove Iraq is evil. An unfinished PhD thesis written by a graduate student was used to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Most documents used as evidence date from 1991--hardly relevant in the current context. No attempt was made to cover up the plagiarism or the deceit.

Failure to comply: Foregone conclusion: Iraq will never be able to live up to the US`s high standards. US tactics: force Iraq to do something that will most likely lead to an Iraqi rejection. If Iraq complies nonetheless, then change the standards or objective. No matter what it does, "Saddam has failed to comply, over and over and over again."

Freedom fries: the US House of Representatives cafeteria`s new name for french fries; (ditto french toast).

Gulf War syndrome: Gulf War veterans who were victims of US chemical or nuclear weapons. All efforts by the US and UK Defense establishments were made to stall investigations into the causes of this syndrome afflicting thousands of veterans--about 6% of veterans. The likeliest cause is immune system damage due to exposure to the radioactivity emanating from depleted uranium weapons. Other weapons systems are also thought to have caused serious disorders. Will the weapons causing this syndrome be proscribed during the next war? Answer: No.

A cause for a disease that is not usually discussed because one may possibly wonder what happened to the Iraqi people.

Gulf War II: US-Iraq War.

Iraqi Opposition: Iraqi opportunists on the US payroll. The head of this group, Mr. Chalabi, was on the run from Jordanian law because of a massive fraud perpetrated there. He has since been magically pardoned.

Justification for war: Lies. There are many reasons: Oil, arms industry, deflect attention from political scandals, deflect attention from nose-diving economy, Israel [oops, can`t mention this one], protect the hegemony of the US dollar, create another arms race Of course, these reasons are too crass, and must instead refer to the threat of WMD or making Iraq safe for democracy.

Moral Case: The morality thing.

[Another] thing hasn`t been reassuring. That was his [Blair] seeming to discover a week ago, after some months of ardent campaigning and presumably reflecting on Iraq, that there was a moral case he could make -- presumably about the right thing to do. It was about possible or probable effects on Iraqis themselves of leaving Saddam in power. That raises a question. What kind of case did Mr. Blair think he was making in connection with the war before then?

-- Ted Honderich, Killing in Defense of Ideology, CounterPunch, March 5, 2003

Neocons: "Chicken hawks"- Ralph Nader. Neo-Likudnik right-wing warmongering politicians. The "intellectual" progenitors of war plans.

Neutralizing agents: If we use them, it is OK. It is no secret that the US plans extensive use of chemical agents to "neutralize" the enemy. Never mind that this is in breach of Chemical Biological Warfare treaties. If Iraq were to possess, let alone use, such weapons then it would be chastised for using weapons of mass destruction. In the hands of the US military, this is another matter. Ample supplies of CS and stinging gases have been produced for the US military. However once these gases are spread, then can people run away? If not, then it could count as a war crime.

"I would not hesitate to state that the spraying of CS from the air--which is an action entirely impossible to control--and the imposition of a curfew after its wide use, should be thought of as a war crime."

-- Prof. Israel Shahak, AIC, Jan. 5, 1991

New Europe: The neo-vassals. European governments willing to subvert democracy to play second fiddle to the Americans.

"What I say to France and Germany--and all my other European Union colleagues--is take care. Because just as America helps to define and influence our politics, so what we do in Europe helps to define and influence American politics. We will reap a whirlwind if we push the US into a unilateralist position."

-- UK (New Europe) Foreign Minister, Jack Straw.

A poodle`s argument: Is he saying that if we don`t play along with the US, then it may carry on its unilateralist tendencies without European participation? The fact that the US is undermining post-war legal framework and 30+ multilateral agreements should be the basis to shunt the US. The US already has taken a unilateralist position--Europe will not change this into "multilateral" by sycophantically coddling up to it. Europe is the principal countervailing power to the US, but it is a role which some don`t want it to assume.

No fly zone: A unilateral demarcation imposed by the US. The "no fly zone" has no legal basis, and was never approved by the UN.

I made two trips last month into the `no-fly zone` created by the U.S. with Britain and France in southern Iraq. Actually it would be better named the `only we fly` zone or the `we bomb` zone. `We` refers to the United States who does almost all of the flying and bombing (France pulled out years ago, and Britain is largely a nominal participant). -

-Thorne Anderson, journalism professor and photojournalist

Nothing against the Iraqi people: We`ll massacre them, but it is not personal. If the strategy is to "shock and awe", then the interests of the Iraqi people can hardly be expected to be taken into account.

I read recently a statement by a Pentagon official about the impending war on Iraq: `There will not be safe place in Baghdad.` Well, that is interesting. Five million people live in Baghdad `There will not be a safe place in Baghdad.` I thought you were only going to bomb military targets, then there should be safe places where there are no military targets. No, `there will be no safe place in Baghdad.`

-- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School University, Feb. 2003

Oil: America`s Oil -- of course! The Marines used to fight to keep the American banana companies safe. Doesn`t it sound a bit more glamorous to have the Marines fight to keep America`s oil safe? Just wait, these folks will get the Exxon-Mobil medal for valor.

Old Europe: France and Germany. If you aren`t with the US, then it will conjure deprecating statements. "France is no longer our ally", "At a political level, Donald Rumsfeld was making it brutally clear to Europeans that the sole superpower will not pay much attention to what they think."...

Permanent war: The war on terrorism entails endless wars. Iraq now, Iran tomorrow, Syria, Libya The wish list is updated weekly by Ariel Sharon.

Preemptive War aka: preemptive defense: A doctrine that ratifies war without cause, without end.

[if] the US wages a war against Iraq, then it will be violating one of the most basic principles of the UN Charter, not just a Security Council resolution, but the UN Charter. [The UN Charter] makes it clear that it is not legal, it is not legitimate, it is not acceptable to go to war against another country unless you have been attacked. You can only engage in war if it is for self-defense. You can say whatever you want about Iraq [] but Iraq has not presently attacked or threatened anybody. Unless you think you ought to attack a country because some day it may threaten you. Well, that is a prescription for endless violence.

-- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School University, Feb. 2003

Prime Minister Blair: Poodle, aka English poodle. Long tradition of British prime ministers to ingratiate themselves to the Americans. Prime Minister Thatcher established a precedent and was called a "lap dog", although less kind commentators insisted she was a lap bitch.

Regime: US Enemy du jour. Bush eloquently stated: "you are either with us or against us." If you are with America, then you are a democracy. If a country is not sure, then the country is demoted to a regime. NB: the dictionary definition of regime implies no negative connotation.

Regime change: Region change. The real objective of the warmongers is to redraw maps and alter the power configuration of the entire region. A rationale for war proffered early on, but thought too crass to sell the war. It was quickly replaced by the "he has weapons of mass destruction" rationale.

Saddam: Personalizing the enemy.

Powell also personalized the alleged Iraqi prevarication. Instead of highlighting Iraqi mendacity, he always sought to personalize it as "Saddam`s lies". This construct suggests that the US is only after Saddam, and that "one bullet" would do the trick as Ari Fleischer suggested some months ago. However, at the same time that the US is demonizing Saddam Hussein as an individual, it has been made abundantly clear that the war against Iraq is going to be massive and devastating. If Powell really was only going after Saddam Hussein, then the current war would seem to be unnecessary--a mere assassination is needed. Instead, the war that is being prepared will certainly harm millions of people in the area. This is an admission that Powell would not like to make--millions of people around the world would object. A rather transparent propaganda ploy was used to present the conflict as focusing on one demon--thus diminishing the implications of the horrors that actually await the region.

-- Paul de Rooij, Where are the incubators?, CounterPunch, Feb. 6, 03.

Sanctions: A proven weapon of mass destruction. The US instigated sanctions implemented via the UN. The sanctions have made of Iraq, a modern developed society before the war, into a country rivaling Congo in terms of socio-economic statistics.

In response to a question about the effects of sanctions where an estimated 500,000 Iraqis died due to its impact, former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, famously said: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

Denying Iraq replacement parts to fix its water sanitation and purification systems is a form of bacteriological warfare. Contaminated water is the main contributor to massive increase in child mortality post Gulf War. NB: the US-dominated UN sanctions program has not allowed the repair and rebuilding of these systems. At the same time that water borne diseases stalk the population, the US denies Iraq access to important medicines.

Hey, this can`t happen anymore, now we have smart sanctions!

Security Council Resolution: UN-sponsored declaration of war. Resolution crafted so that the guaranteed outcome is one suitable to the US, in this case war. It turns the purpose of the UN--to avoid wars--on its head.

Shock & awe: Mass murder.

the indiscriminate murder of civilians.

-- Chris Hedges, Democracy Now, Feb. 27, 2003

"Recent statement by Pentagon official: `the psychological destruction of the enemy`s will to fight`. That was the kind of language used to justify the bombing of Dresden, Frankfurt, Hamburg and other civilian areas. That was the language used in Vietnam to justify the bombing of villages. The objective is to destroy the morale of these people. They use words like `shock and awe`. It sounds like terrorism to me."

- Howard Zinn, speech given at New School University, Feb. 2003

Smart weapons: Yet another murder implement. These weapons are only so smart as the people that order their launch, and that makes it "at most as smart as Bush". This is hardly reassuring.

Video feeds are the main improvement in the newest generation weapons. Improving the video show generated by these weapons was seemingly considered of utmost importance. These weapons should be better known as smart multimedia weapons.

Softening up Iraq: The war already started. Twelve year long campaign of relentless bombing of Iraq. Supposedly, most targets were air defense systems threatening "coalition" airplanes. In reality, a useful area for all sorts of training exercises utilizing both live and dummy bombs. Concrete-filled bombs have been thrown in civilian areas, including schools. (www.ccmep.org/usbombingwatch/2003.htm)

Iraq is expected to disarm while at the same time the US is "softening up" Iraq.

Stability in the region aka making the region safe for democracy: Making the area safe for "our" and Israeli interests. Not necessarily in that order.

Terrorist linkage: Demonizing an opponent. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, but strenuous efforts are made to make the linkage. "Saddam funds Hamas", "a suspected Al Qaeda operative went for medical treatment in Baghdad", that is about it. NB: The number of Iraqis involved in 9/11 equals zero.

UN: A moribund organization meant to either do what the Americans tell it to do or else it is expected to shut up.

UN inspections: A meant-to-fail futile exercise. Threatening war with a massive build-up, and expecting full disarmament compliance and prying by a hostile UN inspection team is contradictory. No statement by Hans Blix has been issued on the continued bombing of Iraqi positions while the inspections were supposed to be going on.

UN Resolutions: Power projections. Rules only meant to work when the US wants them to. Israel has ignored 64 UN resolutions (with US support), yet this is not a problem. But of course, the UN resolutions were written referent to another chapter of the UN Charter! (chapter VI as opposed to chapter VII) Ah, these tricky lawyers.

Voila Moment: Military wishful thinking.

At the Pentagon they call it the Voila Moment. That`s when Iraqi soldiers and civilians, with bombs raining down on Baghdad, suddenly scratch their heads and say to themselves: `These bombs aren`t really meant to kill me and my family, they are meant to free us from an evil dictator!` At that point, they thank Uncle Sam, lower their weapons, abandon their posts, and rise up against Saddam Hussein. Voila!

-- Naomi Klein, "Put away the cuddly toys. Now it`s time to get tough", The Guardian, March 3, 2003

War: Massacre. Given the imbalance of forces and technology, it is likely that the Iraqi army will be decimated.

[Khokhlov] What human losses could Iraq suffer?

[Slipchenko] Very considerable ones. Since the Americans are planning to physically annihilate the Iraqi army, I reckon that at least 500,000 people will be killed. This will be a very bloody war.

-- Russian Expert Predicts 500,000 Iraqi Dead in War Designed To Test Weapons Rossiyskaya Gazeta in Russian, Feb. 22, 2003.

Detailed documentation on Iraqi casualty estimates.

We must do something: Argument leveled against the anti-war movement. It doesn`t mean that we have to massacre them to save them.

Mr. Blair says we can attack Iraq because if we don`t, Saddam will be free to do terrible things to his own people. This is about as alarming as an argument can get. There is no parity between our doing something with the dead certainty of killing and maiming thousands, and not doing it with only some probability that some people will suffer. Saddam may not have changed, but his world sure has.

-- Ted Honderich, Killing in Defense of Ideology, CounterPunch, March 5, 2003

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): Useful excuse to justify war. Despite the fact that reputable sources indicate that Iraqi chemical, bacteriological or nuclear capabilities are not a threat, it serves as a useful excuse for war.

Yes, Iraq at some point had chemical and bacteriological weapons. We know that because the countries selling that technology were primarily the US and UK. When the weapons were sold, Iraq was our bulwark against Iranian revolution. This rationale was quickly forgotten.

Note: Check out the website of Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. It is an awesome resource.

Paul de Rooij is an economist living in London and can be reached at [e-mail].

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

"The Pentagon still has not given a name to the Iraqi war. Somehow `Operation Re-elect Bush` doesn`t seem to be popular." —Jay Leno

[Joerver]

WHO OWNS WHAT
CJR`s Web guide to what the major media companies own.

http://www.cjr.org/owners/

[Joerver]

QUOTE from George W. Bush

"Natural gas is hemispheric. I like to call it hemispheric in nature because it is a product that we can find in our neighborhoods."—Austin, Texas, Dec. 20, 2000

[Joerver]

[gewinnnix]

`n Abend

[Joerver]

#322 auch so und ein schönes Wochenende

March 14, 2003
Both Sides Confident as Senate Nears Vote on Alaska Drilling
By DAVID FIRESTONE


ASHINGTON, March 13 — As the Senate neared a close vote on whether to allow oil drilling in the Alaska wilderness, each side in the debate expressed confidence that it would prevail.

Oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is among the highest priorities of the Bush administration, and the Senate`s switch to Republican control after the November elections has put the drilling plan in closer reach than last year, when the Senate rejected it, 54 to 46.

Supporters are seeking to persuade wavering senators with an argument that increased domestic oil production is needed more than ever on the approach of a possible war with Iraq and with gasoline prices rising sharply.

"In the last few months alone, our oil imports from Iraq have doubled," said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a leading proponent of drilling. "We`re paying Saddam Hussein billions of dollars for gasoline and aviation fuel to send our aircraft carriers and troops to fight him. That logic does not make sense as an energy policy."

Republicans in Congress are preparing to bring up the drilling plan as part of an overall budget process, a parliamentary technique that would prevent the Democrats from blocking it with a filibuster. By doing so, Republicans ensure that they need only a simple majority to approve the measure, rather than the 60 votes necessary to break a filibuster.

It is unclear, however, whether they have that simple majority, and lobbyists for drilling and against it worked furiously this week to court potential swing votes. Of the 51 Senate Republicans, 8 have already said they will vote against opening the refuge to drilling, but 5 Democrats have said they will support it.

That gives drilling supporters a solid 48 votes, both sides acknowledge. Some Republican officials say they have secured a 49th vote and are in reach of the 50th vote that will allow them to pass the measure, with the tie-breaking support of Vice President Dick Cheney. They have not identified the 49th vote.

"It`s kind of even-steven right now, but we think we can count votes better than our opponents, and we`re pretty confident," said Roger Herrera, a consultant for Arctic Power, a pro-drilling lobbying group financed by the State of Alaska and oil companies. "We think we can win on the merits, but it should be pretty exciting."

Democrats and environmental groups, who say drilling will damage the habitat of several wilderness species, say advocates of drilling are exaggerating their support and are unlikely to grow beyond 48 votes. But they acknowledge that the coming vote is likely to be much closer than the 54-to-46 one last year.

"The margin is razor-thin," said Melinda Pierce, a lobbyist for the Sierra Club, who has been working to persuade senators to defeat the drilling proposal. "We still think we have the votes to defeat it, but I`m not taking any vote for granted."

Opponents of drilling have identified 52 senators who either voted against drilling in the past or said they would do so, said Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who opposes the plan.

But Republican officials said 4 of those 52 — Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, both Democrats, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, both Republicans — were being heavily lobbied to support the plan.

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, introduced an amendment in the Budget Committee today to strip the drilling provision from the budget resolution and have it come up on its own later. Such a move would allow Democrats to filibuster the plan. But the amendment was quickly defeated by the committee`s Republican majority.

"It`s unfortunate that the drilling proponents are pushing for oil drilling in one of our nation`s natural treasures and using a back-door process to achieve that goal," Mr. Feingold said. "The coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge deserves more careful management, and if we don`t protect it, we jeopardize both the plain itself and all its scenic and habitat values, and we threaten existing wilderness previously protected by Congress."

Senator Don Nickles, Republican of Oklahoma and chairman of the committee, said drilling would create thousands of jobs and reduce the nation`s dependence on foreign oil.

A spokesman for Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, said passing the drilling plan in the Senate was one of the Republicans` highest priorities.

The plan would pass without difficulty in the House, with its solid Republican majority, but members said they were reluctant to vote on the measure without knowing whether it would move through the Senate. Today the House Budget Committee approved a budget resolution that assumed more than $1 billion in tax revenues would come from Alaskan oil production.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Published on Thursday, March 13, 2003 by the Toronto Star
Why Americans Tune in to Canada
by Antonia Zerbisias

My e-mail inbox overfloweth with missives from our neighbours to the south as, I expect, those of many of my Star colleagues do.


Many Americans seem pathetically grateful for offshore, online sources for news and views of the world.

Not that the Canadian media are perfect. We make our mistakes. We have our biases. But here, at least, there`s a vigorous and wide-ranging debate on the looming war.

So who can blame skeptical Americans for resorting to Canadians when their "most trusted" and "most watched`` media are marching in lockstep to the drums of war?

Whether it`s showing CNN`s Connie Chung accuse actor/activist Jessica Lange of "betraying the troops" or yet another treacly report on how some soldier has "three more reasons to fight for freedom" because his wife gave birth to triplets, U.S. media are a long way from presenting not only the whole picture, but even a fair one.

Here are just a few of the recent omissions:

*** Some major news organizations have misquoted and distorted the record on President George W. Bush`s stage-managed news conference last Thursday, altering his slip about how the whole thing was "scripted" to "unscripted."

If you stayed awake, you would have seen Bush at one point look at a list of reporters he planned to call upon while recognizing CNN`s John King. When another reporter tried to cut in, Bush said: "This is a scripted —"

Check the official White House transcripts (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news) and you`ll see the word "scripted." But go to the online transcripts at The New York Times, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and the Los Angeles Times and you`ll see the reference has either been cut or changed to "unscripted."

A typo? Perhaps. One George Orwell might have appreciated.

*** Many Americans who venture outside their borders for their news are waiting still for their own media to delve into a story broken by the London-based Observer on March 2. It charged the U.S. with spying on the diplomatic delegations from several Security Council nations.

There`s been little to no coverage on the affair — and what did get reported was presented as being no big deal, as if spying by the U.S. at such a time was to be expected.

The government has never denied the report, which was based on a leaked memo written by a senior official at the U.S. National Security Agency.

The lack of American media interest in this story indicates, once again, that they can`t be critical of their own. What does it say to the rest of the world, which has been intensely interested in this tale?

*** Just as news organizations are firming up their "exit strategies" for their reporters not safely "embedded" with U.S. troops, Kate Adie, who recently quit her job as BBC`s chief news correspondent, told Irish radio that Washington`s attitude is "entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

Adie, who covered the last Gulf war, also said that a senior officer in the Pentagon told her that any "uplinks" — satellite TV or phone signals — that were detected coming out of Baghdad, would be "targeted down" and "fired down on."

Truth clearly won`t be either the first — or only — casualty in this war.

You can hear the interview at http://homepage.eircom.net.

*** Could it be that truth doesn`t even have a fighting chance, even before the shooting begins?

A Florida Appeals court ruling last month overturned a jury verdict to award former Fox TV investigative journalist Jane Akre $425,000 under the state`s whistleblower law.

Akre, and her journalist husband Steve Wilson, were fired in 1997 after writing, re-writing, and re-writing, some 80 times, a series on how Monsanto`s synthetic bovine growth hormone was being used in Florida dairy cattle.

The couple alleged that local supermarkets did little to avoid selling the milk from the hormone-treated cows despite assuring customers otherwise.

The chemical giant complained and Fox killed the series.

Fox then fired the duo after they threatened to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which monitors U.S. broadcasting, that Fox was distorting the news. The reporters subsequently sued Fox.

But the appeals court in Jeb Bush`s Florida saw the FCC`s stance on "news distortion" as just a policy and not a "law, rule or regulation."

Needless to say, Fox reported this as a "vindication" of its actions.

As for other media, well, I`m still combing the databases for any real mention of this shocking decision.

But I`m not holding my breath.
Antonia Zerbisias appears every Thursday. You can reach her at [e-mail].

Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

[Joerver]

Cage Match
Matt Taibbi

Cleaning the Pool
The White House Press Corps politely grabs its ankles.

After watching George W. Bush’s press conference last Thursday night, I’m more convinced than ever: The entire White House press corps should be herded into a cargo plane, flown to an altitude of 30,000 feet, and pushed out, kicking and screaming, over the North Atlantic.

Any remaining staff at the Washington bureaus should be rounded up for summary justice. The Russians used to use bakery trucks, big gray panel trucks marked "Bread" on the sides; victims would be rounded up in the middle of the night and taken for one last ride through the darkened streets.

The war would almost be worth it just to see Wolf Blitzer pounding away at the inside of a Pepperidge Farm truck, tearfully confessing and vowing to "take it all back."

The Bush press conference to me was like a mini-Alamo for American journalism, a final announcement that the press no longer performs anything akin to a real function. Particularly revolting was the spectacle of the cream of the national press corps submitting politely to the indignity of obviously pre-approved questions, with Bush not even bothering to conceal that the affair was scripted.

Abandoning the time-honored pretense of spontaneity, Bush chose the order of questioners not by scanning the room and picking out raised hands, but by looking down and reading from a predetermined list. Reporters, nonetheless, raised their hands in between questions–as though hoping to suddenly catch the president’s attention.

In other words, not only were reporters going out of their way to make sure their softballs were pre-approved, but they even went so far as to act on Bush’s behalf, raising their hands and jockeying in their seats in order to better give the appearance of a spontaneous news conference.

Even Bush couldn’t ignore the absurdity of it all. In a remarkable exchange that somehow managed to avoid being commented upon in news accounts the next day, Bush chided CNN political correspondent John King when the latter overacted his part, too enthusiastically waving his hand when it apparently was, according to the script, his turn anyway.

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

A ripple of nervous laughter shot through the East Room. Moments later, the camera angle of the conference shifted to a side shot, revealing a ring of potted plants around the presidential podium. It would be hard to imagine an image that more perfectly describes American political journalism today: George Bush, surrounded by a row of potted plants, in turn surrounded by the White House press corps.

Newspapers the next day ignored the scripted-question issue completely. (King himself, incidentally, left it out of his CNN.com report.) Of the major news services and dailies, only one–the Washington Post–even parenthetically addressed the issue. Far down in Dana Millbank and Mike Allen’s conference summary, the paper euphemistically commented:

"The president followed a script of names in choosing which reporters could ask him a question, and he received generally friendly questioning." [Emphasis mine] "Generally friendly questioning" is an understatement if there ever was one. Take this offering by April Ryan of the American Urban Radio Networks:

"Mr. President, as the nation is at odds over war, with many organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus pushing for continued diplomacy through the UN, how is your faith guiding you?"

Great. In Bush’s first press conference since his decision to support a rollback of affirmative action, the first black reporter to get a crack at him–and this is what she comes up with? The journalistic equivalent of "Mr. President, you look great today. What’s your secret?"

Newspapers across North America scrambled to roll the highlight tape of Bush knocking Ryan’s question out of the park. The Boston Globe: "As Bush stood calmly at the presidential lectern, tears welled in his eyes when he was asked how his faith was guiding him…" The Globe and Mail: "With tears welling in his eyes, Mr. Bush said he prayed daily that war can be averted…"

Even worse were the qualitative assessments in the major dailies of Bush’s performance. As I watched the conference, I was sure I was witnessing, live, an historic political catastrophe. In his best moments Bush was deranged and uncommunicative, and in his worst moments, which were most of the press conference, he was swaying side to side like a punch-drunk fighter, at times slurring his words and seemingly clinging for dear life to the verbal oases of phrases like "total disarmament," "regime change," and "mass destruction."

He repeatedly declined to answer direct questions. At one point, when a reporter twice asked if Bush could consider the war a success if Saddam Hussein were not captured or killed, Bush answered: "Uh, we will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people."

Yet the closest thing to a negative characterization of Bush’s performance in the major outlets was in David Sanger and Felicity Barringer’s New York Times report, which called Bush "sedate": "Mr. Bush, sounding sedate at a rare prime-time news conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country..."

Apparently even this absurdly oblique description, which ran on the Times website hours after the press conference, was too much for the paper’s editors. Here is how that passage read by the time the papers hit the streets the next morning:

"Mr. Bush, at a rare prime-time press conference, portrayed himself as the protector of the country…"

Meanwhile, those aspects of Bush’s performance that the White House was clearly anxious to call attention to were reported enthusiastically. It was obvious that Bush had been coached to dispense with two of his favorite public speaking tricks–his perma-smirk and his finger-waving cowboy one-liners. Bush’s somber new "war is hell" act was much commented upon, without irony, in the post-mortems.

Appearing on Hardball after the press conference, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman (one of the worst monsters of the business) gushed when asked if the Bush we’d just seen was really a "cowboy":

"If he’s a cowboy he’s the reluctant warrior, he’s Shane… because he has to, to protect his family."

Newsweek thinks Bush is Shane?

This was just Bush’s eighth press conference since taking office, and each one of them has been a travesty. In his first presser, on Feb. 22, 2001, a month after his controversial inauguration, he was not asked a single question about the election, Al Gore or the Supreme Court. On the other hand, he was asked five questions about Bill Clinton’s pardons.

Reporters argue that they have no choice. They’ll say they can’t protest or boycott the staged format, because they risk being stripped of their seat in the press pool. For the same reason, they say they can’t write anything too negative. They can’t write, for instance, "President Bush, looking like a demented retard on the eve of war…" That leaves them with the sole option of "working within the system" and, as they like to say, "trying to take our shots when we can."

But the White House press corps’ idea of "taking a shot" is David Sanger asking Bush what he thinks of British foreign minister Jack Straw saying that regime change was not necessarily a war goal. And then meekly sitting his ass back down when Bush ignores the question.

They can’t write what they think, and can’t ask real questions. What the hell are they doing there? If the answer is "their jobs," it’s about time we started wondering what that means.

Volume 16, Issue 11


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
©2003 All rights reserved.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any manner
without written permission of the publisher.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Für die Leser meines Sräds ist das meiste nicht neu, aber gut zusammengefasst.


SPIEGEL ONLINE - 15. März 2003, 9:10
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,240150,00.html
Web for Peace

Widerstand gegen "Brainwashington"

Von Jochen Bölsche

Weltweit wächst die Wut über die Kriegspolitiker und Hirnwäscher im Weißen Haus. "Der Ekel, angelogen zu werden", veranlasst auch Hunderttausende junger Amerikaner, sich zur Wehr zu setzen. Wichtigste Waffe der neuen "Internationale des Friedens" ist das Internet.

Sie fordern, anders als einst die Blumenkinder in den Zeiten des Vietnamkrieges, nicht mehr "Make love not war". Unmut und Wut über die Absichten der Washingtoner Rechtsregierung, internationales Recht zu brechen, um einen Angriffskrieg zu führen, haben eine ganz neue Protestparole entstehen lassen: "Make law not war."

Der Widerstand gegen Bushs Versuch, die "Stärke des Rechts durch das Recht des Stärkeren zu ersetzen" (Gerhard Schröder), hat Millionen auf die Straßen getrieben - auch in den Vereinigten Staaten. Die Protestbewegung in den USA, urteilte jüngst der amerikanische Historiker Maurice Issermann, sei schon jetzt stärker als zur Zeit des Vietnamkriegs: Damals habe es "mehrere Jahre gedauert, bis man zu diesem Punkt kam, wo wir heute sind, obwohl schon Soldaten im Feld starben".

Ein Terrorkrieger als Terrorgewinnler?

Gemeinsam sei "sehr vielen" der neuen Friedensdemonstranten "der Überdruss, der Ekel, angelogen zu werden", bemerkte die Schweizer "Wochen-Zeitung". Tatsächlich vergeht kein Tag, an dem kritische US-Medien nicht auf Fakten stoßen, die Bushs Motive zunehmend zweifelhaft erscheinen lassen.

Jochen Bölsche,
57, ist seit 1965 SPIEGEL-Redakteur sowie Autor und Herausgeber vieler Bücher, darunter "Der Weg in den Überwachungsstaat", "Waterkantgate" und "Rudolf Augstein - Schreiben, was ist". Sein besonderes Interesse gilt zeitgeschichtlichen Themen. Zuletzt schrieb er die SPIEGEL-Titelgeschichte "Als Feuer vom Himmel fiel - Der Bombenkrieg gegen Deutschland".



Dass bei den meisten derzeitigen Regierungsmitgliedern eine Verquickung von politischem Amt und geschäftlichem Interesse nachweisbar ist, war seit längerem bekannt. Anfang dieser Woche aber enthüllte der Pulitzer-Preisträger Seymour Hersh im "New Yorker" einen ganz besonders spektakulären Filz-Fall.

Im Mittelpunkt steht Richard Perle, der dem einflussreichen "Defense Policy Board" (DPB) vorsteht und der im rechtskonservativen Think Tank "Project for a New American Century" seit Jahren auf einen Krieg gegen den Irak drängt.

Korrespondenz mit dem Krösus aus dem Morgenland

Perle hat seine Finger nicht nur in bislang unbekanntem Ausmaß im Mediengeschäft, etwa als Direktor der rechtskonservativen "Jerusalem Post". Der Erzfalke sei, schreibt Hersh, außerdem "managing partner" einer Firma namens Trireme Partners L. P., die zwei Monate nach dem tragischen 11. September 2001 in Delaware gegründet worden sei. Zweck des Unternehmens: Mitzuverdienen an der Angst vor Krieg und Terror.

In einem Brief an den in Saudi-Arabien geborenen Multimilliardär und Waffenhändler Adnan Kashoggi habe Trireme im November 2002 als Hauptbetätigungsfeld angegeben, in Firmen zu investieren, die Produkte und Dienstleistungen für "Heimatschutz und Verteidigung" anbieten. Die "Angst vor Terrorismus", heißt es laut "New Yorker" in dem Brief an den Krösus aus dem Morgenland, werde die Nachfrage nach derartigen Produkten erhöhen.

Ein Kriegstreiber als Kriegsgewinnler, ein Terrorbekämpfer als Terrorprofiteur? Als sei dieser Ruf nicht schon schlimm genug, reagierte Perle in einem CNN-Interview mit einer rüden Beschimpfung des renommierten Journalisten: Hersh stelle "die engste Verbindung" dar, "die der amerikanische Journalismus mit einem Terroristen hat".

Feuer frei auf freie Journalisten?

Wenige Tage später wurde publik, wie groß auch im Pentagon - dem Perles Defense Policy Board zuarbeitet - die Angst vor unabhängigem Journalismus sein muss. Wie die populäre BBC-Kriegskorrespondentin Kate Adie publik machte, will das US-Militär im Irak nur handverlesene Journalisten sehen. Unabhängige Reporter, die sich abseits des US-Trosses bewegen und ihre Berichte per Satellitentelefon in die Heimatredaktionen übermitteln, müssten damit rechnen, von der amerikanischen Luftwaffe unter Feuer genommen zu werden.


Denn wann immer Kampfflieger Signale von Satellitentelefonen entdeckten, zitiert Kate Adie einen "Senior Officer" aus dem Pentagon, würden sie die Quelle unter Beschuss nehmen. Freie Journalisten, die sich in den Irak begeben hätten, seien darauf hingewiesen worden: "Well ... they know this, they`ve been warned."

Der von den USA angestrebte "news blackout" sei eine massive Bedrohung der Pressefreiheit, urteilt die erfahrene Reporterin, die bereits aus dem letzten Golfkrieg berichtet hat. Auf die Ausschaltung kritischer Journalisten ziele auch die Auslesepraxis des Pentagon: Kriegsskeptikern werde diesmal die Akkreditierung verweigert.

"The best and the brightest"

Während auch in den USA das Vertrauen in viele der Mainstream-Medien schwindet und die Angst wächst, Opfer gezielter Desinformation der Bush-Administration zu werden, haben einige junge Amerikaner - vielleicht "the best and the brightest" ihrer Generation - damit begonnen, eine Gegenöffentlichkeit zu schaffen, um all die Krähen und Falken aufzuscheuchen, die derzeit am Potomac nisten.

Ihr wichtigstes Werkzeug zur Informationsbeschaffung und zur Verbreitung unzensierter Nachrichten ist das Internet.

Zu Zehntausenden rufen US-Bürger bereits europäische Websites auf, etwa die Online-Ausgaben irischer Zeitungen oder englischer Rundfunkstationen. "BBC Online" beispielsweise registriert neuerdings 50 Prozent Besucher aus den USA. "US public turns to Europe for news", meldet das Medienmagazin "dot journalism".

In deutschen Online-Redaktionen gehen Bitten junger Amerikaner ein, Bush-kritische Texte übersetzen und Freunden daheim zugänglich machen zu dürfen - "weil die amerikanische Presse so eine Story nie bringen würde", wie eine Susan mailt, und weil US-Zeitungen "hauptsächlich das Standpunkt der am. Regierung" vertreten, wie einer namens John radebrecht.

Wenn die Wahrheit online geht

Während sich US-User auf der Suche nach "unverfälschten News" von den manipulationsanfälligen heimischen Massenmedien abwenden, rechnet der deutsche Fachinformationsdienst "intern.de" bereits mit einem Umschwung in der Medienwelt: Bei der Meinungsbildung über aktuelle Ereignisse scheine die großenteils im Gleichschritt marschierende US-Presse "an `Impact` einzubüßen" und das Internet "eine wesentlich wichtigere Rolle (zu) spielen als bislang angenommen".

Deutschlands Ex-Außenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher sieht sogar Veränderungen von historischem Ausmaß. "Der Eintritt in die Informationsgesellschaft hat dazu geführt, dass eine Weltmeinung entsteht. Die Menschen in allen Teilen der Welt haben Zugang zu denselben Informationen", schrieb der Liberale diese Woche in einer Zeitungskolumne.

Folge, so der Liberale: "Abgrenzungsmaßnahmen gegen Informationen sind kaum noch wirksam. Das erklärt die übereinstimmende Mehrheitsforderung nach weiteren Inspektionen im Irak auch in den Ländern, in denen die Regierungen sich längst für einen militärischen Einsatz entschieden haben."

Natürlich gibt es auch - und gerade - in den USA selber etliche Websites, die sich der Aufgabe verschrieben haben, unterdrückte Nachrichten zu verbreiten.



Zur alternativen Online-Szene der USA zählt der News-Ticker www.buzzflash.com ebenso wie das Web-Angebot einer Zeitschrift, hinter deren ungewöhnlichem Titel, "Mother Jones", sich nach dem Urteil von Greenpeace "das bissigste und beste Magazin" der USA verbirgt.

Wie das Mutter-Blatt steht auch www.motherjones.com in einer gänzlich anderen amerikanischen Tradition als die Familie des Ölmagnaten Bush, die von Krieg zu Krieg reicher geworden ist.

Mutter Jones und das "machine-gun massacre"

Die 1930 im Alter von 100 Jahren gestorbene Bergarbeiterwitwe Mary Harris ("Mother") Jones hatte als Aktivistin der Social Democratic Party gegen Kinderarbeit gekämpft, für brutal verfolgte Gewerkschafter gestritten und mutig das legendäre "machine-gun massacre" angeprangert, mit dem Minenbesitzer 1914 in Colorado zwanzig Streikende ermorden liessen. Motto der irischstämmigen Katholikin: "Betet für die Toten und kämpft wie der Teufel für die Lebenden."

In der Gegenöffentlichkeit von motherjones.com und anderen Websites - darunter deutsche Angebote wie www.feldpolitik.de - vernetzt sich derzeit die bunte internationale Szene der demokratischen und radikaldemokratischen Bush-Gegner.

Ein Betbruder brüskiert seine eigene Kirche

Aktuelle Link-Listen verweisen auf wichtige Texte von Investigativreportern, Völkerrechtlern und Friedensforschern - und auf all das, was die Hirnwäscher in "Brainwashington", wie die Bush-Regierung auf diesen Seiten geschmäht wird, der Weltöffentlichkeit gern vorenthalten würden.

Zum Beispiel: Während der Präsident von wichtigen Mainstream-Medien als gottgefälliger Betbruder porträtiert wird, dokumentieren die Web-Aktivisten nicht nur die unbarmherzige Kriegskritik des Papstes ("unmoralisch, illegal und ungerecht"), sondern auch den Protest der Bischöfe von Bushs eigener (methodistischer) Kirche, die er seit Wochen brüskiert; die widerspenstigen Geistlichen müssen darauf warten, zu ihm vorgelassen zu werden.

Oder: Während konservative Zeitungen ein französisches Uno-Veto gegen den Irak-Krieg als unerhörte Provokation hinstellen, zeigen die Alternativmedien auf, dass die USA in den letzten zehn Jahren ungleich öfter ihr Veto eingelegt haben als jedes andere Mitglied des Sicherheitsrats.

Ex-Agent warnt vor "historischem Wahnsinn"

Oder: Während rechte Kommentatoren im Einklang mit Bush die Missachtung von Uno-Resolutionen durch den Irak als automatischen Kriegsgrund werten, halten die Wahrheitssucher im Web dagegen, dass andere Länder, selbst das demokratische, als "USrael" apostrophierte Israel, sich schon über weitaus mehr Beschlüsse der Völkergemeinschaft hinweggesetzt haben als der Diktator in Bagdad.


Musicians United: Künstler protestieren mit einer Zeitungsanzeige gegen den Irak-Krieg


Oder: Während sich Kriegsgegner allenfalls im Anzeigenteil vieler US-Blätter zu Wort melden dürfen, kann im Web jedermann zum Beispiel den Aufruf jener 14.000 US-Schriftsteller und -Akademiker abrufen, die Bushs Krieg als "moralisch nicht akzeptabel" verurteilen. Und weltweit zugänglich ist auch die Ansicht des britischen Autors und Ex-Geheimdienstlers John Le Carré, in der gegenwärtigen "Phase historischen Wahnsinns" behandele die "Bush-Junta" die Tatsache, dass im vorigen Golfkrieg doppelt so viele Iraker gefallen sind wie Amerikaner in Vietnam, wie ein Staatsgeheimnis.

J. R. Ewing erinnert sich an "Dallas", Folge 220

Viele amerikanische und deutsche Homepages verbreiten aktuelle Demo-Termine nebst den gängigen Demo-Parolen - von "Energiesparen hilft Kriege verhindern" bis zu "Waffeninspekteure in die USA!". Andere bieten ein Feuerwerk bitterer Bush-Satiren oder weisen auf Glanzstücke hin wie dieses virtuelles Interview mit dem TV-Ekel und -Ölmagnaten J. R. Ewing zum Irakkrieg. Leseprobe:

Frage: Politische Beobachter rechnen mit einem Umsturz der Öloligarchien in den Golfstaaten, z.B. in Saudi-Arabien.

Ewing: So ein ähnliches Projekt hatte ich auch schon einmal, das war, glaube ich, in der Folge 220 und später. Ich wollte damals die saudische Ölproduktion sabotieren, aber natürlich mit viel bescheideneren Mitteln. Das ging gründlich schief und ich bekam gewaltigen Ärger mit dem Justizministerium (flucht bei dem Gedanken, beruhigt sich aber wieder). Aber heute haben wir ja zum Glück unsere Jungs in der Regierung.

Frage: Ökonomen rechnen mit einer Weltwirtschaftskrise.

Ewing: Europa und China können sowieso einen Dämpfer vertragen, die sind in letzter Zeit zu aufmüpfig geworden. Und die USA brauchen immer eine neue Herausforderung.

Frage: Viele Beobachter rechnen mit neuen terroristischen Anschlägen, so wie bei den WTC-Anschlägen in New York.

Ewing: Wir sind hier in Dallas, Texas. New York ist über 1500 Meilen weit entfernt.

Frage: Präsident Bush gilt als sehr religiöser Mann. Welchen Anteil spielt ihrer Ansicht nach sein christlicher Glaube bei seiner Politik?

Ewing: Die meisten Texaner gehen jeden Sonntag in die Kirche. Wir leben hier nach dem Grundsatz: Gott hilft dem Erfolgreichen.

Frage: Wenn alles so kommt, wie skeptische Beobachter und Ökonomen erwarten, also Explosion des Ölpreises, Absturz der Aktienkurse, weltweite Wirtschaftskrise und neue Terroranschläge, könnte es schwierig werden mit der Wiederwahl von Bush.

Ewing: Wieso? Was gut ist für die texanische Ölindustrie, ist auch gut für Texas, und was gut ist für Texas, ist gut für Amerika.

Frage: Leidet unter der Politik von Bush nicht das Ansehen der USA?

Ewing: Wieso? Was gut für Amerika ist, ist auch gut für die Welt (guckt auf die Uhr). Leider habe jetzt keine Zeit mehr für Sie, Termine, Sie verstehen...

Die Story von Saddams Fliegender Untertasse

Vergleichsweise wenige Websites offerieren Fragwürdiges und Abseitiges, beispielsweise Fantasiegeschichten über verschwörerische Illuminaten oder eine bizarre Enthüllungsstory über Hintergründe der Irak-Krise, die angeblich mal in der Moskauer "Prawda" gestanden hat.

Danach hat Saddam vor Jahren Aliens aus einem abgeschossenen Ufo Asyl gewährt, deren gentechnischem Know-how er die Züchtung von Kampf-Skorpionen verdankt, die "so groß wie Kühe" sind und nun seine Paläste bewachen. Der Bericht existiert wirklich - er stand nur nicht auf den Politikseiten der "Prawda", sondern auf einer russischen Fun-Page. Fun hin, Spaß her - womöglich könnte das Netzwerk der schnell wachsenden Internationale des Friedens ein wenig dazu beitragen, die Welt zu verändern.

Die Kontakte zwischen den Kriegsgegnern diesseits und jenseits des Atlantik offenbaren schon jetzt beiden Seiten, wie dumm es wäre, Antibushismus und Antiamerikanismus zu verwechseln. Amerika - das sind eben nicht nur der Texaner und die "stupid white men", sondern auch "Mother Jones" und ihre jungen Fans.

"Bush schafft, wogegen er antritt"

Das weltweite Unbehagen über Bushs Kriegskurs könnte, spekuliert der Essayist Oliver Fahrni in der Schweizer "Wochen-Zeitung", vielleicht sogar dazu führen, dass Bush unfreiwillig "schafft, wogegen er antritt: ein Stück Weltzivilgesellschaft".

Zu befürchten ist nur, dass der Weg dorthin über Berge von Leichen führt. Macht Bush seine Drohung wahr, den Irak einzuäschern, unter anderem mit der jetzt vor TV-Kameras demonstrativ gezündeten "Mutter aller Bomben" - dann werden aus Bagdad abermals Bilder von ungeheurer Suggestionskraft auf die Bildschirme kommen.

"Pentagon-Mitarbeiter geben zu, dass Hiroshima als Prototyp für Bagdad verstanden wird", schreibt der US-Wissenschaftler William La Fleur in der "FAZ": "Die neuen Bomben verzichten auf Strahlung, aber ihre unerreichte, bislang unvorstellbare Sprengkraft gleicht diesen Verzicht aus. Mit ihrer Hilfe hofft das Pentagon, dass Amerika und Großbritannien die Iraker dazu bringen können, wie die Japaner 1945 zu kapitulieren."

Ein Feuerwerk wie in Hiroshima

Der Feuerzauber auf den Bildschirmen werde noch erhebender sein als das CNN-Spektakel von 1991, prognostiziert der Japanologie-Professor aus Philadelphia: "Der Anblick einfach bestechender Raketen und explodierender Bomben wird Adrenalinschübe in uns auslösen. In unseren Körpern wird es vor Faszination kribbeln ... Wir werden ein Feuerwerk sehen, das beinahe der faszinierend-berüchtigten Pilzbombe entspricht."

Später aber würden sich, wie einst in Hiroshima und Nagasaki, "Erschrecken und Schauder" einstellen - dann, "wenn unerschrockene Fotografen dazu stoßen und uns die Augen öffnen für das, was unten übrig geblieben ist".

Was immer dann verstümmelt und verbrannt sein wird - das Schwarze Gold des Landes soll unter keinen Umständen Schaden nehmen.

Geheimsender droht mit Kriegsverbrecherprozess

Im Irak, meldete jüngst der "New Scientist", sei neuerdings ein mysteriöser Untergrundsender namens "Stimme der irakischen Befreiung" zu vernehmen. Die anonymen Propagandisten warnen mit drastischen Worten vor jeder "mutwilligen Beschädigung" von Ölfördereinrichtungen: Die kommende Regierung werde jeden Saboteur "als Kriegsverbrecher anklagen".

Amerikaner dagegen werden sich wohl kaum je vor einem Kriegsverbrechertribunal verantworten müssen. Von Beginn an hat die Hypermacht USA als einer von wenigen Staaten der Welt den in dieser Woche in Holland eröffneten Internationalen Strafgerichtshof boykottiert.

Und ein von Bush inspiriertes neues US-Gesetz lässt sogar militärische Schritte gegen ein Land zu, das amerikanische Soldaten vor Gericht zur Verantwortung ziehen will - und sei es in Den Haag, The Netherlands, Old Europe.


Ende



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

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

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

[Joerver]

Nochmals zur Erinnerung



Bush-Cheney Inc.

Florian Rötzer 17.07.2002
Krieg, Geopolitik und der Filz der Bush-Regierung mit der Rüstungsindustrie und Energiekonzernen - ein oberflächlicher Blick auf tiefe Abgründe in ein netzförmiges Labyrinth

Noch immer ist die Popularität von US-Präsident ungewöhnlich hoch. Über 70 Prozent der US-Bürger befürworten die Politik von Bush noch immer. Dafür geht das Vertrauen in die Manager von großen Unternehmen nach einer aktuellen Umfrage gegen Null. Für die Meisten gibt es zu wenig Moral in der Gesellschaft, und sie wünschen eine stärkere Kontrolle der Wirtschaft. Auch Alan Greenspan stimmte in den Kanon ein und machte "ansteckende Gier" mancher Unternehmer für den Vertrauensverlust in die Unternehmensführung verantwortlich. Auch der selbst durch mögliche Schiebereien angekratzte Präsident wirbt um Vertrauen und will die Unternehmensführer an die Zügel nehmen: "Um ein verantwortlicher Amerikaner zu sein, muss man verantwortlich handeln," predigte Bush unlängst.

Offenbar haben die Ankündigungen, schärfer gegen die schwarzen Schafe bei den Managern vorzugehen, ihre Wirkung nicht verfehlt. Die Menschen in den USA finden ihren Präsidenten sogar noch ehrlicher und vertrauenswürdiger als bislang. Unbeirrt sagen das 71 Prozent. Zwar meinen 50 Prozent, dass Bush eher die Interessen der großen Unternehmen als der kleinen Leute schützt, aber auch hier erzielt er einen besseren Wert als noch vor einem Jahr. Es besteht also keine Veranlassung für Bush, die Karten offenzulegen, was die eigenen finanziellen Interessen angeht. So kann auch der von Bush eingesetzte Vorsitzende der Bö(r)senaufsicht SEC, Harvey Pitt, es freundlicherweise noch dem Präsidenten selbst überlassen, ob er die Unterlagen über den umstrittenen Aktienverkauf als Direktor von Harken Energy herausgeben will. Dafür will er angeblich entschieden die möglichen Bilanzfälschungen beim Energiekonzern Halliburton prüfen, deren Direktor von 1995 bis 2000 der jetzige Vizepräsident Dick Cheney ist. Der aber ist nicht nur schon durch seine enge Verbindung zum skandalträchtigen Pleite-Energiekonzern Enron aufgefallen, sondern auch bereits durch die Geschäfte, die er für Halliburton angeleiert hat, als er unter Bush I noch Verteidigungsminister war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I`ve got great confidence in the Vice President, doing a heck of a good job. When I picked him, I knew he was a fine business leader and a fine experienced man. And he`s doing a great job. That matter will take -- run its course, the Halliburton investigation, and the facts will come out at some point in time.
George W. Bush am 17. Juli




Vizepräsident Cheney hält sich tatsächlich auffällig unauffällig zurück. Die Skandale um die Enron-Pleite, mit der die amerikanische Wirtschaftskrise begann, scheinen der Bush-Regierung, damals noch ganz durch den patriotisch verpflichtenden Krieg gegen den Terrorismus gedeckt, nicht viel geschadet zu haben. Jetzt überdecken die eher harmlosen Vorgänge bei Harken und Halliburton die Abgründe, denn letztlich ist seit der Zeit des ehemaligen CIA-Chefs und späteren Präsidenten Bush I, der trotz seines zweifelhaften Siegs über Hussein vornehmlich wegen wirtschaftlicher Gründe von Bill Clinton abgelöst werden konnte, der Krieg mit wirtschaftlichen Interessen der Rüstungs- und Energiekonzerne untrennbar verwoben. Verbindungsglieder sind in aller Regel die Regierungsmitglieder selbst.



Update: Eine von der New York Times und CBS durchgeführte Befragung kam allerdings zu einem leicht anderem Bild. Zwar lag auch hier die allgemeine Zustimmung zur Politik des Präsidenten mit 70 Prozent etwa genau so hoch wie bei der Umfrage der Washington Post, und immerhin 52 Prozent waren zufrieden, wie Bush die Wirtschaftspolitik handhabt. 58 Prozent aber sind der Meinung, dass seine Politik zu sehr von großen Unternehmen beeinflusst wird, obgleich erstaunlicherweise wiederum 68 Prozent auch der Meinung sind, er kümmere sich um die Interessen der normalen Menschen.
Gleichwohl glauben 48 Prozent der Befragten, dass Bush bei seinen eigenen Geschäften mit Harken Energy etwas zu verbergen hat. Gerade einmal 17 Prozent sagen, er würde die Wahrheit sagen. Fast schon schizophren sind trotzdem 43 Prozent der Meinung, dass er geschäftlich ehrlich und moralisch gehandelt habe. Vielleicht muss man da gegen das Misstrauen doch irgendwie das Vertrauen in den Präsidenten aufrechterhalten. Bei Cheney geben die Menschen ihrer Skepsis zumindest stärker Ausdruck. Zwar glauben "nur" 43 Prozent, dass er etwas zu verbergen hat, aber nur 11 Prozent meinen, dass er die Wahrheit sagt. Dass er moralisch nicht einwandfrei als Direktor von Halliburton gehandelt habe, sagen aber schon 23 Prozent, während nur 32 Prozent der Überzeugung sind, er habe hier ehrlich gearbeitet.


Rüstungsindustrie und Regierung: Man kennt sich

Verkehrsminister Norman Mineta war beispielsweise früher bei Boeing und Lockheed tätig. US-Verteidigungsminister Rumsfeld, der dieses Amt schon unter dem Präsidenten Gerald Ford eingenommen hatte, schon lange für mehr Rüstungsausgaben und vor allem für den SDI-Nachfolger des Raketenabehrschild geworben hat, war zwischenzeitlich vornehmlich in der biotechnologischen und pharmazeutischen Branche tätig. Allerdings arbeitete er auch bis vor kurzem in der Rüstungsbranche, nämlich als Direktor des Unternehmens Gulfstream Aerospace, bei dem auch der jetzige Außenminister Colin Powell tätig war und das 1999 vom Rüstungskonzern General Dynamics aufgekauft wurde, was Rumsfeld einen Segen von 11 Millionen Dollar für seine Aktienanteile einbrachte. Auch Powell ging hier wohl nicht leer aus (sein Sohn ist mittlerweile dank Bush zum Leiter der Federal Communications Commission berufen worden, nachdem er die Verschmelzung von AOL und Time Warner befürwortet und damit wiederum die Aktien seines Vaters an Wert vermehrt hatte). In das Verteidigungsministerium holte sich Rumsfeld eine ganze Reihe von ehemaligen Managern der Rüstungsindustrie. Beispielsweise Gordon R. England, den ehemaligen Vizepräsidenten von General Dynamics, für die Navy, James Roche von Northrop Grumman für die Luftwaffe oder Albert Smith, der ehemalige Vizepräsident von Lockheed Martin, den Rumsfeld zum stellvertretenden Staatssekretär für die Luftwaffe ernannt hat. Verbindungen gibt es auch über den für Army zuständigen Thomas E. White zu Enron.

Nachdem Verbindungen zu Enron mittlerweile ein heißes Eisen geworden sind, könnte White von Rumsfeld wegen seiner Unterstützung für das 11 Milliarden Dollar teure Crusader Artilleriesystem, das der Verteidigungsminister zugunsten anderer Waffensysteme nicht mehr haben will, in Ungnade fallen. Doch Crusader macht trotz der Ablehnung eine weitere Verflechtung deutlich (zumal das ja nur ein System von vielen ist, das von dem Rüstungsunternehmen für das Pentagon hergestellt und entwickelt wird). Entwickler ist der Rüstungskonzern United Defense Industries, der wiederum seit 1997 von der Carlyle-Gruppe kontrolliert wird, die u.a. bis Oktober des letztes Jahres auch in geschäftlichen Verbindungen zur bin-Ladin-Familie stand. Vorstand der Carlyle-Gruppe ist der ehemalige US-Verteidigungsminister Frank Carlucci, der ein alter Freund Rumsfelds ist und unter Ronald Reagan im Amt war. Aber bei Carlyle ist bekanntlich auch der Vater von Bush II tätig: als Berater - ausgerechnet für Asien.

Auch hier traten seltsame zeitliche Koinzidenzen auf. So schloss die Army zwei Wochen nach dem 11.9. mit United Defense einen Vertrag in Höhe von 665 Millionen Dollar für die Entwicklung des schon länger umstrittenen Crusader-Systems ab, im Dezember wurden vom Repräsentantenhaus 475 Millionen bewilligt. Just zu dieser Zeit ging Carlyle mit United Defense an die Börse. Durch den Verkauf von Anteilen verdiente die Gruppe 237 Millionen Dollar.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defense contractors General Dynamics Corp. and Northrop Grumman Corp. reported strong second-quarter growth yesterday, beating Wall Street expectations and capitalizing on increased defense spending.
Washington Post vom 18. Juli




Die Unternehmen, die hauptsächlich am Lieblingsprojekt von Bush jun., dem Aufbau des Raketenabwehrsystems (NMD), verdienen, sind Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon und TRW. Ein Viertel der vom Pentagon ausgegebenen Rüstungsgelder geht zu diesen Konzernen, beim NMD gar bis zu 70 Prozent. Bislang flossen in die Entwicklung des NMD-Systems, das ganz offenkundige Schwächen aufweist und möglicherweise niemals effizient funktionieren wird, 70 Milliarden US-Dollar. Vizepräsident Cheney war bei TRW Aufsichtsratmitglied, seine Frau sitzt noch im Aufsichtsrat von Lockheed Martin. Auch Präsident Bush hat gute Beziehungen zu Lockheed, hatte er doch als Gouverneur von Texas 1995 den Plan, das Wohlfahrtssystem zu privatisieren und Lockheed zu übergeben, woran er allerdings gescheitert ist. Für die Weiterentwicklung des NMD soll nun nach dem Willen des Pentagon die Kontrolle durch das Parlament gelockert werden. Und insgesamt strebt Rumsfeld an, eigenmächtiger handeln zu können. Die Kontrolle des Pentagon durch den Kongress sei eine "Last" und nicht "effizient". Gleichzeitig soll das Pentagon für das nächste Haushaltsjahr mit einem Budget von 355 Milliarden Dollar 30 Milliarden mehr als im letzten Jahr erhalten.


Der Fall Cheney oder wie Öl und der Krieg gegen den Terrorismus zusammenhängen

Aber zurück zu Vizepräsident Cheney, der als Verteidigungsminister unter dem Vater von Bush den Krieg gegen Panama und den Golfkrieg geführt hat. Die Militärs, allen voran der jetzige Außenminister und damalige Generalstabschef Colin Powell, hatten übrigens damals ebenso davon abgeraten, wie sie dies heute angesichts der Kriegspläne von Bush jun. machen. 1995 wurde Cheney zum Direktor des Ölkonzerns Halliburton (Hauptsitz in Dallas!), was er bis zu seiner Berufung in das Wahlkampfteam von Bush blieb. In dieser Zeit wurden unter seiner Leitung wohl, was vom SEC gerade untersucht werden soll, Bilanzfälschungen vorgenommen, die auf jeden Fall dem finanziellen Wohlergehen des Vizepräsidenten zugute gekommen sind. Als Direktor dürfte er in dieser Zeit jährlich über zwei Millionen Dollar verdient haben und war zugleich der größte Shareholder des Konzerns. 2000 verkaufte er für 20 Millionen Halliburton-Aktien, die restlichen soll er Stiftungen vermacht haben.

Zumindest hat Cheney als Verteidigungsminister bereits für eine geneigte Haltung ihm gegenüber bei Halliburton gesorgt. Die zu Halliburton gehörende Baufirma Kellogg, Brown & Root Services (KBR) wurde 1992 von ihm ausersehen, für 3,9 Millionen Dollar einen Bericht über Privatisierungsmöglichkeiten für die Logistik der Armee bei Auslandseinsätzen zu verfassen. BRS hat bereits in Vietnam Straßen, Landebahnen oder Militärstützpunkte gebaut. Noch im selben Jahr erhielt die Firma weitere 5 Millionen Dollar für den Bericht und schließlich einen über fünf Jahre sich erstreckenden Vertrag für die Kooperation mit dem US Army Corps of Engineering u.a. für Stützpunkte in Somalia (62 Millionen), in Bosnien (2,2 Milliarden) oder in Saudi-Arabien (5,1 Millionen). Als Cheney schließlich 1995 Direktor von Halliburton wurde, verdiente KBR jährlich 350 Millionen Dollar, vier Jahre später bereits 650 Millionen Dollar über das Pentagon. 1999 konnte ein weiterer 5-Jahres-Vertrag in Höhe von 730 Millionen für Versorgungsleistungen in Bosnien und im Kosovo abgeschlossen werden.

Es hat also zumindest Cheney nicht geschadet, Aufträge unter anderem an Halliburton zu vergeben, während er als Direktor des Unternehmens diesem wegen seiner guten Beziehungen zum Militär dienen konnte. Dabei sparte das Pentagon offenbar nicht unbedingt Geld, sondern die Dienste der Firma kosteten oft mehr, als wenn die Arbeit vom Militär selbst erledigt worden wäre, was auch vom General Accounting Office ( GAO) angemahnt wurde. Erst im Februar zahlte die Firma 2 Millionen, um einen Rechtsstreit mit dem Justizministerium beizulegen, bei dem es um Betrug bei der Schließung des kalifornischen Stützpunkts Fort Ord ging. Auch da dürfte die Nähe zu Cheney nicht geschadet haben.

Als Cheney Verteidigungsminister war, hatte er dazu beigetragen, Sanktionen gegen Libyen und nach dem Golfkrieg gegen den Irak durchzusetzen. Als Direktor von Halliburton wich diese "politische" Haltung, die er als erneuter Verteidigungsminister gegenüber dem alten feind wieder aufgefrischt hat, einer eher pragmatischen Einstellung. 1998 kritisierte er etwa, dass die USA zu sehr auf Sanktionen setzen, und versuchte auch, Ausnahmen für die Sanktionen gegen den Iran und Libyen zu erreichen. Schon 1995 wurde KBR zu einer Geldstrafe wegen der Verletzung der Sanktionen gegenüber Libyen verurteilt. Und wie andere US-Firmen auch, umging Halliburton über europäische Mittlerfirmen die Sanktionen gegenüber dem Irak und lieferte Technik, um die Ölförderanlagen Husseins zu modernisieren. Unter der Führung von Cheney war Halliburton der größte amerikanische Handelspartner des Irak und machte mit dem Land über zwei Mittlerfirmen Geschäfte in Höhe von 23 Millionen.

Cheney hatte als Geschäftsmann vielleicht mehr Glück als Bush II, der mit seiner Firma Pleite ging und mit dem Verkauf seiner Aktien nicht so viel Geld herausholen konnte. Allerdings kaufte Cheney 1998 für Halliburton die Dresser Industries, der nun gewaltige Schadensersatzforderungen von Angestellten wegen ihrer Asbestbelastung am Arbeitsplatz drohen. Nur gut, dass Cheney im August 2000 noch schnell seine Aktien verkaufte, bevor sie deswegen im Oktober erst einmal in den Keller stürzten. Doch KBR ist weiterhin eine Erfolgsstory, besonders nach dem 11. September.


Die kommunizierenden Kanäle zwischen geopolitischen, militärischen und finanziellen Interessen


Nach einem Bericht der New York Times ist KBR für die Navy und die Army der exklusive Versorger für Lebensmittel, Bauvorhaben, Energieversorgung und Treibstofftransport. Der erstaunliche Vertrag würde über 10 Jahre abgeschlossen - und enthält keinerlei Kostenobergrenze. Eine Lizenz also für das Erzeugen guter Profite auf Steuerkosten. Im Februar 2002 schloss KBR einen Vertrag mit der Navy über 16 Millionen Dollar zur Errichtung eines Gefangenenlagers mit 400 Zellen auf dem kubanischen Stützpunkt in Guantanamo Bay ab. Weitere 7 Millionen wurden dann im April für die Ausbauphase II bewilligt.

Für zwei Millionen baute KBR im November 2001 die Schutzmaßnahmen für die US-Botschaft in Taschkent aus. Auch für die Lebensmittelversorgung der amerikanischen Soldaten in Usbekistan ist die Firma zuständig, ebenso wie für einen Großteil des Betriebs des Luftwaffenstützpunkts in Khanabad, auch wenn dies 10 bis 20 Prozent mehr kostet, als wenn das Pentagon dies selbst machen würde. Überhaupt folgt KBR dem Krieg gegen den Terrorismus. Nachdem das Pentagon wieder einen Stützpunkt auf den Philippinen hat, werden in das Land nicht nur wieder Waffen geliefert, woran die Rüstungsindustrie auch verdient, sondern stellt man dort auch dort Soldaten für den Antiterrorismus-Kampf. KBR kann seit November für 100 Millionen Dollar einen ehemaligen Navy-Hafen zu einem kommerziellen Hafen umbauen. Im Dezember erhielt die Firma überdies einen 10-jährigen Vertrag ohne Kostengrenze zur Versorgung der Army mit bestimmten Leistungen in Kriegseinsätzen. Seit Mai 2002 versorgt KBR auch US-Stützpunkte in Afghanistan.

Man sollte bei all dem nicht vergessen, dass Halliburton natürlich großes Interesse daran hat, mit im Geschäft bei der Ausbeutung der Erdöl- und Erdgasvorräte in Zentralasien zu sein, vor allem in Usbekistan, also just da, wo bereits KBR tätig ist, und in Turkmenistan. Um diese Öl- und Gasressourcen ging es natürlich auch schon früher. Neben Enron ist hier auch der in die ganze Region viel Kapital investierende US-Konzern Chevron im Spiel, bei dem die jetzige Sicherheitsberaterin Condoleezza Rice, die früher auch unter Bush sen. tätig war, Direktorin und zuständig für Kasachstan gewesen ist. Chevron ist geschäftlich eng mit dem Konzern Halliburton verbunden, der wiederum Mitglied beim American Chamber of Commerce in Kasachstan ist. Cheney hatte hier überall seine Finger im Spiel. Im auch von Bush ausdrücklich geförderten Kaspischen Pipeline-Konsortium ist neben ExxonMobil vor allem ChevronTexaco beteiligt. Nach Bush geht es um den Bau mehrerer Pipelines für den Transport des Erdöls und Erdgases aus der Kaspischen Region, um die Energieversorgung der USA sicher zu stellen. Im November 2001 war die Pipeline von Tengis durch Kasachstan zum russischen Hafen Novorossiysk am Schwarzen Meer fertiggestellt.

Ein internationales Konsortium unter der Leitung des US-Konzerns Unocal plante eine Pipeline von Usbekistan und Turkmenistan durch Afghanistan nach Pakistan (als eine der Alternativen dachte man auch an eine Pipeline, die durch Georgien gehen sollte, wo sich im Augenblick auch die USA militärisch engagieren). Die Pläne wurden im Mai von den Regierungen Turkmenistans, Afghanistans und Pakistans wieder aufgenommen. Der afghanische Regierungspräsident Karsai hat zuvor bei Unocal als Berater gearbeitet, US-Präsident Bush ernannte Zalmay Khalilzad, ebenfalls Unocal-Mitarbeiter, zum amerikanischen Gesandten. Khalilzad, der auch schon unter Bush sen. für das Pentagon gearbeitet hat, verhandelte im Auftrag von Unocal mit dem Taliban-Regime über das Pipeline-Projekt.

Diese wenigen Verbindungen des Netzwerkes der Bush. Inc. berühren gerade die Oberfläche. Man könnte hier immer weiter in das Geflecht an Beziehungen und verwobenen Interessen eintauchen und allmählich paranoid werden ... Vielleicht wollen die amerikanischen Bürger, wenn sie nicht in Verschwörungstheorien landen, deswegen lieber gleich nichts davon wissen und halten sich patriotisch lieber nur an den Präsidenten, dem sie Ehrlichkeit und Vertrauenswürdigkeit attestieren.

[Joerver]

M.E. wird die Frage Krieg oder nicht Krieg in der Medienarbeit entschieden, und da ist die Desinformation sehr weit fortgeschritten. Es gibt in den letzten Wochen eine Gegenbewegung in den Zeitungen, aber das Fernsehen ist gleichgeschaltet.
J.


Zur Erinnerung.

Lobbyarbeit für den Krieg

Boris Kanzleiter 22.12.2002
Washingtons Rechtskonservative und Informationskrieger gründen "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq", um Unterstützung für Saddams Sturz zu mobilisieren

Während in der Öffentlichkeit der Widerstand gegen einen militärischen Sturz Saddam Husseins wächst und innerhalb der US-Armee Kommandeure der Bodentruppen einen lang anhaltenden Krieg fürchten, der zu hohen Verlusten der US-Truppen führen könnte, macht die Pro-Kriegs-Lobby in Washington mächtig Druck. Eine kleine, aber hochkarätige Gruppe von Lobbyisten der Rüstungsindustrie sowie erfahrene Informationskrieger haben ein Committee for the Liberation of Iraq ( CLI) gebildet, das in den kommenden Wochen "Unterstützung" für den Sturz Saddam Husseins"mobilisieren" soll, wie es in einer Erklärung heißt. Aktivitäten des CLI sollen "Veranstaltungen mit Meinungsmachern, Kontakte mit Journalisten und mass marketing" umfassen, schreibt die Washington Post.


Der Chef des Komitees, Bruce Jackson, und sein Exekutive Director, Randy Scheunemann, sind zentrale Figuren der rechtskonservativen Pressure Groups, die seit Jahren für einen Krieg gegen Irak Werbung machen. Die Linie des amtierenden Präsidenten George W. Bush im "Antiterrorkrieg" gilt ihnen als zu lasch.


Scheunemann und Jackson sind in der Vergangenheit unter anderem als Unterzeichner von Petitionen des rechtskonservativen Project for a New American Century ( PNAC) aufgefallen, in denen sie die Ausweitung des Krieges auf Syrien, Iran, Stellungen der Hisbollah in Libanon und die palästinensische Autonomiebehörde fordern. Mit dieser Position wissen sie sich einig mit dem einflussreichen "Sicherheitsberater" Richard Perle und anderen Mitgliedern des führenden neokonservativen Think Tank American Enterprise Institute ( AEI), das derzeit größeren Einfluss auf die US-Politik ausübt als jemals zuvor und mit Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld und Vizepräsident Dick Cheney Fürsprecher in der Bush-Administration sitzen hat. Bruce Jackson ist ein typischer Vertreter des militärisch-industriell-politischen Komplexes. Nach einer Karriere als Offizier des militärischen Geheimdienstes wechselte er 1993 zur Waffenschmiede Lockheed Martin Corporation, bei der er bis 2002 stellvertretender Präsident für Strategie und Planung war. Gleichzeitig betrieb Jackson als einer der Gründer des US Committee on NATO seit 1996 eine erfolgreiche "Bürgerkampagne" zur Überzeugung der Kongressabgeordneten für die damals in den US-Eliten umstrittene Osterweiterung des nordatlantischen Militärpaktes.

Randy Scheunemann ist ebenfalls alles andere als ein Newcomer. In den vergangenen Jahren beriet er die Top-Republikaner Bob Dole, John McCain und Trent Lott in "Sicherheitsfragen". 1998 arbeitete er den Iraq Liberation Act aus, mit dem Anti-Hussein Gruppen wie der Iraqi National Congress ( INC) finanziell unterstützt wurden. Im vergangenen Jahr arbeitete er mit US-Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld an einer Strategie für die Irak-Politik. Zuvor hatte Scheunemann in den 80er und 90er Jahren die Hotspots der US-Außenpolitik in El Salvador, Afghanistan und ex-Jugoslawien evaluiert.

In einer Einschätzung ordnet Jim Lobe von der regierungskritischen Studiengruppe Foreign Policy in Focus das CLI in die Reihe von Kampagnen und Organisationen ein, mit denen die extrem konservative Rechte in den USA seit Jahren erfolgreich Einfluss auf die Regierungspolitik nimmt. Beim CLI handele es sich um die Fortsetzung der Kampagnen gegen die Entspannungspolitik, Rüstungskontrollen, die linksgerichtete "Theologie der Befreiung" in der katholischen Kirche und für die Aufstandsbekämpfung in Zentralamerika in den 70er und 80er Jahren. Auch bei der Mobilisierung für den Golfkrieg 1991 war das Netzwerk, aus dem sich CLI rekrutiert, an führender Stelle aktiv, schreibt Lobe:

"In the lead-up to the Gulf War 11 years ago, many of the same individuals launched the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf (CPSG), co-chaired by Perle along with former New York Democratic Rep. Stephen Solarz. It worked closely with both the Bush Sr. administration in mobilizing support for the war, particularly in Congress, and with a second group financed by the Kuwaiti monarchy called Citizens for a Free Kuwait."

Den Citizens for a Free Kuwait gelang damals der entscheidende Propagandacoup für die Legitimation des US-Angriffs. Um die Öffentlichkeit zu emotionalisieren, hatten die Citizens im Herbst 1990 die Werbeagentur Hill & Knowlton engagiert ( Das Pentagon will für bessere Propaganda sorgen. Dieser gelang es, das 15-jährige Mädchen "Nayirah" unter Tränen vor dem Menschenrechtsausschuss des US-Kongresses über angebliche Gräueltaten irakischer Soldaten in Kuwait berichten zu lassen. Vor laufenden Fernsehkameras erzählte "Nayirah", wie Irakis Babys aus den Brutkästen eines Krankenhauses geholt und auf den Boden geworfen hätten.

Später stellte sich heraus, dass die Geschichte frei erfunden war und es sich bei "Nayirah" nicht um eine Krankenschwester aus Kuwait, sondern um die Tochter des kuwaitischen Botschafters in Washington handelte ( Es begann mit einer Lüge). Aber da war der Krieg schon vorbei.

[Joerver]

Steve Bell vom Guardian immer wieder boshaft

[Joerver]

Und wo ist Schröder?
Blair und Bush nur die "History`s B-List" ?


Want to be a world leader? Learn the vital five steps
Blair, Bush and even Saddam are unwittingly giving a masterclass in how to govern

Jonathan Freedland
Saturday March 15, 2003
The Guardian

Who needs the late-night, beard-and-sweaters brigade of the Open University? This week regular, pre-midnight television has been offering a highly educational course of its own. Spread across several evenings, it`s been asking one of the perennial political, and human, questions: what makes a great leader?

We`ve had Nelson Mandela on Wednesday, Margaret Thatcher on Thursday and Winston Churchill last night, as part of Andrew Roberts` TV seminar, Secrets of Leadership. And scattered throughout the schedule has been what OU lecturers might call a "contemporary module": examples of leadership practice from the here and now, with Tony Blair, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and even Saddam Hussein teaching their own, unwitting masterclass in the art. What emerges from both the past and former group is a veritable step-by-step guide for the would-be leader:

As with every quality on the list, the extreme exemplar is Mandela, who had the physical stamina to withstand 27 years on Robben Island, including long stretches of hard, stone-breaking labour. But all stand-out leaders have astonishing reserves of energy. Next week`s episode of ITV1`s Thatcher biography sees her former PA recall the PM`s preference for whisky and soda, rather than gin and tonic, to keep her up all night during the Falklands war. Churchill worked much the same way (though champagne also got the old bulldog through the dark hours). Tony Blair has impressed visitors with his fitness and zip, under the most unrelenting pressure. Leaders of this ilk don`t wilt under stress; they feed off it. A former cabinet secretary recalls Thatcher`s attitude to the arrival of a new set of papers, bringing another problem to solve. Far from sighing with overwork, "she`d grab at it". An exception to this rule might be the current US president. Bush is never in bed later than 11 - not even on September 11 - and sets aside whole chunks of the day for downtime: an hour for exercise, and a lunchbreak munching chicken salad and watching sports on TV.

Mandela never wavered in his determination to end apartheid, and could not be bought off with anything less. Churchill was convinced the appeasers were wrong and his certainty was rewarded with the keys to No 10. But such self-belief can be a mixed blessing. In the Falklands war, Thatcher was determined to go to war despite pressure from a Republican White House to give diplomacy one last chance (and they say nothing changes). Her obstinacy paid off with a famous military victory and an election landslide a year later. Eventually, though, that same overweening faith in her own instincts would lead to her downfall. "She`d been successful," says Geoffrey Howe now. "And that can make a leader intolerant of dissent and overconfident in their judgment." Is that process, which took more than 11 years in Thatcher`s case, now under way with Tony Blair? Aides say he has lost the hesitancy of his early years as PM: now he believes he has got it right so often, the key voice he should heed is his own. Whether future TV viewers will be told this was his greatest error, or the secret of his success, we should learn over the next few weeks.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. So says the old saw, the one that`s always quoted alongside, "Better to have them inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent and pissing in." Churchill understood that logic, fighting Hitler with a coalition cabinet which ranged from the pro-appeasement right to the Labour left: he even found room for the man he replaced, Neville Chamberlain. Thatcher began by following the rule too. In her first cabinet she was in a minority, outnumbered by "wets". The epitome of such inclusivity is Mandela. He and his ANC chums would have had every right to freeze out their old apartheid masters. Instead Mandela found a place for them. At his inauguration as president, he took the salute of a parade of white, bemedalled military chiefs - the very people who had inflicted such misery on him and his people. And, in the BBC biography`s most moving sequence, he even came to cheer the Springboks - that bastion of Afrikanerdom - as they competed in rugby`s world cup final. He even wore a Springbok jersey, "a white man`s shirt", for the occasion. Tony Blair`s daily decision-making is not quite of that emotional register, but his non-sacking of Clare Short is a nod toward inclusivity. According to the textbook, it could also be smart leadership.

Churchill and Mandela are the models, transforming themselves from mere politicians into human symbols. The hat, cane and cigar became motifs of British resistance against Nazism, while the very word "Mandela" served as apartheid`s antonym. Thatcher did not do badly in this department, her handbag briefly seen as an iconic bulwark against European federalism. In the current crisis, it is the leaders outside Britain who are coming closest to achieving such exalted status. Baffling as it may seem to outsiders, Americans have viewed George Bush with respect since 9/11, believing that he represents fairly well their determination to see off any threat. We can guess what most Iraqis think of Saddam Hussein, but many in the Arab world have long regarded him as the embodiment of the struggle to resist US domination. Still, the clear winner in this contest has to be Jacques Chirac. Twice in less than a year he has come to represent all France. In 2002`s presidential election, he won the support of everyone bar the far right, as the Stop Le Pen candidate. And now he leads a French mood united against war. The only leader to miss out? Tony Blair. He wins points for political bravery, daring to be completely at odds with public opinion, and for obstinacy - but as a national figurehead, just now Clare Short is nearer the mark.

The only note of criticism in the Mandela film came from a South African Aids campaigner. Mandela does plenty now to raise HIV awareness, said Judge Edwin Cameron, but he did all too little as president. He didn`t realise that, with apartheid ended, a new enemy loomed. "He didn`t face up to it," says Cameron. The best leaders are always fighting the new war, not the last one. Churchill understood that, spotting the emerging German threat and the new means - airpower - that would be needed to combat it. What of today? Blair sometimes seems to be refighting 1999`s Kosovo war, believing that moral arguments for intervention will win over a sceptical public and bring a rapid, relatively easy liberation. Meanwhile, Bush`s whole pursuit of Iraq can seem like a literal case of fighting the last war - a settling of scores left over from his father`s presidency. Others wonder if both Bush and Blair are not missing the real, present danger - al-Qaida - focusing instead on a much more traditional one from the past. Blair says the opposite: that the risk of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands represents the new menace. Perhaps he is right, and history will remember him as a 21st-century Churchill who saw the threat before anyone else. Or maybe this will be his big mistake, the one that consigns him to history`s B-list. And no one makes TV documentaries about them.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Global Candlelight Vigil for Peace: Sunday, March 16 -- 7:00 PM
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Robert Edgar, and other religious leaders call for candlelight vigils around the world on march 16th to say yes to peace -- and no to war
with Iraq.


http://www.moveon.org/vigil/


.

[Joerver]

Der Artikel aus dem New Yorker

LUNCH WITH THE CHAIRMAN
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?
Issue of 2003-03-17
Posted 2003-03-10
At the peak of his deal-making activities, in the nineteen-seventies, the Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, earning hundreds of millions in commissions and fees. Though never convicted of wrongdoing, he was repeatedly involved in disputes with federal prosecutors and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in recent years he has been in litigation in Thailand and Los Angeles, among other places, concerning allegations of stock manipulation and fraud. During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Khashoggi subsequently claimed that he lost ten million dollars that he had put up to obtain embargoed weapons for Iran which were to be bartered (with Presidential approval) for American hostages. The scandals of those times seemed to feed off each other: a congressional investigation revealed that Khashoggi had borrowed much of the money for the weapons from the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (B.C.C.I.), whose collapse, in 1991, defrauded thousands of depositors and led to years of inquiry and litigation.

Khashoggi is still brokering. In January of this year, he arranged a private lunch, in France, to bring together Harb Saleh al-Zuhair, a Saudi industrialist whose family fortune includes extensive holdings in construction, electronics, and engineering companies throughout the Middle East, and Richard N. Perle, the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, who is one of the most outspoken and influential American advocates of war with Iraq.

The Defense Policy Board is a Defense Department advisory group composed primarily of highly respected former government officials, retired military officers, and academics. Its members, who serve without pay, include former national-security advisers, Secretaries of Defense, and heads of the C.I.A. The board meets several times a year at the Pentagon to review and assess the country’s strategic defense policies.

Perle is also a managing partner in a venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P., which was registered in November, 2001, in Delaware. Trireme’s main business, according to a two-page letter that one of its representatives sent to Khashoggi last November, is to invest in companies dealing in technology, goods, and services that are of value to homeland security and defense. The letter argued that the fear of terrorism would increase the demand for such products in Europe and in countries like Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

The letter mentioned the firm’s government connections prominently: “Three of Trireme’s Management Group members currently advise the U.S. Secretary of Defense by serving on the U.S. Defense Policy Board, and one of Trireme’s principals, Richard Perle, is chairman of that Board.” The two other policy-board members associated with Trireme are Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State (who is, in fact, only a member of Trireme’s advisory group and is not involved in its management), and Gerald Hillman, an investor and a close business associate of Perle’s who handles matters in Trireme’s New York office. The letter said that forty-five million dollars had already been raised, including twenty million dollars from Boeing; the purpose, clearly, was to attract more investors, such as Khashoggi and Zuhair.



Perle served as a foreign-policy adviser in George W. Bush’s Presidential campaign—he had been an Assistant Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan—but he chose not to take a senior position in the Administration. In mid-2001, however, he accepted an offer from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to chair the Defense Policy Board, a then obscure group that had been created by the Defense Department in 1985. Its members (there are around thirty of them) may be outside the government, but they have access to classified information and to senior policymakers, and give advice not only on strategic policy but also on such matters as weapons procurement. Most of the board’s proceedings are confidential.

As chairman of the board, Perle is considered to be a special government employee and therefore subject to a federal Code of Conduct. Those rules bar a special employee from participating in an official capacity in any matter in which he has a financial interest. “One of the general rules is that you don’t take advantage of your federal position to help yourself financially in any way,” a former government attorney who helped formulate the Code of Conduct told me. The point, the attorney added, is to “protect government processes from actual or apparent conflicts.”

Advisory groups like the Defense Policy Board enable knowledgeable people outside government to bring their skills and expertise to bear, in confidence, on key policy issues. Because such experts are often tied to the defense industry, however, there are inevitable conflicts. One board member told me that most members are active in finance and business, and on at least one occasion a member has left a meeting when a military or an intelligence product in which he has an active interest has come under discussion.

Four members of the Defense Policy Board told me that the board, which met most recently on February 27th and 28th, had not been informed of Perle’s involvement in Trireme. One board member, upon being told of Trireme and Perle’s meeting with Khashoggi, exclaimed, “Oh, get out of here. He’s the chairman! If you had a story about me setting up a company for homeland security, and I’ve put people on the board with whom I’m doing that business, I’d be had”—a reference to Gerald Hillman, who had almost no senior policy or military experience in government before being offered a post on the policy board. “Seems to me this is at the edge of or off the ethical charts. I think it would stink to high heaven.”

Hillman, a former McKinsey consultant, stunned at least one board member at the February meeting when he raised questions about the validity of Iraq’s existing oil contracts. “Hillman said the old contracts are bad news; he said we should kick out the Russians and the French,” the board member told me. “This was a serious conversation. We’d become the brokers. Then we’d be selling futures in the Iraqi oil company. I said to myself, ‘Oh, man. Don’t go down that road.’” Hillman denies making such statements at the meeting.

Larry Noble, the executive director of the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research organization, said of Perle’s Trireme involvement, “It’s not illegal, but it presents an appearance of a conflict. It’s enough to raise questions about the advice he’s giving to the Pentagon and why people in business are dealing with him.” Noble added, “The question is whether he’s trading off his advisory-committee relationship. If it’s a selling point for the firm he’s involved with, that means he’s a closer—the guy you bring in who doesn’t have to talk about money, but he’s the reason you’re doing the deal.”

Perle’s association with Trireme was not his first exposure to the link between high finance and high-level politics. He was born in New York City, graduated from the University of Southern California in 1964, and spent a decade in Senate-staff jobs before leaving government in 1980, to work for a military-consulting firm. The next year, he was back in government, as Assistant Secretary of Defense. In 1983, he was the subject of a New York Times investigation into an allegation that he recommended that the Army buy weapons from an Israeli company from whose owners he had, two years earlier, accepted a fifty-thousand-dollar fee. Perle later acknowledged that he had accepted the fee, but vigorously denied any wrongdoing. He had not recused himself in the matter, he explained, because the fee was for work he had done before he took the Defense Department job. He added, “The ultimate issue, of course, was a question of procurement, and I am not a procurement officer.” He was never officially accused of any ethical violations in the matter. Perle served in the Pentagon until 1987 and then became deeply involved in the lobbying and business worlds. Among other corporate commitments, he now serves as a director of a company doing business with the federal government: the Autonomy Corporation, a British firm that recently won a major federal contract in homeland security. When I asked him about that contract, Perle told me that there was no possible conflict, because the contract was obtained through competitive bidding, and “I never talked to anybody about it.”



Under Perle’s leadership, the policy board has become increasingly influential. He has used it as a bully pulpit, from which to advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the use of preëmptive military action to combat terrorism. Perle had many allies for this approach, such as Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, but there was intense resistance throughout the bureaucracy—most notably at the State Department. Preëmption has since emerged as the overriding idea behind the Administration’s foreign policy. One former high-level intelligence official spoke with awe of Perle’s ability to “radically change government policy” even though he is a private citizen. “It’s an impressive achievement that an outsider can have so much influence, and has even been given an institutional base for his influence.”

Perle’s authority in the Bush Administration is buttressed by close association, politically and personally, with many important Administration figures, including Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy, who is the Pentagon’s third-ranking civilian official. In 1989, Feith created International Advisors Incorporated, a lobbying firm whose main client was the government of Turkey. The firm retained Perle as an adviser between 1989 and 1994. Feith got his current position, according to a former high-level Defense Department official, only after Perle personally intervened with Rumsfeld, who was skeptical about him. Feith was directly involved in the strategic planning and conduct of the military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan; he now runs various aspects of the planning of the Iraqi war and its aftermath. He and Perle share the same views on many foreign-policy issues. Both have been calling for Saddam Hussein’s removal for years, long before September 11th. They also worked together, in 1996, to prepare a list of policy initiatives for Benjamin Netanyahu, shortly after his election as the Israeli Prime Minister. The suggestions included working toward regime change in Iraq. Feith and Perle were energetic supporters of Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial leader of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress, and have struggled with officials at the State Department and the C.I.A. about the future of Iraq.

Perle has also been an outspoken critic of the Saudi government, and Americans who are in its pay. He has often publicly rebuked former American government officials who are connected to research centers and foundations that are funded by the Saudis, and told the National Review last summer, “I think it’s a disgrace. They’re the people who appear on television, they write op-ed pieces. The Saudis are a major source of the problem we face with terrorism. That would be far more obvious to people if it weren’t for this community of former diplomats effectively working for this foreign government.” In August, the Saudi government was dismayed when the Washington Post revealed that the Defense Policy Board had received a briefing on July 10th from a Rand Corporation analyst named Laurent Murawiec, who depicted Saudi Arabia as an enemy of the United States, and recommended that the Bush Administration give the Saudi government an ultimatum to stop backing terrorism or face seizure of its financial assets in the United States and its oil fields. Murawiec, it was later found, is a former editor of the Executive Intelligence Review, a magazine controlled by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., the perennial Presidential candidate, conspiracy theorist, and felon. According to Time, it was Perle himself who had invited Murawiec to make his presentation.



Perle’s hostility to the politics of the Saudi government did not stop him from meeting with potential Saudi investors for Trireme. Khashoggi and Zuhair told me that they understood that one of Trireme’s objectives was to seek the help of influential Saudis to win homeland-security contracts with the Saudi royal family for the businesses it financed. The profits for such contracts could be substantial. Saudi Arabia has spent nearly a billion dollars to survey and demarcate its eight-hundred-and-fifty-mile border with Yemen, and the second stage of that process will require billions more. Trireme apparently turned to Adnan Khashoggi for help.

Last month, I spoke with Khashoggi, who is sixty-seven and is recovering from open-heart surgery, at his penthouse apartment, overlooking the Mediterranean in Cannes. “I was the intermediary,” he said. According to Khashoggi, he was first approached by a Trireme official named Christopher Harriman. Khashoggi said that Harriman, an American businessman whom he knew from his jet-set days, when both men were fixtures on the European social scene, sent him the Trireme pitch letter. (Harriman has not answered my calls.) Khashoggi explained that before Christmas he and Harb Zuhair, the Saudi industrialist, had met with Harriman and Gerald Hillman in Paris and had discussed the possibility of a large investment in Trireme.

Zuhair was interested in more than the financial side; he also wanted to share his views on war and peace with someone who had influence with the Bush Administration. Though a Saudi, he had been born in Iraq, and he hoped that a negotiated, “step by step” solution could be found to avoid war. Zuhair recalls telling Harriman and Hillman, “If we have peace, it would be easy to raise a hundred million. We will bring development to the region.” Zuhair’s hope, Khashoggi told me, was to combine opportunities for peace with opportunities for investment. According to Khashoggi, Hillman and Harriman said that such a meeting could be arranged. Perle emerged, by virtue of his position on the policy board, as a natural catch; he was “the hook,” Khashoggi said, for obtaining the investment from Zuhair. Khashoggi said that he agreed to try to assemble potential investors for a private lunch with Perle.



The lunch took place on January 3rd at a seaside restaurant in Marseilles. (Perle has a vacation home in the South of France.) Those who attended the lunch differ about its purpose. According to both Khashoggi and Zuhair, there were two items on the agenda. The first was to give Zuhair a chance to propose a peaceful alternative to war with Iraq; Khashoggi said that he and Perle knew that such an alternative was far-fetched, but Zuhair had recently returned from a visit to Baghdad, and was eager to talk about it. The second, more important item, according to Khashoggi and Zuhair, was to pave the way for Zuhair to put together a group of ten Saudi businessmen who would invest ten million dollars each in Trireme.

“It was normal for us to see Perle,” Khashoggi told me. “We in the Middle East are accustomed to politicians who use their offices for whatever business they want. I organized the lunch for the purpose of Harb Zuhair to put his language to Perle. Perle politely listened, and the lunch was over.” Zuhair, in a telephone conversation with me, recalled that Perle had made it clear at the lunch that “he was above the money. He said he was more involved in politics, and the business is through the company”—Trireme. Perle, throughout the lunch, “stuck to his idea that ‘we have to get rid of Saddam,’” Zuhair said. As of early March, to the knowledge of Zuhair, no Saudi money had yet been invested in Trireme.

In my first telephone conversation with Gerald Hillman, in mid-February, before I knew of the involvement of Khashoggi and Zuhair, he assured me that Trireme had “nothing to do” with the Saudis. “I don’t know what you can do with them,” he said. “What we saw on September 11th was a grotesque manifestation of their ideology. Americans believe that the Saudis are supporting terrorism. We have no investment from them, or with them.” (Last week, he acknowledged that he had met with Khashoggi and Zuhair, but said that the meeting had been arranged by Harriman and that he hadn’t known that Zuhair would be there.) Perle, he insisted in February, “is not a financial creature. He doesn’t have any desire for financial gain.”

Perle, in a series of telephone interviews, acknowledged that he had met with two Saudis at the lunch in Marseilles, but he did not divulge their identities. (At that time, I still didn’t know who they were.) “There were two Saudis there,” he said. “But there was no discussion of Trireme. It was never mentioned and never discussed.” He firmly stated, “The lunch was not about money. It just would never have occurred to me to discuss investments, given the circumstances.” Perle added that one of the Saudis had information that Saddam was ready to surrender. “His message was a plea to negotiate with Saddam.”

When I asked Perle whether the Saudi businessmen at the lunch were being considered as possible investors in Trireme, he replied, “I don’t want Saudis as such, but the fund is open to any investor, and our European partners said that, through investment banks, they had had Saudis as investors.” Both Perle and Hillman stated categorically that there were currently no Saudi investments.

Khashoggi professes to be amused by the activities of Perle and Hillman as members of the policy board. As Khashoggi saw it, Trireme’s business potential depended on a war in Iraq taking place. “If there is no war,” he told me, “why is there a need for security? If there is a war, of course, billions of dollars will have to be spent.” He commented, “You Americans blind yourself with your high integrity and your democratic morality against peddling influence, but they were peddling influence.”



When Perle’s lunch with Khashoggi and Zuhair, and his connection to Trireme, became known to a few ranking members of the Saudi royal family, they reacted with anger and astonishment. The meeting in Marseilles left Perle, one of the kingdom’s most vehement critics, exposed to a ferocious counterattack.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who has served as the Saudi Ambassador to the United States for twenty years, told me that he had got wind of Perle’s involvement with Trireme and the lunch in Marseilles. Bandar, who is in his early fifties, is a prominent member of the royal family (his father is the defense minister). He said that he was told that the contacts between Perle and Trireme and the Saudis were purely business, on all sides. After the 1991 Gulf War, Bandar told me, Perle had been involved in an unsuccessful attempt to sell security systems to the Saudi government, “and this company does security systems.” (Perle confirmed that he had been on the board of a company that attempted to make such a sale but said he was not directly involved in the project.)

“There is a split personality to Perle,” Bandar said. “Here he is, on the one hand, trying to make a hundred-million-dollar deal, and, on the other hand, there were elements of the appearance of blackmail—‘If we get in business, he’ll back off on Saudi Arabia’—as I have been informed by participants in the meeting.”

As for Perle’s meeting with Khashoggi and Zuhair, and the assertion that its purpose was to discuss politics, Bandar said, “There has to be deniability, and a cover story—a possible peace initiative in Iraq—is needed. I believe the Iraqi events are irrelevant. A business meeting took place.”



Zuhair, however, was apparently convinced that, thanks to his discussions with Trireme, he would have a chance to enter into a serious discussion with Perle about peace. A few days after the meeting in Paris, Hillman had sent Khashoggi a twelve-point memorandum, dated December 26, 2002, setting the conditions that Iraq would have to meet. “It is my belief,” the memorandum stated, “that if the United States obtained the following results it would not go to war against Iraq.” Saddam would have to admit that “Iraq has developed, and possesses, weapons of mass destruction.” He then would be allowed to resign and leave Iraq immediately, with his sons and some of his ministers.

Hillman sent Khashoggi a second memorandum a week later, the day before the lunch with Perle in Marseilles. “Following our recent discussions,” it said, “we have been thinking about an immediate test to ascertain that Iraq is sincere in its desire to surrender.” Five more steps were outlined, and an ambitious final request was made: that Khashoggi and Zuhair arrange a meeting with Prince Nawaf Abdul Aziz, the Saudi intelligence chief, “so that we can assist in Washington.”

Both Khashoggi and Zuhair were skeptical of the memorandums. Zuhair found them “absurd,” and Khashoggi told me that he thought they were amusing, and almost silly. “This was their thinking?” he recalled asking himself. “There was nothing to react to. While Harb was lobbying for Iraq, they were lobbying for Perle.”

In my initial conversation with Hillman, he said, “Richard had nothing to do with the writing of those letters. I informed him of it afterward, and he never said one word, even after I sent them to him. I thought my ideas were pretty clear, but I didn’t think Saddam would resign and I didn’t think he’d go into exile. I’m positive Richard does not believe that any of those things would happen.” Hillman said that he had drafted the memorandums with the help of his daughter, a college student. Perle, for his part, told me, “I didn’t write them and didn’t supply any content to them. I didn’t know about them until after they were drafted.”

The views set forth in the memorandums were, indeed, very different from those held by Perle, who has said publicly that Saddam will leave office only if he is forced out, and from those of his fellow hard-liners in the Bush Administration. Given Perle’s importance in American decision-making, and the risks of relying on a deal-maker with Adnan Khashoggi’s history, questions remain about Hillman’s drafting of such an amateurish peace proposal for Zuhair. Prince Bandar’s assertion—that the talk of peace was merely a pretext for some hard selling—is difficult to dismiss.

Hillman’s proposals, meanwhile, took on an unlikely life of their own. A month after the lunch, the proposals made their way to Al Hayat, a Saudi-owned newspaper published in London. If Perle had ever intended to dissociate himself from them, he did not succeed. The newspaper, in a dispatch headlined “washington offers to avert war in return for an international agreement to exile saddam,” characterized Hillman’s memorandums as “American” documents and said that the new proposals bore Perle’s imprimatur. The paper said that Perle and others had attended a series of “secret meetings” in an effort to avoid the pending war with Iraq, and “a scenario was discussed whereby Saddam Hussein would personally admit that his country was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction and he would agree to stop trying to acquire these weapons while he awaits exile.”

A few days later, the Beirut daily Al Safir published Arabic translations of the memorandums themselves, attributing them to Richard Perle. The proposals were said to have been submitted by Perle, and to “outline Washington’s future visions of Iraq.” Perle’s lunch with two Saudi businessmen was now elevated by Al Safir to a series of “recent American-Saudi negotiations” in which “the American side was represented by Richard Perle.” The newspaper added, “Publishing these documents is important because they shed light on the story of how war could have been avoided.” The documents, of course, did nothing of the kind.

When Perle was asked whether his dealings with Trireme might present the appearance of a conflict of interest, he said that anyone who saw such a conflict would be thinking “maliciously.” But Perle, in crisscrossing between the public and the private sectors, has put himself in a difficult position—one not uncommon to public men. He is credited with being the intellectual force behind a war that not everyone wants and that many suspect, however unfairly, of being driven by American business interests. There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war. In doing so, he has given ammunition not only to the Saudis but to his other ideological opponents as well.

[Joerver]

Bush vs. the World
Why Washington can’t go it alone

By Ian Williams | 3.14.03 print | email | comment


©2003 Ralph Steadman


George W. Bush has offered the United Nations two choices. Either enough Security Council members can be bribed and bullied into acquiescing to the invasion of Iraq the Americans have been so consistently threatening, or the Security Council can refuse to give him and chum Tony Blair the resolution the latter so desperately wants—and Bush will go ahead and invade anyway. Both options lead to U.N. irrelevance.

Kofi Annan cautiously warned that “if the U.S. and others were to go outside the Council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the Charter.” But such protestations were never likely to cut mustard with the White House, whose officials had publicly declared their disdain for the organization and the U.N. Charter as they slithered on the fringes of politics long before becoming the mainstream. Their only interest in a U.N. resolution has been to use its outcome to further weaken the organization. Until opposition in the Turkish parliament showed how useful a U.N. resolution could be, the president was interested only insofar as Blair faces regime change himself without a vote.

For different reasons, many leftists and liberals will be equally disillusioned with the United Nations. But the organization is a reflection of the real world. First, it is not a pacifist organization. Its founders would have been very dubious about the efficacy of Gandhian tactics against the Nazis. The organization was founded to maintain the status quo and to make sure there would not be another world war.

That does not mean the small wars should be overlooked. The founders were well aware of how small wars could quickly escalate, and their contemporaries saw a clear line from the occupations of Czechoslovakia, Manchuria and Abyssinia to the worldwide conflict that followed. So the U.N. Charter contains specifications calling for massive military force to be used against any aggressor. Oddly enough, the closest it came to acting that part was when Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait.

Similarly, the notion that each state is equal is a polite fiction. Not even in the most idealist dreams of its planners did anyone think that Nauru, population 15,000, was really equal to China. Hence the Security Council with its 15 members, five of whom are permanent and hold veto power. The veto is very undemocratic. So is reality.

Indeed, the less powerful countries use their vetoes either symbolically or only to defend their close state interests. So in part, the reluctance of Russia and France to declare a veto from the outset of their resistance to Bush’s accelerated war plans was the awareness that it did not reflect the reality of the 21st century. The United States could stop them taking action, but they could not stop Washington, short of unleashing World War III. Neither of them was going to risk national suicide on behalf of Saddam Hussein—who both all but admit has been cheating and defying the weapons inspectors.

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

After a war, will the United Nations be seen as irrelevant and ineffectual? Perhaps by both sides. But the institution is too useful to everyone for it to wither on the vine. It survived its ineffectiveness during Rwanda, when a U.S. veto stopped the peace keepers from being reinforced during the massacres. It outlasted Bosnia, when it was accused of being an “accomplice to genocide” in the face of studied U.S. refusal to commit military power until forced by the Srebrenica massacre. In Kosovo, although President Clinton vetoed British attempts to get a U.N. resolution authorizing intervention, he still needed the United Nations to legitimize the occupation and the administration after the war.

Despite the diehard opposition to multilateralism from almost everyone in the administration but Colin Powell, Washington will try hard to get retrospective U.N. endorsement of any occupation of Iraq—regardless of whether the invasion receives any sanction. After all, in the Alice in Wonderland world of White House logic, the official reason for invasion is to force Iraq to abide by U.N. resolutions—regardless of whether the United Nations wants it!

Of course, that would be a bitter pill for the unilateralists around the White House to swallow, but reality, in the form of money, is more likely to impinge upon their planning any nebulous notions of international legality. In the end, facing a deficit of avalanche proportions boosted by the direct costs of the war and the economic uncertainty it has engendered, the White House will still have to pay for the occupation. Under the Geneva Conventions, that is more than just paying the troops: The occupying power must maintain all essential services. If there is to be the slightest chance of getting the European Union and Japan to assume any proportion of the costs, they will need a U.N. mandate, not a vice-regal order from Rumsfeld or Cheney.

In addition, the only feasible way to stop mass starvation will be to continue the “oil for food” program, which depends on the expertise of the United Nations and its liaison with local Iraqi officials, not to mention the other U.N. agencies with experience in massive relief operations. Without too much cynicism, we can predict that the part of the French and Russian opposition that depended upon access to Iraqi oil could be muted by an international administration that gave them a pipe in the trough.

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

On the other hand, if Washington wants to permanently sideline the United Nations, as various spokesmen have threatened, they face a serious problem. The only effective institution they have to use would be NATO—which they have already seriously weakened by treating some of its most important members like unruly satellites. Their most effective military ally, England, may not be so reliable after the Labour Party, the British electorate, and even the military and Foreign Office professionals are finished with Tony Blair. The only other significant U.S. military ally is Turkey, no less than 94 percent of whose population opposed the Iraq war the last time anyone bothered to ask them.

Any such U.S. abdication may further transform the United Nations into an alliance against overweening American power that is beginning to form among Russia, China and the major Europeans. No one is in a position to pose a military threat to the United States, and no one is stupid enough to threaten it. But with the U.S. economy in a precarious state, these allies could make more concerted decisions on trade and finance, and would have less tendency to go along with Bush’s subsequent adventures in Iran and North Korea.

If the United States tries going solo as a global cop, it is in deep trouble. Already, as a result of its actions toward Iraq, Washington has postponed or aborted a solution to the Cyprus problem as a sop to the Turkish military. It has given Ariel Sharon a free hand to confirm all the rumors that Washington is running an anti-Muslim crusade. It still hasn’t found Osama bin Laden or stabilized Afghanistan, yet Undersecretary of State John Bolton is promising the Israelis that Washington will deal next with Iran, North Korea and Syria. (In the past, he also has mentioned Cuba and Libya.) It’s a tough job to clean up the world on your own, especially when your clumsiness has you kicking over the diplomatic bucket all the time.

Reality will force the United States to stay involved in the United Nations, but the organization alone won’t stop U.S. unilateralism and exceptionalism. That remedy has to be found here at home.


http://inthesetimes.com/index.php

[Joerver]

Ich halte weder einen Vergleich von Hitler mit Saddam noch mit Bush für erlaubt, obwohl manche Kriegsbefürworter genauso argumentieren.
J.

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2003
Chicago Trib drops Muwakkil`s column for "a different voice"
Chicago Reader
Chicago Tribune editorial-page editor Bruce Dold says he deleted this passage from Salim Muwakkil`s Feb. 10 column: "Adolf Hitler justified the Nazi invasion and occupation of parts of Europe as a benign move to protect them from Britain`s imperial tyranny. The Nazis called it Lebensraum. We call it `pre-emptive self-defense.`" Dold tells Michael Miner: "The column misapplied the term [lebensraum, which means "living space"], and in attempting to link U.S. policy to Hitler`s invasion, had an exceedingly narrow explanation of Hitler`s justification for the invasion." Muwakkil has been dropped as a columnist, but Dold says it`s not because of the Feb. 10 essay. "I had been thinking about it for some time," he says. (Second column item.)
> "I used to pinch myself in amazement that I was doing this" (low) (CT)
Posted at 9:29:03 AM



http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=24809

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/showcase/chi-0303060061ma…

[Joerver]

`Bush Wins`: The Left`s Nightmare Scenario
Mark LeVine, AlterNet
March 13, 2003
Viewed on March 15, 2003

As the American-imposed deadline for Iraqi "disarmament" approaches, the antiwar movement seems to be counting on one of two scenarios to frustrate the plans of the Bush Administration.


The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit.


However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration`s imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States` policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."


In this third scenario, the war is over quickly with relatively low U.S. casualties, some sort of mechanism for transitional rule is put in place, and President Bush and his policies gain unprecedented power and prestige. From my recent conversations with organizers and their latest pronouncements, it is clear that this possibility has yet to be addressed. Waiting much longer could spell disaster for the antiwar movement.


We can holler all we want about the history of U.S. experiments in imposed and/or frustrated democracies around the world (especially in the Middle East, where the record is uniformly negative), but the first Gulf War and now Afghanistan have taught us that the propaganda only has to work until the bombing ends, at which point the American public dutifully returns to its regularly scheduled programming until otherwise disturbed.


In such a scenario, especially if there is no major upsurge in domestic terrorism, the antiwar movement will find itself publicly discredited and politically marginalized; remember the Y2K dooms-dayers? There is little reason to assume most Americans won`t re-focus on "American Idol," "Are You Hot?" and that other March Madness, leaving it to President Bush to figure out how to rule over a 6,000-year-old civilization 8,000 miles away.


That the medium-term economic and military impact of the war and Bush`s other policies might prove his (like his father`s) ultimate undoing is besides the point. If the movement doesn`t move with full effort to lay the groundwork for a Bush Wins scenario the massive organizing and consciousness raising of the last year could well prove fleeting, forcing the movement to start from scratch in mobilizing public opinion a year or two down the road when the chickens of an over-extended empire come home to roost.


In order to prevent such an eventuality, the movement needs to work overtime now to inoculate the American people against what the Carnegie Endowment for Peace has already labeled the "mirage" of democracy that will likely be planted in Iraq after a short war. It is not enough to press the General Assembly to vote for a "Uniting for Peace" procedure to condemn the upcoming invasion, or for people to sign the Iraq Pledge of Resistance; what are we going to say when Bush and Blair parade Hussein or his generals before war crimes tribunals? That we don`t have jurisdiction to try them? Or when "elections" are held, are we going to say they`re not legitimate?


The history of U.S. failure to impose even an active subterfuge of democracy in the developing world, from Central America to Afghanistan, needs to be detailed explicitly and continuously. But we also need to be more assertive in putting forth a positive alternative to war to remove Hussein, a man whose presence is a major impediment to peace, justice and development for Iraqis and the entire region. Why must we leave it to Bush and Blair to make this point and lay out a plan to democratize Iraq and the region at large?


Sadly, based on the inability of the majority of organizations involved in the movement to foreground Hussein`s crimes along with U.S. imperial strategies (as if the two aren`t intimately related), the prognosis for a proactive discourse is not positive. Too many of us seem strangely unwilling to acknowledge publicly either how brutal Hussein`s rule has been, or that his removal from power and facing justice would in fact be good things.


That a Bush invasion is not the way to achieve this, or that other countries and leaders -- yes, including Israel -- are engaged in brutal and large-scale oppression, does not mean that his crimes should be ignored or that he should ever again have full sway over the Iraqi people. God forbid.


Yet when a meeting of antiwar organizers in Cairo last December had the moral temerity to "admit" only to "restrictions on democratic development in Iraq" in comparison to Israeli and American crimes, doesn`t anyone remember the genocidal Anfal of 1988, where upwards of 100,000 Kurds were killed in Iraq? We see how easy it will be for President Bush to seize the high ground by focusing on Hussein`s crimes and supposedly protecting Israel, especially once a successful invasion reveals documentation of the extent of his crimes against his own people.


Even more discouraging, when I asked a senior organizer why the movement doesn`t expand the focus of protests to include regimes like Sudan`s, which is prosecuting a decade-long war of slavery and genocide, she replied that she feared President Bush would agree with protesters, and use their arguments as a pretext to invade Sudan next. If a self-styled global peace and justice movement refuses to focus on any conflict not implicating the United States for fear that highlighting a regime`s crimes would serve as a pretext for yet another U.S. invasion, then we have arrived at an unprecedented, Orwellian level of self-censorship.


I am not alone in this line of thinking, by the way, as I`ve received complaints from senior colleagues with ties to the major alternative media/news organizations and antiwar groups about the lack of serious consideration of how to prepare for a Bush Wins scenario. Because the reality is that if the war is quick and a U.S.-occupation established effectively, progressive forces need to accept the removal of Hussein as a great opportunity to build democracy and justice in Iraq, whatever the actual motives of the Bush Administration.


The social and political forces unleashed by the end of decades of Hussein`s murderous rule will not easily be penned in by a US-sponsored show-democracy; but whether these forces use a reopened public sphere or turn to violence to respond to the likely betrayal depends in good measure on how adroitly the world progressive community can lay fast but deep roots in Iraq.


Interestingly, while the organizers of the antiwar movement are not paying enough attention to the ramifications of a war that follows President Bush`s script, their constituents, the thousands of students whose energy and devotion are driving the movement, are full of ideas on how to proceed in such an eventuality.


At a recent teach-in I asked students at my campus what they would suggest the antiwar movement do in the "Bush Wins" scenario, and received numerous insightful suggestions. While some, such as engaging in a massive education drive coupled with stepped up civil disobedience, are also being planned by the movement at large, perhaps the most important steps were felt to be "changing our image, rhetoric and discourse to adjust to the new political situation," while refocusing on the larger world systems which have produced toxic conflicts such as Iraq, Sudan, Colombia and the Congo. In other words, taking steps toward a more holistic approach to peace and justice.


The antiwar movement would do well to heed their advice. Tyranny or empire should not be the only two choices offered Iraqis, or the rest of the world.


Mark LeVine, Ph.D., spent six years recently researching and reporting from the Middle East, including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey. He is an assistant professor in the History Department at the University of California at Irvine.




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

© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

« Go Back

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Deutsche Soldaten für Irak-Friedenstruppe

Offiziell hält die Bunderegierung an ihrer Hoffnung fest, den Irak-Krieg noch vermeiden zu können. Doch hinter den Kulissen wird laut Informationen des SPIEGEL eine Beteiligung am Wiederaufbau vorbereitet. Demnach sind in Berlin Hilfsprogramme und der Einsatz von bis zu 1000 Soldaten im Gespräch - falls die Uno das wünscht und finanziert.

Berlin - Beim Wiederaufbau eines kriegszerstörten Irak will die Bundesregierung tatkräftig helfen - sogar mit Soldaten. Das wurde zwar vergangene Woche in Berlin nicht offiziell bestätigt, da die Koalition den Eindruck vermeiden will, sie habe sich mit einem Krieg unter US-Führung abgefunden und alle Hoffnung auf eine friedliche Lösung begraben.

Intern ist aber bereits von einem Hilfsprogramm der Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau die Rede sowie dem möglichen Einsatz von bis zu 1000 Soldaten für eine Friedenstruppe. Es komme jedoch darauf an, wer um die Hilfe bitte: Sollten die Vereinten Nationen entsprechende Ersuchen stellen, könnte Berlin sich dem "schwerlich entziehen", gab ein Kabinettsmitglied zu bedenken.

Die Bundeswehr könne die nötigen Soldaten trotz der Einsätze zwischen Balkan und Hindukusch wohl noch aufbieten, die Bagdad-Mission müsse jedoch aus der Uno-Kasse finanziert werden. Forderungen der USA, die Nato solle sich auf Wiederaufbau und Friedenstruppen vorbereiten, hatte Rot-Grün dagegen in den vergangenen Monaten strikt abgelehnt.




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

© DER SPIEGEL 12/2003
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG

[Joerver]

DER SPIEGEL 12/2003 - 17. März 2003
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,240443,00.html
Interview mit Theologen Küng

"Ein Präventivkrieg ist unmoralisch"

Der katholische Theologe Hans Küng hält einen Krieg gegen den Irak für ethisch verwerflich und fürchtet, dass die USA dabei humanitäre Regeln verletzten. Im SPIEGEL-Interview spricht er über George W. Bushs "Bekehrungserlebnis", die Übermacht der christlichen Rechten in den USA - und die Politik seines Freundes Tony Blair.

SPIEGEL: Herr Professor Küng, vor zwölf Jahren hat der SPIEGEL mit Ihnen, zwei Muslimen und zwei Juden darüber diskutiert, ob sich die monotheistischen Weltreligionen auf ein gemeinsames Ethos als Bedingung eines weltweiten Friedens einigen könnten. Damals standen wir unter dem Eindruck des zweiten Golfkriegs, Sie waren trotzdem ziemlich optimistisch. Nun steht der nächste Nahost-Krieg bevor. Aus der Traum vom Frieden auf Erden?

Hans Küng
Hans Küng widmet sich seit mehr als zehn Jahren seiner Vision vom Frieden. 1990 gründete der katholische Theologe, der zu den bekanntesten Vertretern seiner Kirche gehört, in Tübingen das "Projekt Weltethos". Seine These: Alle Menschen, Gläubige wie Atheisten, können sich auf ethische Grundstandards verständigen, die den Frieden unter den Nationen und Religionen sichern. Küng fand international - bei der Uno, bei Politikern und Religionsführern - Zustimmung. Mit dem Vatikan, der ihm 1979 wegen seiner Kritik am päpstlichen Unfehlbarkeitsdogma die kirchliche Lehrerlaubnis entzog, liegt er aber nach wie vor im Clinch. Am 19. März wird Küng 75 Jahre alt.



Küng: Es ist keine Frage, dass wir in einer hochdramatischen Situation leben, auch für die Religionen. Ich bin schon froh, dass die Religionen nicht diejenigen sind, die die Irak-Krise anheizen. Immerhin: Es gibt, vermutlich erstmals, eine Einheitsfront gegen den Krieg - vom Papst und dem Erzbischof von Canterbury über den Weltrat der Kirchen zum US-Kirchenrat. Ich bin sicher, dass auch die Mehrzahl der islamischen Führer und die aufgeschlossenen Rabbiner auf unserer Seite sind.

SPIEGEL: Aber aus unterschiedlichen Motiven. Auch die islamistische al-Qaida ist gegen diesen Krieg.

Küng: Es gibt in jeder Religion relativ kleine fanatische Gruppen, die aber sehr großen Einfluss haben, das ist im Weißen Haus nicht anders.

SPIEGEL: Sie stellen die Fundamentalisten im Weißen Haus und die Qaida-Leute auf eine Stufe?

Küng: Nein, natürlich nicht. Das sind ja sozusagen hochanständige Christenmenschen, die im Weißen Haus als Berater und Redenschreiber Zugang haben, während die Qaida eine verbrecherische Organisation ist.

SPIEGEL: Warum sind Sie dagegen, Saddam Hussein mit Gewalt zu beseitigen?

Küng: Dass ich der Erste bin, der sich freut, wenn dieses Regime wegkommt, ist keine Frage. Saddam ist ein blutrünstiger Tyrann, der sein Volk seit Jahrzehnten unterdrückt. Aber es geht darum, ob ein Krieg zur Beseitigung dieses Diktators legitim ist. Außerdem sollte man nicht vergessen: Diejenigen, die jetzt die größten Kriegstreiber sind, haben ihm zur Macht verholfen.

SPIEGEL: Aber deshalb muss Saddam ja nicht ewig an der Macht bleiben.

Küng: Wird er auch nicht. Doch bin ich als Theologe aus Überzeugung gegen diesen Krieg. Nach klassischer theologischer Lehre müssen sechs Kriterien erfüllt sein, um einen Krieg zu rechtfertigen.

SPIEGEL: Und das sind?

Küng: Das erste Kriterium ist der gerechte Grund. Eine bloß im Entstehen vermutete Bedrohung ist eben kein Kriegsgrund. Ein Präventivkrieg auf Verdacht hin ist völkerrechtswidrig und unmoralisch.

Das zweite Kriterium ist die ehrliche Absicht. Beseitigung der Massenvernichtungswaffen? Nein, jetzt sogar Regimewechsel. In Wirklichkeit wollen sie im Nahen Osten ihr Konzept eines weltweit agierenden US-Imperiums durchsetzen.

Drittes Kriterium ist die Verhältnismäßigkeit. Man kann doch nicht wegen der Beseitigung eines menschenverachtenden Diktators eine humanitäre Katastrophe mit Tausenden Toten und Hunderttausenden Flüchtlingen in Kauf nehmen. Wenn sie schon Saddam Hussein stürzen wollen, dann müssen sie mindestens ebenso gegen Kim Jong Il in Nordkorea vorgehen, der im Grunde viel gefährlicher ist.

SPIEGEL: Man könnte dem entgegnen: Irgendwo muss ein Anfang gemacht werden. Und von Saddam Hussein geht sicherlich eine große Bedrohung aus, er ist eine Gefahr für seine eigenen Staatsbürger und für Nachbarstaaten. Das hat er bewiesen im Krieg gegen Iran, bei der Besetzung Kuweits und bei seinem Feldzug gegen die Kurden.

Küng: Das war vor mehr als zehn Jahren. Man soll diese Bedrohung nicht überschätzen. Der Irak ist heute wesentlich schwächer als im Golfkrieg und nach Aussage von Donald Rumsfelds Vorgänger William Cohen keine Bedrohung für seine Nachbarn.

SPIEGEL: Und Ihre restlichen drei Kriterien?

Küng: Das vierte ist die bevollmächtigte Instanz. Das ist, nachdem niemand angegriffen wurde und auch keine unmittelbare Bedrohung besteht, allein der Weltsicherheitsrat. Fünftens muss der Krieg Ultima Ratio sein, das letzte Mittel, um ein Übel zu beseitigen. Es lässt sich aber nicht bestreiten, dass eine Eindämmung Saddams ohne Krieg möglich wäre, mit einem genauen Zeit- und Arbeitsplan für die Uno-Inspektoren und ständiger Überwachung.

Und schließlich Kriterium Nummer sechs: Das internationale Völkerrecht muss eingehalten werden. Nach den Erfahrungen des Afghanistan-Kriegs besteht keine Garantie, dass die Amerikaner die humanitären Regeln achten. Siehe die menschenunwürdige Behandlung der Kriegsgefangenen in Ketten und Käfigen in Guantanamo auf Kuba. Amerikanische Soldaten sollen beim Massenmord an etwa 3000 Kriegsgefangenen durch afghanische Truppen anwesend gewesen sein. Alle sechs Kriterien müssen erfüllt sein, um einen Krieg zu rechtfertigen. Faktisch ist kein einziges erfüllt. Krieg gegen den Irak ist daher unmoralisch.

SPIEGEL: Besser hätte der Papst es auch nicht formulieren können.

Küng: Ja, da stimme ich mit ihm überein.

SPIEGEL: Hört der Papst auf Sie, oder hören Sie jetzt auf den Papst?

Küng: Ich habe mich stets gefreut, dass Ideen über Weltreligionen, Weltfrieden und Weltethos, die ich schon seit zwei Jahrzehnten vertrete, auch vom Papst vertreten werden. Meine Kontroverse mit ihm beschränkt sich auf innerkirchliche Angelegenheiten.

SPIEGEL: Sie haben vom Papst eine "spektakuläre Aktion" gefordert. Sollte er jetzt noch nach Bagdad fahren?

Küng: Wenn ich wüsste, dass das noch mehr helfen würde als die ausgesandten päpstlichen Legaten, wäre ich sofort dafür.

SPIEGEL: Den amerikanischen Präsidenten würde das vermutlich wenig beeindrucken. Der Christ Bush lässt sich nicht beirren, obwohl seine Glaubensgenossen, die Methodisten, zu den Kritikern seines Irak-Kurses gehören. Was treibt diesen Mann um?

Küng: Bush hatte mit 40 Jahren als Alkoholiker ein Bekehrungserlebnis, das ihn zu Gott geführt hat. Er ist überzeugt: Wenn er das nicht gehabt hätte, wäre er wieder dem Alkohol verfallen. Er glaubt, auch zur Präsidentschaft sei er von Gott berufen. Er macht Außenpolitik mit der Autorität Gottes im Rücken. Bestärkt wird er darin von christlichen Fundamentalisten, denen er zum großen Teil seinen Wahlsieg zu verdanken hat.

SPIEGEL: Ist Bush selber Fundamentalist?

Küng: Ich glaube, man muss ihn in diesem politischen Sinn als Fundamentalisten bezeichnen. Andere in seiner Administration sicher nicht. Richard Cheney und Rumsfeld sind kühle Machtpolitiker. Wichtig ist auch die Israel-Lobby im Hintergrund: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Ari Fleischer und Freunde Scharons auch von der christlichen Rechten.

SPIEGEL: Offenbar sind die Fundamentalisten, egal ob im Christentum oder im Islam, die Hauptgegner Ihres Projekts Weltethos.

Küng: Nur die gewalttätigen Fundamentalisten. Es gibt Millionen andere, die überhaupt nicht gewalttätig sind.

SPIEGEL: Aber zum Wesen des Fundamentalismus gehört die Intoleranz. Und die führt zur Gewalt. Siehe die Geschichte des Christentums.

Küng: Nicht zwangsläufig. Ich habe beim diesjährigen Weltwirtschaftsforum in Davos den türkischen Ministerpräsidenten Tayyip Erdogan gehört. Er tritt ehrlich für islamische Toleranz und Demokratie ein. Hoffentlich treibt ihn Bush nicht in einen verhängnisvollen Krieg mit den Kurden.

SPIEGEL: Und Ihr Freund Tony Blair? Der britische Premier hat vor zweieinhalb Jahren in Tübingen einen Vortrag über die Umsetzung des von Ihnen propagierten Weltethos in konkrete Politik gehalten. In Sachen Irak ist er neben Bush der sturste Hardliner. Ist Blair zum gewalttätigen Fundamentalisten mutiert?

Küng: Dies nicht. Doch bin ich enttäuscht, dass er von vornherein auf die Linie der Bush-Administration eingeschwenkt ist. Er war ehrlich davon überzeugt, dass er Präsident Bush bremsen könne, und hat dafür gewirkt, dass der Sicherheitsrat eingeschaltet wird. Ich habe Tony Blair meine Bedenken in einem freundschaftlichen Brief ausgedrückt. Und er hat erfreulicherweise bei aller Hektik Zeit gefunden, mir in einer handschriftlichen Antwort seine Position zu erläutern. Und wenn ich auch mit seiner Position nicht einverstanden sei, solle ich wenigstens davon überzeugt sein, dass er nicht einfach für den Krieg sei, um den Amerikanern zu gefallen, sondern dass er ehrliche Motive habe. Mehr konnte ich nicht erwarten.

SPIEGEL: Aber er hat Sie nicht überzeugt, dass der Krieg der richtige Weg ist?

Küng: Nein. Damit hat er wohl auch nicht gerechnet. Aber ich habe da nicht als Richter zu fungieren.

SPIEGEL: Ist die unverhoffte Allianz zwischen dem harschen Papstkritiker Küng und dem Heiligen Vater ausbaufähig?

Küng: Dieser Papst hat leider zwei Gesichter. Das eine zeigt er nach außen: freundlich, tolerant, auf Versöhnung aus, für Menschenrechte, für Frieden. Das andere zeigt er nach innen. Er übt Intoleranz und Inquisition. Menschenrechte gelten nicht für kritische Theologen und andere Kirchenmänner. Auch ist er nach wie vor gegen Empfängnisverhütung und gegen die Ordination der Frau und hält rigorose Positionen in der Abtreibungsfrage. Die ökumenischen Beziehungen hat er außerordentlich belastet. Summa summarum: ein höchst widersprüchliches Pontifikat. Immerhin: Der Papst scheint begriffen zu haben, dass es Fragen gibt, die unendlich viel wichtiger sind als innerkirchliche Kontroversen.

SPIEGEL: Zu den nach wie vor aktuellen innerkirchlichen Kontroversen gehört die Haltung des Vatikans zur Ökumene. Sie finden es gut, dass Katholiken und Protestanten auf dem Ökumenischen Kirchentag in Berlin Ende Mai gemeinsam Abendmahl feiern wollen - die Kirchenoberen nicht.

Küng: Die Hierarchie ist einfach hinter der Entwicklung von Theologie, Kirchenvolk und Klerus zurückgeblieben. Sie haben im SPIEGEL ja die Zahl derjenigen Katholiken veröffentlicht, die wollen, dass in Berlin ein gemeinsames Abendmahl gefeiert werden soll: 88 Prozent.

SPIEGEL: Was trennt die Kirchen heute noch voneinander?

Küng: Das kann man schnell sagen: die amtlichen Machtstrukturen. Theologisch ist längst eine Einigung vorbereitet.

SPIEGEL: Sie werden am 19. März 75 Jahre alt. Kein Datum, um Frieden mit Ihrer Kirche zu schließen?

Küng: An mir hat es nie gelegen, ich war immer gesprächsbereit. Aber dieser Papst hat es bis heute abgelehnt, mich zu sehen.

SPIEGEL: Und es gibt auch in jüngster Zeit keine Signale von ihm?

Küng: Nein.

SPIEGEL: Aber von anderen. Der Bischof von Rottenburg-Stuttgart, Gebhard Fürst, würde "gerne" zwischen Ihnen und Rom vermitteln.

Küng: Bischof Fürst will mit mir bald darüber reden. Er, wie früher Kardinal Karl Lehmann, hat anerkannt, dass ich sehr viel für die Theologie und meine Kirche geleistet und dieser Kirche die Treue gehalten habe, trotz allem.

SPIEGEL: Und auch der deutsche Kurienkardinal Walter Kasper, Chef des vatikanischen Einheitsrats, hat öffentlich erklärt, er würde es "dankbar" begrüßen, wenn eine Aussöhnung möglich wäre.

Küng: Besonders freut mich, dass Kardinal Kasper sagt, zur Versöhnung seien "Schritte von beiden Seiten notwendig". Ich mache sie seit 25 Jahren. Es wäre nun an der Kurie, ihrerseits nicht nur zu dekretieren, zu verurteilen oder zu ignorieren. Aber vielleicht ist auch so etwas wie eine pragmatische Versöhnung denkbar, dass Rom mich - ungeachtet noch ungeklärter Fragen - wieder als den katholischen Theologen gelten lässt, der ich für den Großteil unserer Kirchengemeinschaft immer geblieben bin.

SPIEGEL: Herr Professor Küng, wir danken Ihnen für dieses Gespräch.

[Joerver]

Die Hardliner werden ins Ausland geschickt. In den Kommentaren gibt differenziertere Kommentare.
Die Zeitung gehört zur Hearst Group (Rosebut)


Germans across political spectrum tongue-lash America
Anti-war fever feeds distaste toward U.S.
Eric Geiger, Chronicle Foreign Service
Saturday, March 15, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


Munich -- German Development Minister Heidemarie Wielczorek-Zeul was on a high when she arrived at a TV studio recently for a panel discussion fresh from joining 600,000 protesters in Berlin marching against a U.S.-led war on Iraq.

"I was immensely proud to take part in that great demonstration for peace," said Wielczorek-Zeul, a close associate of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder since the 1970s, when both were leaders of an anti-U.S. youth wing of the Social Democratic Party. "After all, the Americans don`t care about democracy in the Middle East."

But a sharp rebuke from one of the panelists suddenly caused her to fall silent.

"Only last week Saddam Hussein had 13 people executed in Baghdad, but nobody here demonstrated," said Hussein al Mozani, a prominent Iraqi writer who lives in exile in Germany. "And nobody went on the street to express their horror at the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis over the years. Hussein can be removed only by war."

Wielczorek-Zeul hasn`t been the only Cabinet minister to be lectured by an Iraqi exile.

When Family Minister Renate Schmidt, a Social Democrat from Bavaria, enthusiastically praised the Berlin marchers on another talk show for "standing up against a terrible, totally unjustifiable war," she was challenged by journalist Namo Azis.

"All these demonstrations are not in the interest of the Iraqi people, who for years have been terrorized, raped, brutalized," he said.

Looking at the flustered Schmidt, Azis added, "The German government is very short-sighted, and it`s not surprising that Chancellor Schroeder and Foreign Minister (Joschka) Fischer have been cheered for their anti-war stance by Iraq`s government-controlled press."

But such sentiments are the exception these days in Germany, as anti-U.S. sentiment over the looming war with Iraq is increasingly coupled with a hatred of all things American.

In September, Schroeder won a tough election only after pledging to oppose a war against Iraq. A recent survey by the Public Opinion Poll showed that only 15 percent of Germans and 8 percent of Austrians believed the American way of life was something to strive for. In the same poll, President Bush was rated as no more "likable" than Hussein.

"It increasingly takes guts to be for the Americans" these days, said Heinz Graefer, a Munich sociologist.

Although Germans who support Bush`s position appear to be in the minority, there are some who say they understand it in view of the Sept. 11 attacks.

"The U.S. doesn`t want to take any chances that there will be future attacks," said Manfred Hildmann, a 46-year-old accountant from the Bavarian town of Freilassing. "If you consider Saddam Hussein`s dreadful actions in the past, it`s plausible that he is working on weapons of mass destruction and willing to turn them over to terrorists."

But for many Germans, America-bashing has become a favorite pastime.

Entertainers appear to be the most outspoken critics, voicing not only fierce opposition to a war in Iraq, but singling out Bush. Last month, 19 prominent German intellectuals signed a declaration strongly supporting Schroeder`s anti-war position, including Nobel Prize laureate Gunter Grass and playwright Martin Walser.

The major conduits for anti-U.S. sentiment are the ubiquitous television talk shows.

"Iraq would be of no interest to the U.S. if it didn`t have oil," said Senta Berger, the Austrian-born actress who spent several years in Hollywood during the 1960s. On ZDF TV, she likened the impending war with Iraq to the Nazis` attempt to secure oil fields in the Caspian region by laying siege to Stalingrad in 1943.

On another program, popular TV actor Uwe Friedrichsen said: "When Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, he faked a Polish military attack on a German border town as a pretext. But in the case of Iraq, the Americans don`t even bother to fabricate such excuses."

Prominent playwright Peter Handke, whose plays are mainstays on the German stage, said the United States should be disarmed, not Iraq. "That would be the solution to the current problem, because it`s the Americans who have the most atrocious weapons," he said.

In the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine, Alice Schwarzer, a noted feminist author, said: "The world superpower USA no longer seems accustomed to anyone contradicting its views, not even on issues about life and death, the death of others."

A regular on the America-bashing circuit is Konstantin Wecker, a 55-year- old singer-songwriter who is a household name in Germany. Wecker recently returned from a highly publicized "peace trip" to Baghdad that his critics called a publicity stunt.

"In the event of war with Iraq, the German government should close down all overflights of U.S. military planes," Wecker told a Munich newspaper.

Leaders of the leftist peace movement that organized huge protests against U.S. troops deployed in West Germany in the 1980s are back in action as well. One is Eugen Drewermann, a 62-year-old theologian, who recently said on ARD TV:

"If Bush wants to fight evil, he should start on his own psyche."

Expressing pity for the "poor people held as prisoners by the Americans at Guantanamo," Drewermann held the United States responsible for starting the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and lavished praise on Dustin Hoffman and other U.S.

actors "for publicly standing up against Bush and his war plans" at the recent Berlin film festival.

The surge of anti-Americanism is particularly striking in view of the huge debt Germany owes the United States for providing generous help in the post- war reconstruction era, security during the Cold War and decisive assistance in gaining unification more than a decade ago.

"Anti-American sentiment no longer is the traditional preoccupation of either leftist or rightist newspaper feature editors," said Michael Stuermer, a leading editorial writer at the conservative Die Welt. "It unstoppably is becoming a sort of matter-of-course mood for the whole country."

A patron in his 30s at a Munich beer hall put it more bluntly: "We are all fed up with Americans looking down at us for the Holocaust -- something that our generation had nothing to do with," he said. "Now, the Americans are all set to start their own holocaust in Iraq."

Feeling free of any guilt for the Nazi crimes, many of Germany`s younger generation are taking another look at World War II, with some even regarding the Germans as victims of the conflict.

Historian Joerg Friedrich recently shattered a taboo by writing a best- selling book "The Fire -- Germany and the Bombardment 1940-1945" about the destruction of German cities by U.S. and British bombers. The book, which condemns the attacks as war crimes and indirectly suggests that they may be comparable to the Holocaust, inspired a recent series on German TV.


©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page A - 10

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Die Abenteuer des Hercubush unter:

http://www.bangzoomtv.com/

.

[Joerver]

Es wird versucht die Öffentlichkeit davon zu überzeugen, daß Juden und Israelis per se für den Irakkrieg sind, hier eine andere Meinung.

To My Former Dean and Other `Court Jews`

by Josh Ruebner

Dear Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz,

I doubt it if you remember me. That’s okay though. I don’t think that I did anything to merit drawing the attention of the dean as a graduate student at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). I was pretty bookish at SAIS and spent more than my share of time toiling over economic models in the library. As the dean of SAIS, I am sure that you had fleeting contact with hundreds of students like myself. I think that we shared a few coffees together during your weekly breakfast meetings with students. I thought that custom was classy and demonstrated the importance that you placed on being in touch with us. I liked the fact that you invariably showed up at our Friday afternoon Happy Hour ritual in the courtyard when we all unwound after an intense week of studies.

The comfortable, accessible relationship that you had with your students at SAIS makes it difficult for me to address you as the Assistant Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. It sounds so formal and removed, doesn’t it? Yet I wouldn’t have the audacity to call you by your first name either. Perhaps, for the sake of this letter, I can simply call you "brother." I hope that you do not take offense at this intimate appellation. But, you see, I am not writing this letter as a secular American critic of a unilateralist U.S. foreign policy that has run amok. Instead, I decided to write to you as one fellow Jew to another. And as Jews, we do share that intimate connection and shared sense of destiny even if we do not really know each other. Perhaps in Hebrew school you learned the dictum kol yisrael arevim zeh la’zeh—that all Jews are responsible for and to each other. It is in this spirit of mutual responsibility that I write to you.

Brother, I am concerned about you. I am concerned that you are being exploited and that you do not realize it. Before you discard my pro-peace, anti-imperialism views about the war in Iraq as the ranting of an aberrant SAIS student who somehow escaped from the school’s neo-conservative straitjacket, I plead with you to engage in chesbon nefesh—that powerful, beautiful Jewish tradition of "soul accounting" in which we engage during the High Holidays. Before the bombs start falling on the long-suffering, innocent civilians of Baghdad, please look into your heart and ask yourself honestly whose interests you are serving by being such a visible symbol of this policy.

Lately I have come to the disturbing conclusion that the Bush Administration is using you as its "court Jew" par excellence. Rest assured, this is not a term that I learned during my studies at SAIS. Rather I picked it up in the course of my involvement with the Jewish peace movement which is calling simultaneously for an end to Israel’s self-destructive military occupation of Palestine and is helping to mobilize the millions of good-hearted Americans who have taken to the streets to protest the war of aggression that the Bush Administration is pedaling.

"Court Jew" is a term that originates in the context of anti-Semitism in "enlightened" Europe. On that blood-soaked continent, the reigning monarchs and other despotic rulers thought up an ingenious system to perpetuate their oppressive systems of government. These shrewd, Machiavellian rulers made a psychologically brilliant pact with an elite, assimilationist group of Jewish subjects who craved nothing more than acceptance by the power structure of society. Often, these ambitious Jews were so eager to serve the interests of the rulers so that they could ease their feelings of internalized self-hatred. They viewed serving the power structure as a way to overcome the marginality and stigmas associated with being Jewish which were built into the very fabric of society by the power structure to begin with. The rulers understood this yearning to enter the halls of power and took advantage of it by dangling a carrot of illusional power before the hungry eyes of this wayward Jewish elite. These "court Jews" were given politically unimportant, yet highly visible positions within the regime. Why? So that when the subjected masses rose up from time to time in justified outrage at the oppressive nature of the regime under which they lived, there was a convenient, ready-made scapegoat in place. The "court Jew," as a highly visible symbol of the regime, served as the lighting rod to bear the brunt of the blame and deflect criticism from where it belonged rightfully. Brother, need I remind you how disastrous it was for our people to be the target of this rage? I think that you would agree that, in retrospect, it would have been better not to have played the fool for those European monarchs.

But, alas, the tragic mistakes of history do tend to repeat themselves. (Brother, it makes we wonder sometimes if the global community of human beings is making "progress" toward anything worth progressing to.) Maybe you don’t see it coming, but I do. Your job is to interact in the high-brow world of intelligence briefings and diplomacy. My job is to interact with the people and mobilize them against the very steps that you’re taking. With all due respect, I think that I am in a better position to hear what the people are saying. Do you know what they’re saying already? That the war in Iraq is being planned by a cabal of extremist Jews. That it is the first part of a Zionist conspiracy to redraw the map of the Middle East. That Israel stands to be the prime beneficiary of this war. And it’s not just the marginalized skinheads who are saying this either. It’s also mainstream folks who would swear up and down that they don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in their bodies. I’m sure that you, like me, recoiled in horror when you heard Congressman Jim Moran assert that it is the Jews who are advocating for this war and that only the Jews have the power to stop it.

It pains me that so many of my fellow citizens are falling into this age-old trap of blaming the powerless Jews who seem so powerful because of the existence of a handful of "court Jews" who front for the power structure. This doesn’t mean that the "court Jews" of the unelected Jewish Establishment haven’t been hawking for this war. They have been. There is no denying that Israel sent Benjamin Netanyahu to Capitol Hill to testify for the war in Iraq and "convince" Members of Congress that it was in the interests of the United States to let loose the dogs of war (as if they needed much convincing anyway). All of this is true. This is the beauty of how the system works. Take a few "court Jews" and give them unimpeded access to the mainstream media and, voila, you create the impression among the masses that "the Jews" are spoiling for a war. Do you see brother how you are misrepresenting us? I wish that we in the Jewish peace movement could have as much access as you do to the mainstream media so that we could shatter the monolithic view of the Jewish community which the "court Jew" by definition is set up to propagate. Of course, we are denied that access by the same power structure which has an interest in making sure that yours is the only "Jewish" voice heard.

I’m really afraid that we are heading for a calamity. If the people are this incensed now my brother, how do you think they will feel when American men and women start returning from the sands of Kuwait in body bags? Who is going to be blamed if, God forbid, we are subjected to another terrorist attack? Do these thoughts keep you awake at night? Are you scared like I am that this imperialistic war in Iraq threatens the existence of the Jewish people?

My brother, I don’t blame you for accepting the starring role of "court Jew." It must be a pretty amazing feeling to convince yourself that you have as much power as everybody says that you do. I hope that I never get close enough to the power structure of this crumbling, decrepit empire to get a taste of it. In my humble opinion, there is only one honorable thing that you can do to undo the shameful damage that you have caused already: resign. For the sake of your own dignity, you must refuse to be exploited as the "court Jew." Step down and deprive the power structure of its "court Jew" and you will expose to the world the actors who really motivate the Bush Administration. Please, before it is too late, tell the world that it is not the powerless Jews who are pushing for this war, but the greedy, venal barons of corporate America who stand to profit while cowering behind the myth of the all-powerful Jew. Tell everybody what you and I both know. That the real interests hawking for this war are the defense contractors and the oil industry who will make billions of dollars to first destroy Iraq and then "rebuild" it under the protective wing of American "democracy." And, while you’re at it, please tell the world that the $100 billion the Bush Administration will require to pay the military-industrial complex to finance this war of aggression will be sucked from the wallets of the impoverished American working class which is systematically being stripped of government services by this rapacious regime.

I am not the type of Jew who generally bases his opinions on whether a particular action "is good for the Jews." I would like to believe that I have a more embracing, holistic view of humanity. Maybe it even seems self-centered to worry about what will happen to the Jews because of this war when thousands of innocent Iraqis stand to die in order for the United States to "liberate" their country. I confess though that I’m worried and I don’t know what else to do with my fear except express it. Brother, it seems to me to be so painfully obvious that this war will benefit no one but the corporate interests I mentioned above. Not Jews, not Americans, not Israelis, not Iraqis, and not Palestinians.

If I’ve sparked even a sliver of doubt in your mind as to the wisdom of the course you are pursuing, please call me and we can get together for a cup of coffee over breakfast. It will be just like the good old days at SAIS.

With love,

Josh Ruebner

Josh Ruebner is co-founder of Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI) and is a former Analyst of Middle East Affairs for Congressional Research Service (CRS).

[Joerver]

By Joel Bleifuss | 1.27.03
Kurt Vonnegut vs. the !&#*!@
In November, Kurt Vonnegut turned 80. He published his first novel, Player Piano, in 1952 at the age of 29. Since then he has written 13 others, including Slaughterhouse Five, which stands as one of the pre-eminent anti-war novels of the 20th century.

As war against Iraq looms, I asked Vonnegut, a reader and supporter of this magazine, to weigh in. Vonnegut is an American socialist in the tradition of Eugene Victor Debs, a fellow Hoosier whom he likes to quote: “As long as there is a lower class, I am in it. As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it. As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”

—Joel Bleifuss

You have lived through World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Reagan wars, Desert Storm, the Balkan wars and now this coming war in Iraq. What has changed, and what has remained the same?

One thing which has not changed is that none of us, no matter what continent or island or ice cap, asked to be born in the first place, and that even somebody as old as I am, which is 80, only just got here. There were already all these games going on when I got here. … An apt motto for any polity anywhere, to put on its state seal or currency or whatever, might be this quotation from the late baseball manager Casey Stengel, who was addressing a team of losing professional athletes: “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

My daughter Lily, for an example close to home, who has just turned 20, finds herself—as does George W. Bush, himself a kid—an heir to a shockingly recent history of human slavery, to an AIDS epidemic and to nuclear submarines slumbering on the floors of fjords in Iceland and elsewhere, crews prepared at a moment’s notice to turn industrial quantities of men, women and children into radioactive soot and bone meal by means of rockets and H-bomb warheads. And to the choice between liberalism or conservatism and on and on.

What is radically new in 2003 is that my daughter, along with our president and Saddam Hussein and on and on, has inherited technologies whose byproducts, whether in war or peace, are rapidly destroying the whole planet as a breathable, drinkable system for supporting life of any kind. Human beings, past and present, have trashed the joint.

Based on what you’ve read and seen in the media, what is not being said in the mainstream press about President Bush’s policies and the impending war in Iraq?

That they are nonsense.

My feeling from talking to readers and friends is that many people are beginning to despair. Do you think that we’ve lost reason to hope?

I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened, though, is that it has been taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d’etat imaginable. And those now in charge of the federal government are upper-crust C-students who know no history or geography, plus not-so-closeted white supremacists, aka “Christians,” and plus, most frighteningly, psychopathic personalities, or “PPs.”

To say somebody is a PP is to make a perfectly respectable medical diagnosis, like saying he or she has appendicitis or athlete’s foot. The classic medical text on PPs is The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley. Read it! PPs are presentable, they know full well the suffering their actions may cause others, but they do not care. They cannot care because they are nuts. They have a screw loose!

And what syndrome better describes so many executives at Enron and WorldCom and on and on, who have enriched themselves while ruining their employees and investors and country, and who still feel as pure as the driven snow, no matter what anybody may say to or about them? And so many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.

What has allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive. Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they cannot care what happens next. Simply can’t. Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize the public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody’s telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion-dollar missile shield! Fuck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!

How have you gotten involved in the anti-war movement? And how would you compare the movement against a war in Iraq with the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era?

When it became obvious what a dumb and cruel and spiritually and financially and militarily ruinous mistake our war in Vietnam was, every artist worth a damn in this country, every serious writer, painter, stand-up comedian, musician, actor and actress, you name it, came out against the thing. We formed what might be described as a laser beam of protest, with everybody aimed in the same direction, focused and intense. This weapon proved to have the power of a banana-cream pie three feet in diameter when dropped from a stepladder five-feet high.

And so it is with anti-war protests in the present day. Then as now, TV did not like anti-war protesters, nor any other sort of protesters, unless they rioted. Now, as then, on account of TV, the right of citizens to peaceably assemble, and petition their government for a redress of grievances, “ain’t worth a pitcher of warm spit,” as the saying goes.

As a writer and artist, have you noticed any difference between how the cultural leaders of the past and the cultural leaders of today view their responsibility to society?

Responsibility to which society? To Nazi Germany? To the Stalinist Soviet Union? What about responsibility to humanity in general? And leaders in what particular cultural activity? I guess you mean the fine arts. I hope you mean the fine arts. ... Anybody practicing the fine art of composing music, no matter how cynical or greedy or scared, still can’t help serving all humanity. Music makes practically everybody fonder of life than he or she would be without it. Even military bands, although I am a pacifist, always cheer me up.

But that is the power of ear candy. The creation of such a universal confection for the eye, by means of printed poetry or fiction or history or essays or memoirs and so on, isn’t possible. Literature is by definition opinionated. It is bound to provoke the arguments in many quarters, not excluding the hometown or even the family of the author. Any ink-on-paper author can only hope at best to seem responsible to small groups or like-minded people somewhere. He or she might as well have given an interview to the editor of a small-circulation publication.

Maybe we can talk about the responsibilities to their societies of architects and sculptors and painters another time. And I will say this: TV drama, although not yet classified as fine art, has on occasion performed marvelous services for Americans who want us to be less paranoid, to be fairer and more merciful. M.A.S.H. and Law and Order, to name only two shows, have been stunning masterpieces in that regard.

That said, do you have any ideas for a really scary reality TV show?

“C students from Yale.” It would stand your hair on end.

What targets would you consider fair game for a satirist today?

Assholes.



Joel Bleifuss is the editor of In These Times, where he has worked as a investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986. Bleifuss has had more stories on Project Censored`s annual list of the “10 Most Censored Stories” than any other journalist.

Dieser Artikel hat eine lebhafte Diskussion ausgelöst, die auch auf der Seite dokumentiert ist.

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=38_0_4_0_C

[Joerver]

March 16, 2003
The Man Who Would Be President
By THOMAS POWERS


If war comes — the phrase used so often in recent months — the fighting may be quick or prolonged, but few experts doubt that the huge American force now concentrating in the Middle East will prevail in the end. When the regime finally changes in Baghdad, and Saddam Hussein is dead, in custody or in exile, 70 years of Iraqi independence will end, political authority will pass into the hands of George W. Bush and Western rule will be planted on Arab soil for the first time since the French and British left the region in the middle of the last century.

What then happens to Iraq`s 23 million people, its oil and its relations with its neighbors will remain the personal responsibility of Mr. Bush and his successors in the White House until one of them chooses to surrender it.

This dramatic expansion of President Bush`s job description, little discussed during the long months of argument at the United Nations over Iraqi weapons, will be the immediate practical result of an American military victory and the occupation of Iraq by the Army`s Central Command.

As the military commander in chief, the president will have virtually unlimited power to change and rebuild Iraq as he sees fit, far greater power, for example, than Queen Victoria`s over India in the 19th century.

Spokesmen for the White House say the president`s plans for Iraq are fair and generous: to root out the worst elements of Mr. Hussein`s Baath Party, and to create a constitution and government that will make it a beacon of democracy for the Arab world.

Recent experience in Kosovo and Afghanistan suggests that the American military finds it hard going to rebuild shattered civil societies, get food and medicine to those who need it and stop ancient enemies from settling scores after the sun goes down. But keeping the lights on and the oil pumping will seem easy next to the task of bringing democracy to a country that has never known it, is divided along religious and ethnic lines and is struggling on incomes about a tenth of what they were in 1980.

So while the political details of the new regime are being sorted out, the army of occupation will not be idle. At the top of the list will be ferreting out Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction — not just the factories, laboratories and stocks of lethal material, but the scientists, military units and agencies that ran the effort. The Bush administration is convinced that there is plenty to find, but as was learned in recent months, it does not know where it all is, despite a decade of intelligence effort.

Iraq`s unexpected willingness to grant access to United Nations weapons inspectors presented American intelligence with a challenge to put up or shut up. The analysts scored one small success by pointing out glaring omissions in Iraq`s 12,000-page arms declaration; Iraq was known to have possessed large quantities of material for biological and chemical weapons, for example — what happened to it? But scoring rhetorical points was not the same as giving inspectors a street address for stocks of anthrax, or sending a team in protective gear to the one palace among Mr. Hussein`s many with a radioactive basement.

The plain fact, after many weeks of diplomatic wrangling now drawing to a close, is that the Central Intelligence Agency doesn`t know what Mr. Hussein has, if anything, or even who knows the answers, if anyone.

Intelligence experts attached to the army of occupation will find the missing people, places and records. They will identify, with dollar figures, just who sold contraband to Mr. Hussein and how shipment was arranged — a prospect bound to worry some people in Europe and Asia.

Finding Mr. Hussein`s weapons of mass destruction is a political as well as military necessity. But just as important now will be everything else his regime learned over the decades: in a word, the files. The Baath Party`s 35-year-rule has been maintained by police and intelligence organizations — General Security (Amn al Aam), established by the British after World War I; Military Intelligence (Istikhabarat at Askariya); the internal secret police, or General Intelligence Directorate (Dairat al Mukhabarat al Ammaa); and a National Security Bureau (Maktab Amn al Qawami) personally set up by Mr. Hussein in 1970 to oversee the other agencies.

The soul of intelligence work is the keeping of files. Because small bits of information sometimes make a big difference, and because it is impossible to know in advance which bits it will be, intelligence services universally make a habit of recording everything and saving it forever.

If Mr. Hussein did any favors for Al Qaeda it will be in the files, but that is only a small part of what American intelligence analysts will want to get their hands on. It is the trove itself that will open up the secret history of the Middle East like a field of sunflowers: the immense paper record of decades of secret meetings, intercepted communications, interrogations and debriefings, exchanges with other intelligence services, the comings and goings of arms dealers, terrorists and every kind of influence peddler.

Shredding files sounds easy but is hard to do, and the order generally comes too late, when the bureaucrats assigned the job are already thinking about hiring on with the newcomers. What the C.I.A. learns from the Iraqi files will transform the war on terrorism, but anyone else who ever caught Mr. Hussein`s eye will be exposed as well.

Gaining information from Iraqi files, and making sure that any weapons of mass destruction have been found are two goals that can be met only with Mr. Hussein`s ouster followed by military occupation. Then there is the third, perhaps most important goal: establishing an American presence in the region. In its 15,000-word National Security Strategy released last September, the administration linked "the unparalleled strength" of American forces with "their forward presence" as guarantors of peace. "The presence of American forces overseas is one of the most profound symbols of the U.S. commitment to allies and friends."

Dropping talk of "regime change" was an American compromise necessary to win unanimous Security Council support for the resolution passed in November. But the administration has said nothing that suggests it would accept less than complete Iraqi disarmament confirmed by American boots on the ground. That it would come to war in the end was always implicit in the American military buildup in the region, difficult to halt or reverse. In remarks last October, for example, the president`s special envoy to the Iraqi exiles, Zalmay Khalilzad, issued unvarnished calls for getting rid of Mr. Hussein.

"We are of the view that disarming Iraq is extremely unlikely without regime change," Mr. Khalilzad said in a speech in Washington. He conceded it was a possibility that a provisional Iraqi government might be formed before a war to take over the country afterward, but noted, "It`s more likely that there would have to be liberation first, and then a government put in place." He did not say what has since become apparent: that the administration effectively opposed creating a government in exile that could take power when Mr. Hussein fell.

This means the postwar power in Iraq will fall to the Pentagon`s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, established by President Bush in January. The office`s chain of command runs through Gen. Tommy R. Franks of the Central Command, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense and finally to Mr. Bush.

The Pentagon`s official statement is that the United States will stay "as long as necessary" to get things going, and then leave "as soon as possible." When closely questioned by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who wanted more of an answer, the under secretary of state for political affairs, Marc Grossman, conceded on Feb. 11 that he did not think power could be completely turned over to an Iraqi government in less than two years. As for how many American troops will be required, the Army`s top general recently said he thought it would take 200,000. The Pentagon immediately said no, not so many, without saying how many.

Whatever the number, they will become a target for Arab nationalists and terrorists, who have proved in the past that they can find a way through American security perimeters. In 1983 in Lebanon, where President Ronald Reagan sent American troops to help resolve a civil war, terrorists twice struck American targets with devastating effect. A bomb outside the American embassy in Beirut wrecked the building, killing more than 60 people including the entire C.I.A. station. A second bomb, outside a building converted into a barracks for American marines, killed 241 servicemen, and led to a complete American withdrawal within months. Responsibility for the attacks was never proved, but in both cases the C.I.A. suspected terrorist groups supported by the government of Iran, which shares a 730-mile border with Iraq, soon, perhaps, to be defended by Americans. C.I.A. analysts also suspect Iran`s involvement in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 Americans.

The Bush administration does not dismiss any of these events as ancient history, regarding Iran as part of the "axis of evil" for its support of Hezbollah and Hamas, both classified as terrorist organizations, and for its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which Iran denies pursuing.

Iran was quick to denounce the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by Al Qaeda, but the thaw in relations was brief. Last summer, Mr. Khalilzad charged that Iran`s "unelected few" — the administration`s customary way of referring to the clerics in power — are "aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them." This is supported by the C.I.A. as well as civilian groups that monitor weapons development; all agree Iran`s nuclear program is bigger and closer to success than Iraq`s. Iran`s "continuing support for terrorists," Mr. Khalilzad said, "heightens our concern."

For President Bush the combination of nuclear weapons, "rogue states" and terrorists is the sum of all fears. In releasing the National Security Strategy last fall, President Bush said, "America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed."

It is fear of Iraq that will bring the American military to Iran`s doorstep in the Middle East, and it is likely that fear of Iran will keep them there until the differences between Washington and Tehran are resolved by diplomacy or war, whichever comes first.

Thomas Powers is the author of "Intelligence Wars: American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Weniger Unterstützung bei Juden für den Irakkrieg als bei der gesamten amerikanischen Bevölkerung. Vorrauseilender Gehorsam unserer Bedenkenträger war nicht notwendig.
Eine Diskussion in den USA ist entstanden durch die Behauptund des Kongress-Abgeordneten Mr.Moron (nomen ist omen), es wäre die Schuld der Juden, daß die USA in diese Situation gekommen sind "influential Jews were driving the USA toward war". Er mußte sich dafür entschuldigen.
J.


March 15, 2003
Divide Among Jews Leads to Silence on Iraq War
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN


Jewish organizations that have never been hesitant to issue resolutions on American foreign policy, especially toward the Middle East, have remained silent on going to war against Iraq.

Jewish leaders say that while they are supportive of President Bush because he has been a reliable ally of the Israeli government, they have become increasingly fearful of a backlash if the war goes badly.

But the other, more fundamental, reason for their reticence is that their own members have for months been unable to agree on whether a war with Iraq is a good idea.

The question of where American Jews stand on the war gained urgency this week after Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, was condemned by members of both parties for saying that influential Jews were driving the United States toward war and was forced to apologize.

While Jewish leaders acknowledge that some Jewish policy makers helped devise the president`s strategy on Iraq, and some Jewish lobbyists have backed it, there is strong evidence that American Jews are as divided as the rest of the nation.

"The only consensus we could come to was that there is no consensus," said Hannah Rosenthal, executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, describing a gathering two weeks ago in Baltimore of 700 Jewish leaders active with her group, which includes Jews from all four branches — Reconstructionist; Reform; Conservative; and Orthodox.

"The general sense," said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, "is of profound ambivalence. There is no wild enthusiasm for military action in the Jewish community, and certainly not in my movement."

At a meeting this week of the union`s executive board — which represents synagogues in the Reform movement, American Judaism`s largest — members decided not even to attempt to take a position on the war because it was unlikely they could reach agreement in a day, Rabbi Yoffie said.

Several polls have found that Jews are less likely than the public at large to support military action against Iraq. An aggregate of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center from August 2002 to February 2003 found 52 percent of Jews in favor of military action, 32 percent opposed and 16 percent uncertain; among all Americans, the polling found 62 percent in favor, 28 percent opposed and 10 percent uncertain.

Jewish leaders said in nearly two dozen interviews this week that they found themselves in a bind. They regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent danger and would love to see him removed. Rabbi David Ellenson, president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, a Reform university, said, "American Jews recognize the danger that terrorism poses worldwide, and I expect that American Jews are more familiar than other Americans with the very sorry record that Saddam Hussein has on human rights issues, because we just pay more attention to the Middle East."

But some Jews are increasingly concerned about the lack of widespread international support for a pre-emptive strike, and skeptical that the United States can create a stable post-war government in Iraq.

Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the academic and spiritual center of Conservative Judaism, said at a lecture this week, "We live in a world gone mad, a world in which a paper tiger has become America`s mortal enemy, a world in which America is about to enter a war in which America stands alone."

Rabbi Schorsch said in an interview that he believed that North Korea was a greater threat than Iraq, that Al Qaeda`s fortunes would not fall with Iraq`s, and that the United States had "gravely weakened the institutions of internationalism so painstakingly erected after the Second World War."

Most Christian denominations have taken a stand against going to war. But while individual Jews have been prominent in antiwar events and proclamations, Jewish groups have said little that is either explicitly opposed to, or in favor of, a war.

Jewish doves say the fact that Jewish groups have not come out against the war is evidence of the genuine hawkishness among Jews. But Jewish hawks say essentially the opposite: that the resounding silence is testimony to how many doves there are among Jews.

Jewish leaders say that while they meet from time to time with officials in the White House and the State Department on Middle East matters, the administration has never told them to tone down or pump up their public statements on the war.

About 20 Jewish leaders met yesterday with Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to discuss Mr. Bush`s brief speech in the Rose Garden in which he declared that the "road map" to Middle East peace would get under way soon, once the Palestinians inaugurated a new prime minister who could be a counterweight to Yasir Arafat.

"They don`t tell us to be in the forefront; they don`t tell us not to be in the forefront," said Steve Rosen, director of foreign policy issues for the American Israel Political Action Committee.

Jewish leaders said that in the past week they had found themselves uncomfortably in the spotlight on the Iraq issue. Last week, a notion voiced often in European and Arab countries became the talk of mainstream American media: that Mr. Bush is being prodded to war by a clique of Jews in the foreign policy establishment.

The idea gained currency when reports surfaced that Mr. Moran, the Virginia congressman, told a local antiwar forum several weeks ago that "if it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this." Mr. Moran added that, "The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

Jewish leaders responded with outrage. Mr. Moran later apologized, and yesterday he stepped down as one of 24 regional whips in the House. But the dustup unleashed a broad discussion of the role of Jews in American foreign policy, the motives of the president and whether raising such questions is anti-Semitic.

David A. Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, called comments like Mr. Moran`s "classic anti-Semitic syndrome, and we don`t use the term `anti-Semitism` lightly." Mr. Harris said that Mr. Moran`s comments started with "a grain of truth" — that a number of Jews working in the administration`s foreign policy team have long advanced the strategy of a pre-emptive war against Mr. Hussein.

The conspiracy thinking, he said, is that those Jewish policy makers have disproportionate power, are more loyal to Israel than the United States, and are manipulating a gullible government.

"If the war doesn`t go well," Mr. Harris said, "there will be those who will try to peddle the timeworn theory that we have to look for a scapegoat, and Jews have provided a scapegoat for bigots for centuries."

Malcolm Hoenlein, executive director of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said, "Nobody says that because Colin Powell is black and Condoleezza Rice is black that this is an effort of the black community to stimulate the war."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Eine unappetitliche Story über den UN-Botschafter der USA Mr. Negroponte ausgegraben von der Baltimare Sun.

Unearthed: Fatal Secrets

A carefully crafted deception
By Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson
Sun Staff

June 18, 1995

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras -- A dangerous truth confronted John Dimitri Negroponte as he prepared to take over as U.S. ambassador to Honduras late in 1981.

The military in Honduras -- the country from which the Reagan administration had decided to run the battle for democracy in Central America -- was kidnapping and murdering its own citizens.

"GOH [Government of Honduras] security forces have begun to resort to extralegal tactics -- disappearances and, apparently, physical eliminations ` to control a perceived subversive threat," Negroponte was told in a secret briefing book prepared by the embassy staff.

The assertion was true, and there was worse to come.

Time and again during his tour of duty in Honduras from 1981 to 1985, Negroponte was confronted with evidence that a Honduran army intelligence unit, trained by the CIA, was stalking, kidnapping, torturing and killing suspected subversives.

A 14-month investigation by The Sun, which included interviews with U.S. and Honduran officials who could not have spoken freely at the time, shows that Negroponte learned from numerous sources about the crimes of the unit called Battalion 316.

The Honduran press was full of reports about military abuses, including hundreds of newspaper stories in 1982 alone. There were also direct pleas from Honduran officials to U.S. officials, including Negroponte.

A disgruntled former Honduran intelligence chief publicly denounced Battalion 316. Relatives of the battalion`s victims demonstrated in the streets and appealed to U.S. officials for intervention, including once in an open letter to President Reagan`s presidential envoy to Central America.

Rick Chidester, then a junior political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, told The Sun that he compiled substantial evidence of abuses by the Honduran military in 1982, but was ordered to delete most of it from the annual human rights report prepared for the State Department to deliver to Congress.

Those reports consistently misled Congress and the public.

"There are no political prisoners in Honduras," the State Department asserted falsely in its 1983 human rights report.

The reports to Congress were carefully crafted to convey the impression that the Honduran government and military were committed to democratic ideals.

It was important not to confront Congress with evidence that the military was trampling on civil liberties and murdering dissidents. The truth could have triggered congressional action under the Foreign Assistance Act, which generally prohibits military aid to any government that "engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

Fact vs. fiction

A comparison of the annual human rights reports prepared while Negroponte was ambassador with the facts as they were then known shows that Congress was deliberately misled.

Assertion: "Student, worker, peasant, and other interest groups have full freedom to organize and hold frequent public demonstrations without interference. ... Trade unions are not hindered by the government."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982

Fact: Highly publicized abductions of students and union leaders that year included:

Saul Godinez, elementary school teacher and union activist, abducted July 22, 1982; Eduardo Lanza, medical student and general secretary of the Honduran Federation of University Students, kidnapped Aug. 1, 1982; German Perez Aleman, leader of an airport maintenance workers union, abducted Aug. 18, 1982; Hector Hernandez, president of a textile workers union, abducted Dec. 24, 1982.

All are still missing and presumed dead.

Assertion: "Legal guarantees exist against arbitrary arrest or imprisonment, and against torture or degrading treatment. Habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution, and Honduran law provides for arraignment within 24 hours of arrest. This appears to be the standard practice."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982

Fact: "The court got so many petitions of habeas corpus. But whenever we sent them to the police, the police would say they did not have the prisoners," Rumaldo Iries Calix, a justice of the Supreme Court in 1982, said in an interview with The Sun. "They had moved the prisoners to some secret jail. It was like a game to them."

The experience of Zenaida Velasquez was typical. Her brother, Manfredo, a 35-year-old graduate student, teacher and political activist, was abducted by Battalion 316 on Sept. 12, 1981, and has not been seen since.

Zenaida Velasquez filed habeas corpus petitions on her brother`s behalf on Sept. 17, 1981, Feb. 6, 1982, and July 4, 1983, asking that he be brought before a court and his detention justified.

"It didn`t do any good at all," she said.

Assertion: "There have been reports in the press and by local sources of the use of torture by local police forces during interrogation. Honduran officials assert that it is a common practice for persons held in connection with politically motivated crimes to allege that they were tortured during the investigation and interrogation process."

"The Honduran armed forces chief, Gustavo Alvarez, recently issued a public statement denying that the government used torture and specifically stated that torture was not to be used on prisoners."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982

Fact: Alvarez had made it clear to Ambassador Negroponte`s predecessor, Jack Binns, that he intended to use Argentine-style, "extra-legal" means to eliminate suspected subversives. Battalion 316 was created largely for this purpose.

According to Florencio Caballero, a former sergeant in Battalion 316, Alvarez demanded torture as "the quickest way to get information."

In one highly publicized case of torture and intimidation, human rights attorney Rene Velasquez (no relation to Manfredo) was arrested on June 1, 1982, in front of his law office in Tegucigalpa and taken to a secret jail where he was kept for four days.

"They undressed me, they tied my hands and they put a rubber mask over my face," he said. "They put something on me to attract flies, because those were my companions for four days.

"I was beaten a lot," Rene Velasquez said. "They hit me in the ribs and stomach. ... I could barely endure the pain."

Assertion: "Access to prisoners is generally not a problem for relatives, attorneys, consular officers or international humanitarian organizations."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982

Fact: Not only were they denied access, dozens of relatives of the "disappeared" told The Sun, but police would not even tell them if or where their relatives were being held.

Fidelina Perez and Natalia Mendez visited every police station in Tegucigalpa after finding out that their sons, who were student leaders, had been arrested on a bus as it crossed the border from Nicaragua on Jan. 24, 1982.

Their sons have not been seen since and are presumed dead.

"[The police] all said they had no information. They had not seen them," Perez said. "The police told us to go and look for them in Cuba or Nicaragua."

Said Mendez: "They told us, why did we keep looking for them when they were already dead?"

Assertion: "Sanctity of the home is guaranteed by the Constitution and generally observed."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1982.

Fact: Raids of homes without warrants were common in Honduras. The military stormed neighborhoods in search of Communist safe houses.

"They would burst into homes of people who were completely innocent and search for evidence," said Honduran journalist Noe Leyva. "Sometimes if they found Marxist books or pamphlets, they would arrest the resident without any warrant. It was ridiculous."

Leyva, now an editor at the Honduran newspaper El Tiempo, reported on human rights abuses for that newspaper in the early 1980s.

In July 1982, Oscar Reyes, a prominent journalist, was seized from his home along with his wife in an illegal raid. Upon their release from prison, the Reyeses found their home ransacked.

Assertion: "In rare cases in which members of the security forces have been accused of murder, the government has brought the perpetrators to justice."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983

Fact: "I don`t recall one case of that," said Edmundo Orellana, the Honduran attorney general.

Rumaldo Iries Calix, the former Honduran Supreme Court justice, said charges sometimes would be brought against low-level officers, but that the cases were always dismissed.

"No judge dared to convict a military official," Iries said. "There was so much repression against anyone who opposed the military."

Assertion: "There are no political prisoners in Honduras. Individuals are prosecuted not for their political beliefs but rather for criminal acts defined in the penal code."

-- State Department Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1983

Fact: Orellana, who is investigating the disappearances of Battalion 316`s victims, shakes his head in amazement at that assertion.

"This is totally untrue," he said. "There were political prisoners, and the disappeared are the proof. They followed, arrested and executed people who just thought differently."

One senator who was serving at the time as a member of the Senate intelligence committee describes what difference it might have made if the human rights reporting had been more truthful.

"I think its extremely important that the State Department be right on human rights, said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, a Vermont Democrat. "If we told the truth about Honduras and the whole Central American policy, ... billions of American tax dollars would have been saved, a large number of lives would have been saved, and the governments would have moved toward democracy quicker."

Negroponte replies

Negroponte, now U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, has declined repeated requests by telephone and in writing since July for interviews about this report. However, on Thursday, after publication of three parts of The Sun`s series, he issued a written statement:

"Under my leadership, the embassy worked to promote the restoration and consolidation of democracy in Honduras, including the advancement of human rights."

He added, "At no time during my tenure in Honduras did the embassy condone or conceal human rights violations. To the contrary, the embassy and the State Department cooperated with the government of Honduras to help remedy recognized deficiencies in the administration of justice."

Negroponte`s arrival in Honduras coincided with the Reagan administration`s decision to reduce the emphasis that the Carter administration had put on rights issues in dealings with allies.

The new policy had been made clear to Negroponte`s predecessor, Ambassador Binns, a Carter appointee, after he repeatedly warned of human rights abuses by the Honduran military.

In a June 1981 cable obtained by The Sun, Binns reported:

"I am deeply concerned at increasing evidence of officially sponsored/sanctioned assassinations of political and criminal targets, which clearly indicate [Government of Honduras] repression has built up a head of steam much faster than we had anticipated."

The reaction was swift and unexpected. Binns was summoned to Washington by Thomas O. Enders, the new assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs.

"I was told to stop human rights reporting except in back channel. The fear was that if it came into the State Department, it will leak," Binns recalled. "They wanted to keep assistance flowing. Increased violations by the Honduran military would prejudice that."

"Back channel" messages are unofficial or informal communications, often in code, sent outside the usual distribution system to restrict circulation of information.

Enders confirmed the 1981 meeting with Binns.

"I told him that whereas human rights violations had been the single most important focus of the previous administration`s policy in Latin America, the Reagan administration had broader interests," Enders said. "It believed that the most effective way to overcome civil conflicts and human rights violations was to promote democratically elected governments and that should be his point of focus."

Ample evidence of abuses

There was nothing rare or vague about the evidence of military abuses that confronted Negroponte from the time he took over as ambassador in November 1981.

In 1982, his first full year in Honduras, more than 300 articles in the local press included:

An account in February of the discovery of five bodies in a makeshift grave in Las Montanitas, 15 miles outside Tegucigalpa.

* An account in April of the illegal arrest of six university students.

* A story in September about union members marching through Tegucigalpa to demand the release of one of their leaders abducted a month earlier.

* Another story in September about dozens of children protesting the disappearances outside the Honduran Congress as it considered forming a committee to investigate military abuses.

"There is no way United States officials in Honduras during the early 1980s can deny they knew about the disappearances," said Jaime Rosenthal, a former vice president of Honduras and owner of the daily newspaper El Tiempo. "There were stories about it in our newspaper and most other newspapers almost every day."

"[The United States] had an embassy staff here that was larger than most other embassies in Latin America," Rosenthal said. "If they say they did not know, that is bad, because it would mean they were incompetent."

Evidence came from other sources.

Efrain Diaz Arrivillaga, then a delegate in the Honduran Congress and a voice of dissent in the prevailing atmosphere of intimidation, said he spoke several times to Negroponte about ,, the military`s human rights abuses.

Diaz said that in meetings at the U.S. Embassy and at social occasions, he rebuked Negroponte for the U.S. government`s refusal to take a stand against the repression.

The Honduran legislator said Negroponte reproached him for refusing to take a strong stand against Communists who were trying to seize control of Honduras.

"I remember Negroponte told me, `You and others, what you are proposing is to let communism take over this country and over the region,` " Diaz said.

"The most important thing to him was to win public support for the presence of the U.S. military in Honduras," Diaz said. "Their [the U.S.] attitude was one of tolerance and silence. They needed Honduras to loan its territory more than they were concerned about innocent people being killed."

Accusations against the military also came from former insiders.

In August 1982, Col. Leonidas Torres Arias, ousted chief of intelligence for the Honduran military, issued a public warning about Battalion 316. In a news conference in Mexico City, he told reporters about "a death squad operating in Honduras led by armed forces chief General Gustavo Alvarez."

The story made headlines in Mexico and across Central America. reporter from the Honduran newspaper El Tiempo asked Negroponte about the colonel`s allegations.

Said Negroponte in an article that appeared Oct. 16, 1982: "Democracy is being consolidated in this country. The armed forces have supported that process. It was the armed forces that turned over power to the civilian constitutional leaders of Honduras. So, I have a lot of difficulty taking those kinds of accusations seriously."

The evidence was also to be found in the streets of Tegucigalpa.

Each week, hundreds marched through the streets of the capital demanding the release of the disappeared. Sometimes they marched past the U.S. Embassy, a hulking concrete complex on Paz Avenue.

The Committee of the Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH)turned to the U.S. government for help. On June 13, 1983, COFADEH addressed an open letter to Richard Stone, President Reagan`s special envoy to Central America, complaining that the Honduran military was holding dissidents in clandestine jails.

"More than 40 people have been illegally arrested and tortured," the letter said. "Some have never been heard from since their arrest."

The letter was published in El Tiempo, one of the largest newspapers in Honduras. The U.S. government never responded to the committee`s pleas.

In an interview, Stone said that he did not recall the letter.

Spurned at the embassy

In October 1983, members of COFADEH visited the U.S. Embassy to ask for help. They said they met with Scott Thayer, a junior political officer assigned to monitor human rights. Among the relatives who attended was Bertha Oliva, whose husband, Tomas Nativi, had been missing for more than two years.

Also there was Zenaida Velasquez, whose brother, Manfredo, had been missing for more than two years.

The parents of Eduardo Lanza attended. Lanza, a medical student, had been a prominent student leader when he was kidnapped by Battalion 316 in August 1982.

The group told Thayer that they had searched jails and hospitals across Honduras for their missing relatives, that military officials only laughed at them and that judges were too afraid to help. They begged the embassy to use its influence with Honduran officials to win their relatives` freedom.

Zenaida Velasquez remembers that Thayer listened politely, then dismissed their allegations.

"He said he knew Honduras had a democratic government and [that] those kinds of practices were not going on," Velasquez said. "They were such a bunch of liars it was disgusting."

Thayer, now a political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid, Spain, said that meeting with Hondurans about human rights abuses "was part of my job. I recall having meetings like that, but I can`t recall that specific meeting."

Oliva still fumes over the meeting. In an interview in Tegucigalpa, she said that the embassy official acted as if they were fabricating the disappearances of their relatives.

"He was very cold, very cold," she said, pursing her lips. "Any kindness was gone. He did not even smile at us."

Roberto Becerra, father of the student Eduardo Lanza, said he came away from the meeting with a hopeless feeling.

"We felt like we were screaming in the desert. No one heard us. No one would help us."

In at least one case, Negroponte was confronted with evidence of abuse that he could not ignore -- the arrest and torture in July 1982 of journalist Oscar Reyes and his wife, Gloria.

Reyes, a founder of the journalism school at the National Autonomous University of Honduras, was openly sympathetic to the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua and had written numerous newspaper columns criticizing the Honduran military.

The abduction of the Reyeses sparked newspaper stories and raucous student protests. The Reyeses said they were locked in secret cell for a week, and beaten and tortured with electric shocks.

At the U.S. Embassy, there was fear that if the story got to the United States it might damage carefully assembled public support for the Central America program operating out of Honduras.

Cresencio S. Arcos, then the embassy press spokesman, alerted Negroponte that the Honduran military had abducted the Reyeses.

"If they do this guy, then we`re in trouble," Arcos warned. "We cannot let this guy get hurt. ... It would be a disaster for our policy.

"The ambassador did approach [General] Alvarez about this to manifest his concern," Arcos said.

The case clearly shows that Negroponte knew of the Reyeses` abduction and that the ambassador acted in such cases when he felt compelled to do so.

Reyes and his wife were released from the clandestine jail after a week. They were taken before a public court and sentenced to six months in prison. Two weeks before their sentences ended, they were allowed to leave for the United States on condition that they keep quiet about the torture they endured.

That condition was laid down personally by Alvarez, said the Reyeses, who now live in Vienna, Va.

The U.S. Embassy also kept quiet publicly about the Reyes case. It was not mentioned in the human rights report for 1982, even though it was widely covered in the Honduran press and illustrated the Honduran military`s violation of human rights on several counts: illegal abduction, secret incarceration, torture and suppression of press freedom.

Instead, the 1982 report asserted: "No incident of official interference with the media has been recorded for several years."

Inside the embassy

Negroponte`s aides at the embassy told The Sun that they knew about serious human rights abuses by the Honduran military, and that the violence was a subject of constant discussion.

One of those aides was a junior political officer, Rick Chidester, who was assigned in 1982 to gather information for the embassy`s annual report on human rights, a task that usually fell to a junior officer.

Chidester, now 43 and a private businessman, said that while in Honduras, he interviewed human rights advocates and journalists who provided him with information that the Honduran military was illegally detaining, torturing and executing people.

"I had allegations about vans coming up to police cells and taking out people they [the Honduran military] didn`t want ... and shooting them," Chidester said. "I had allegations that, as part of the interrogation techniques, torture was being used."

He said he included the allegations in his draft of the 1982 report.

A supervisor, who Chidester will not name, demanded proof -- sworn testimony or photographs of torture victims. Chidester said he was admonished for basing his report on rumors when he was unable to produce such evidence.

Chidester said he argued that while he had not interviewed torture victims, the allegations came from too many credible sources to be ignored, and that the reports were not supposed to be limited to provable facts.

"While the State Department is not an investigative body, we`re supposed to analyze political events and identify trends," Chidester said. "Our analysis is valuable, even if based on opinion and not admissible as proof in a court of law."

His arguments failed.

By the time the report reached the U.S. Congress, the serious accusations against the Honduran military had been removed. Allegations that remained were described as unsubstantiated or isolated abuses that had been dealt with swiftly by the Honduran government.

Overall, the report portrayed Honduras as an emerging democracy where the civilian government and military respected human rights.

The report was such a misrepresentation of the facts that Chidester recalls joking with others in the embassy: "What is this, the human rights report for Norway?"

An official explanation

While Negroponte has refused to be interviewed by The Sun, his boss at the time of his appointment to Honduras described the priorities on human rights.

Thomas Enders, the assistant secretary of state who told Negroponte`s predecessor to stop reporting rights violations through normal channels, said it was crucial to keep U.S. aid flowing to Honduras.

"What we were attempting to do was, on the one hand, to maintain our ability to act in Central America. That is, our congressional authority to send economic and military aid, so we avoided direct public confrontations against the military in El Salvador and Honduras," he said.

"And at the same time, privately we were spending an enormous amount of effort in order to change the way they looked at how they behaved. There was endless jawboning."

Instead of telling Congress what was going on in Central America, the Reagan administration employed the State Department human rights reports as instruments to advance policy objectives.

Consequently, the human rights reports differed sharply in tone, depending on whether the government was a friend or foe.

The 1982 report on Nicaragua -- where the United States was trying to topple the Marxist Sandinista regime -- made strong charges against that government.

A section titled "Respect for the Integrity of the Person, Including Freedom from Killing" said: "There is credible evidence that security forces have been responsible for the death of a number of detained persons in 1982."

In the same section of the Honduras report for 1982, the State Department said: "Allegations that death squads have made their appearance in Honduras have not been substantiated."

Cresencio Arcos, press spokes-man in the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa from June 1980 to July 1985 and U.S. ambassador from December 1989 to July 1993, explained the difference:

"Invariably, the result in this process was to magnify your enemies` misdeeds and minimize your friends` misdeeds," he said.

Ambassador Negroponte also made numerous public statements praising the Honduran military for supporting the civilian government and for respecting the rights of its people.

In a letter to the New York Times, published on Sept. 12, 1982, he wrote:

"Honduras` increasingly professional armed forces are dedicated to defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, and they are publicly committed to civilian constitutional rule."

In October 1982, he wrote to The Economist: "Honduras` increasingly professional armed forces are fully supportive of this country`s constitutional system."

That was the same year journalist Oscar Reyes and his wife were abducted and tortured by the Honduran military for a week because of articles he had written.

On Aug. 12, 1983, the Los Angeles Times published a Negroponte column in which he acknowledged that there were ""credible allegations of some disappearances."

However, he added: "There is no indication that the infrequent human rights violations that do occur are part of deliberate government policy. Indeed, disciplinary action has been taken against members of the police and military (including officers) who have abused their authority."

That year, in a case that gained notoriety, the 24-year-old leftist Ines Consuelo Murillo was held for more than 11 weeks -- naked, beaten, suffocated, shocked, fondled and threatened with rape.

To this day, none of her torturers has been punished.

Arcos said that Negroponte privately expressed concerns about abuses to Honduran officials.

"The ambassador did pressure the Hondurans. Not publicly. Quietly," Arcos said.

"We were concerned by the issue. Reports [of human rights abuses] were increasing."

Even years after he left Honduras, Negroponte would not publicly acknowledge the crimes of kidnapping, torture and murder that were committed by the Honduran military.

During his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing as ambassador to Mexico in 1989, Negroponte was asked about Battalion 316 and its abuses.

"I have never seen any convincing substantiation that they were involved in death squad-type activities," he said.
Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun

[Joerver]

Nochmals Sonntagsausgabe der NYT

March 16, 2003
Anger on Iraq Seen as New Qaeda Recruiting Tool
By DON VAN NATTA Jr. and DESMOND BUTLER


LONDON, March 15 — On three continents, Al Qaeda and other terror organizations have intensified their efforts to recruit young Muslim men, tapping into rising anger about the American campaign for war in Iraq, according to intelligence and law enforcement officials.

In recent weeks, officials in the United States, Europe and Africa say they had seen evidence that militants within Muslim communities are seeking to identify and groom a new generation of terrorist operatives. An invasion of Iraq, the officials worry, is almost certain to produce a groundswell of recruitment for groups committed to attacks in the United States, Europe and Israel.

"An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups," a senior American counterintelligence official said. "And it is a very effective tool."

Another American official, based in Europe, said Iraq had become "a battle cry, in a way," for Qaeda recruiters.

Some of the information about Qaeda recruiting comes from interrogations of captured operatives and from materials found at the house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, where Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the third-ranking Qaeda leader, was arrested this month, officials say.

The surge in Qaeda recruitment efforts has been most visible in Germany, Britain, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands, the officials said. Investigators have significantly increased their use of informants and, in some cases, bugging devices, to monitor mosques and other gathering places, where they have observed a sharp spike in anti-American rhetoric.

For example, German domestic intelligence agents have eavesdropped on increasingly shrill sermons in mosques about the possibility of war with Iraq, a message that officials there say has clearly resonated with young people. The officials expressed deep concern that the angry climate would lead to a torrent of new recruits.

"I can`t use numbers, but we know the activity is increasing and the willingness to participate and to listen to radical messages is on the rise," says Carl Heinrich von Bauer, ministerial counsel at the Interior Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia. He is the chief of the German state department that is responsible for monitoring terrorism. "There are more people coming to hear radical talks," he said. "Also we are seeing people go suddenly from jeans to traditional dress and long beards."

That target audience, officials say, is a somewhat changed one — younger people, many of them converts to Islam, easily susceptible to the appeal of violence. In addition, more women are being attracted to Al Qaeda, albeit in secondary roles, officials say.

"We have noticed an increasing number of people who seem to be willing to use violence for Islamic causes since Sept. 11 and especially in recent months because of Iraq and Palestine," said Jean-Louis Bruguière, France`s top investigative judge on terrorism cases.

In particular, Mr. Bruguière said he had detected a "much more menacing attitude" that could make it much easier for Al Qaeda to sign up new recruits. "More people seem to be willing to commit violence," he said.

A senior American counterterrorism official said that Mr. Mohammed was deeply involved in recruitment activities for Al Qaeda, and that the authorities had already gleaned a better understanding of that operation from the materials found in the Rawalpindi house. The official confirmed that investigators were convinced there had been a spike in such activities, but refused to say anything further.

Another official said the searches had produced a trove of information about Qaeda operatives in the United States and in Europe.

The most recent audiotape message that was purported to have been from Osama bin Laden, broadcast by Al Jazeera, the Arab television station, was partially intended to be a call to arms for Al Qaeda, counterterrorism officials said. In the 16-minute message, the speaker, whom the authorities say they now believe was indeed Mr. bin Laden, exhorts Muslims to seize the chance to defend President Saddam Hussein`s "godless" government, portraying an invasion as an unwarranted attack against all Muslims by the United States.

"The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq," the speaker said. "All Muslims have to begin jihad against this unjust war."

Some officials said they began to detect signs of renewed recruitment efforts last summer, just as Bush administration officials began talking in earnest about plans to invade Iraq. When Ramzi bin al-Shibh was arrested last September in Karachi, Pakistan, the authorities said they discovered equipment for producing CD`s, presumably to be used as training and recruitment tools. Recently, the authorities discovered recruitment videos and CD`s were being produced in Karachi. The recruitment pitch is simple: American policies are directly responsible for Muslims` misery, all over the world.

Investigators and sociologists in many European countries say conversion to traditional dress is an important sign of conversion to militancy; new recruits are often pressured or persuaded to change their appearance as a symbol of their commitment. Officials said they had seen an increasing trend in traditional dress in Muslim communities.

"There are in effect two phases here," Mr. von Bauer said. "First you are expected to demonstrate your new inner faith outwardly, through traditional dress. Later you might go back to Western dress to make yourself less noticeable, because your faith is no longer a question."

To an extent, recruiters have turned away from the mosques, where so many of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers met and joined Al Qaeda. In Europe, in particular, governments have cracked down on open calls for violence in the mosques. Officials said they believed that militants now operated in tea shops, Islamic bookshops or ancient souks, where people often congregate after prayers. Officials also complained that they had struggled to find useful informants as extremist groups become even more conspiratorial and careful.

Officials have relied on information from the interrogations of hundreds of suspected Islamic terrorists captured in Europe in the last two years. They have provided a more detailed portrait of the people who are most susceptible to these groups` recruitment techniques.

According to some, the profiles have changed somewhat in recent months.

"Many of these people are younger than before — between 20 and 30," Judge Bruguière said. "They are mostly converts. The threat of war in Iraq could have a tangible effect."

Mr. Bruguière also noted that French investigators had seen a puzzling increase in the number of women, often ethnic European converts, who were playing an important role within European networks, as wives of cell members. The women have auxiliary roles, but provide immigrant radicals with cover and ease their naturalization.

Investigators also say Al Qaeda and affiliated groups have successfully sought young educated Muslim men, often within European universities. Three of the Sept. 11 suicide pilots, investigators believe, were members of a larger cell based in Hamburg, Germany, made up of young men attending local technical colleges. Officials say that recruiters continue to operate in universities because they prefer to recruit intelligent, skilled operatives.

According to Mr. von Bauer, the student recruits are more likely to convert to extreme religious views after arriving in a new environment.

He said the recruits were "alienated because they don`t speak the language or understand the culture."

"Then they find community in Arab clubs or societies," Mr. von Bauer said. "This often brings them to the Friday Prayers."

Mr. von Bauer said feelings of alienation also contributed to some young Muslims` anger and feelings of disenfranchisement. "Imagine how it must feel for an educated Arab to come here," he said. "They see sex everywhere, on the television, on the newsstands, and it offends them. They immediately see this as the decadence of the Western world. They feel morally superior, and this fuels their outrage."

Despite an apparent increase in potential recruits, many analysts say that the American-led campaign in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 had shut down Al Qaeda`s primary training camps and dealt an enormous blow to the network`s ability to recruit and train new members. But officials believe that terrorist groups have established new bases of operation, especially in the Caucasus. "I fear that Chechnya could become the new Afghanistan," Judge Bruguière said. "The threat is moving to the Caucasus, because the jihad system needs a battleground."

In response to concerns that European cell members and new recruits are traveling to the Caucasus, France has opened up an inquiry focusing on Chechnya and Pankisi Gorge in Georgia.

Other officials and experts believe that video images of an American-led invasion of Iraq may ultimately hand Mr. bin Laden his most useful recruitment tool.

"Bin Laden`s strategy has always been to demonstrate to the Islamic community that the West, and especially the U.S., is starting a global war against Muslims," Judge Bruguière said. "An attack on Iraq might confirm this vision for many Muslims. I am very worried about the next wave of recruits."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

"Wenn Bush ein Mann der Mitte ist, dann ist Attila der Hunne ein gefährlicher Linker."


Bart: Are journalists missing in action?
Mon Mar 10, 2:18 AM ET Add Entertainment - Reuters/Variety Industry to My Yahoo!


By Peter Bart, Variety Editor-in-Chief

HOLLYWOOD (Variety) - I like to think I read the newspapers carefully and keep up with TV news, but lately I`ve become fretful about those stories I`ve missed. Or think I`ve missed.



I`ve read many stories quoting the wisdom of stock analysts as they`ve hyped their various "hot companies," but somehow never saw pieces revealing their conflicts of interest. Until the regulators stepped in, that is.


I used to read all those cover stories in business magazines heralding the genius of Kenneth Lay and Dennis Koslowski, but missed the pieces advising investors that they also happened to be crooks.


More urgently, while I read accounts during the election campaign describing George W. Bush as a calm, middle-of-the-road conservative and consensus builder, I somehow missed those stories suggesting that he would be the most radical right-wing president in American history.


The press kept telling me what a great guy W was, so why has Mr. Nice Guy alienated every ally in the world?


There are explanations for these "misses," to be sure. The analysts enjoyed great press because they were so deliciously accessible. Why settle for a "no comment" from a gruff CEO when an analyst would eagerly volunteer an opinion, provided he had something to gain from it?


The journalistic habit of rallying behind anything that`s "hot" also tilted coverage of the Enrons and Tycos. "Hot" numbers triggered "hot" stories. When Gerald Levin of AOL Time Warner promised that his company would double in size every three years, the press passed it on breathlessly. After all, it`s a CEO talking.


Which brings us back to the serious stuff. With our soldiers marching into combat, it would be nice to have some assurance that we`ll be given credible reports about the war and how it resonates around the world.


Are these expectations realistic?


Well, thus far we`ve been told that Iraq (news - web sites) has provided crucial aid to Al Qaeda. OK. Iraq`s weapons pose an imminent threat to the world. OK. Post-Hussein, a democratic Iraq will represent a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. Cool.


Now how about the other side? Where is that magic mix of interpretive journalism that lends both vitality and credibility to a free press?


Well, let`s go back to the dawning of the W era. Scan the accounts of newspapers across the country and you elicit a picture of the president we thought we elected. He was a president bent on making "remarkably centrist appointments," said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He was a practitioner of "pragmatic, centrist politics," said the St. Paul Pioneer Press. He was a man who said, "I was bipartisan before bipartisan was cool," according to the Baltimore Sun.


The New York Times told us that the new president, in forming his Cabinet, was desperate to find "at least one Democrat" -- an instinct that "has echoes of John F. Kennedy." Dick Cheney (news - web sites) was quoted by the Times as saying that the election put a "special burden" on the President "to work on a bipartisan basis and in a cooperative spirit."


Notice, the most common word describing the new Bush presidency was "centrist." Well, if George W. Bush is a centrist, then Attila the Hun was a dangerous lefty.


Ask working journalists about all this and they`ll explain their woes in reporting on the presidency. TV newsmen tell you their staffs have been eviscerated by the number crunchers.


Some also hint there`s been a subtle shift to the right as a result of the ascension of Fox News. Magazine writers complain about corporate constraints at a time when ad revenues are plunging. The right is very well organized, they say, and not inhibited about complaining.


Probably there`s a germ of truth in all these explanations. The bottom line, however, is that journalists already seem to be missing in action.


And the war hasn`t even started yet.

Reuters/Variety

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20030310/media_…

[Joerver]

Die amerikanischen Medien

Sorting out the truth
From remarks by Al Gore and Bill Clinton to a new book by Eric Alterman, the myth of liberal media bias is finally being challenged. Has the pendulum swung — or do we all now live in the Savage Nation?
BY DAN KENNEDY

NO ONE KNEW IT at the time. But last November 26 may have marked the peak of unchallenged, unbridled influence on the part of the conservative media.

Mainstream news organizations, cowed by George W. Bush’s post-9/11 popularity, were quiescent as the president celebrated his victory in the midterm elections and made plans for an unpopular war. The Fox News Channel had triumphed in the world of cable news, pugnaciously asserting Republican talking points as though they were gospel, all the while claiming to be "fair and balanced." Screeds charging the media with liberal bias, such as Bernard Goldberg’s Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News (Regnery Publishing, 2001) and Ann Coulter’s Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (Crown, 2002), rocketed up the bestseller charts.

Then, on November 27, the media landscape shifted — imperceptibly at first, but with a force that has since gathered momentum. It was on that day that the New York Observer published an interview with Al Gore in which the former vice-president told the truth about the media and their ideological loyalties. "The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore told the Observer, citing Fox, the Washington Times, and Rush Limbaugh’s radio program. Gore described how conservative talking points come to be accepted as fact: "Something will start at the Republican National Committee, inside the building, and it will explode the next day on the right-wing talk-show network and on Fox News and in the newspapers that play this game, the Washington Times and others. And then they’ll create a little echo chamber, and pretty soon they’ll start baiting the mainstream media for allegedly ignoring the story they’ve pushed into the Zeitgeist. And pretty soon the mainstream media goes out and disingenuously takes a so-called objective sampling, and lo and behold, these RNC talking points are woven into the fabric of the Zeitgeist."

Want an example? Gore didn’t mention it, but how about the grotesquely exaggerated charges, amplified and repeated incessantly on Fox, that Democratic senator Paul Wellstone’s funeral had turned into a Bush-bashing political rally? Despite credible denials from those who were there, the conservative media kept goosing it in the days before the election, driving up turnout and in all likelihood throwing the Senate to the Republicans.

It wasn’t immediately evident that Gore’s remarks had changed anything. But they had. Suddenly, a mainstream politician was saying what left-leaning organizations such as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting and Web sites such as the Daily Howler had been saying for years: that the whole notion of liberal media bias was a crock. And that conservative media outlets, though vastly outnumbered by the allegedly liberal mainstream, pushed partisan arguments so relentlessly that they had disproportionate influence on public discourse.

In short order, Gore’s remarks gained traction. In December, the cautiously liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne — in a piece headlined the rightward press (a play on "The Wayward Press," as the legendary mid-century press critic A.J. Liebling’s New Yorker column was called) — quoted Bill Clinton as contrasting an "increasingly right-wing and bellicose conservative press" with "an increasingly docile establishment press."

That docility was never more apparent than when racist Senate majority leader Trent Lott made a characteristically racist remark. The mainstream media, disinclined to go after conservatives, tried to give Lott a good leaving-alone — until they were shamed into action by bloggers on both the right (Andrew Sullivan) and the left (Josh Marshall). Soon, a conservative icon fell.

In February, the New York Times reported that well-heeled Democratic supporters intend to create a liberal talk-radio network to compete with the likes of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and the loathsome newest star of talk radio, Michael Savage. Savage (real name: Michael Weiner), a onetime herbalist turned right-wing hatemonger, tried to defuse a campaign by gay activists to keep him off MSNBC by opening his first show last Saturday with footage of a cop, apparently a lesbian, telling him, "I’m kind of one of those cropped-hair women, but I still love you."

But here’s how Savage, in a January 14 rant, characterized those who oppose Bush’s Iraq policy: "If you scratch the surface of the predominant motif of those in the antiwar movement, and I don’t say all by any means, a goodly portion of the men are homosexuals, a goodly portion of the women are lesbians — I look at the cars going by which say no war in iraq, and believe me, I know what I’m talking about. And, of course, the guys in Hollywood who are antiwar are generally impotent. That’s my opinion."

GORE’S CRITIQUE has not become accepted wisdom. Nor is it likely to for some time, if ever. The modern charge of liberal media bias goes back to Richard Nixon’s vice-president, Spiro Agnew, who, playing Charlie McCarthy to William Safire’s Edgar Bergen, denounced the media as liberal "nattering nabobs of negativism." Conservatives have carefully nurtured this untruth throughout the intermittent decades. Indeed, the newfound (at least to the mainstream) notion that the media have a conservative bias was immediately attacked by Washington Post columnist Michael Kelly — who, during a recently ended stint as editor of the Atlantic Monthly, moved that venerable bastion of liberalism considerably to the right — and by Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby, who smugly asserted that liberals will fail on talk radio because the medium thrives on "ideas." Really? See Savage, Michael, op. cit.

But the point is not that liberals are suddenly winning the argument. It is, rather, that at long last the public is beginning to hear a coherent critique of conservative media bias. Polls show that the public believes the media favor liberals, which is unsurprising given that that’s what they’ve been told over and over again. And it’s not likely to change any time soon. But now, at least, there’s some competition in this marketplace of ideas. And given that a half-million more people voted for Gore than Bush in the 2000 election, there may be a substantial audience willing to consider the conservative-bias argument.

Which is why, of all these developments, perhaps the most important is the publication of a new book, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias in the News (Basic Books), by Eric Alterman, the media columnist for the left-liberal Nation and a blogger for MSNBC.com. The "bias" in his subtitle refers to the charge of liberal media bias in general and to Bernard Goldberg’s aforementioned tedious, poorly argued book in particular (see "Don`t Quote Me," News and Features, January 18, 2002), although he dispenses with the latter in a few pages. As to the former, Alterman — by sheer accumulation of evidence — mounts a devastating assault on the notion that the news media are in bed with liberals and Democrats.

Other than the depth of detail Alterman offers, there’s nothing here that should surprise anyone. Yet, given the sturdiness of the liberal-media-bias shibboleth, his thesis undoubtedly will be a surprise to many. In brief, Alterman argues that conservatives have used the liberal-bias model — indeed, he quotes prominent conservatives such as William Kristol and Pat Buchanan as admitting it was never much more than a handy cudgel — to "work the refs"; that is, to demand that the media bend over so far backward in an attempt to be fair that they end up favoring conservatives over liberals.

Wisely, Alterman concedes that the mainstream media are broadly liberal, especially on social and cultural issues such as reproductive choice, gay rights, and attitudes toward religion. But at the same time, Alterman observes, the media are overwhelmingly moderate to conservative on economic policy, as contemptuous of organized labor and the anti-globalization movement as, say, the average CEO. They are heavily influenced by the interests of their corporate owners, self-censoring so efficiently that top-down decrees are entirely unnecessary — which means that actual examples of corporate censorship are rare. "The reporter, the editor, the producer, and the executive producer all understand implicitly that their jobs depend in part on keeping their corporate parents happy," Alterman writes.

Alterman also observes that the pundit ratio of any mainstream media outlet, whether it be the op-ed page of the New York Times, the commentaries on NPR, or the talking heads on the networks’ Sunday-morning chat shows, are far more balanced with conservatives than the conservative media are with liberals. The same allegedly liberal journalists who voted for Clinton and Gore made their careers by tormenting them — in Clinton’s case about oral sex, in Gore’s case about nothing, really, except that they didn’t like him. Their revulsion reached a peak after the election, when the entire pundit class called on Gore to concede the presidency even though he’d won the popular vote and had good reason to believe he’d won Florida as well.

What Liberal Media? does a good job of explaining a little-understood engine behind conservative bias: the world of book publishing, think tanks, and punditry funded by the likes of the right-wing financier Richard Mellon Scaife, who once explained his political philosophy to the journalist Karen Rothmyer this way: "You fucking Communist cunt, get out of here." As Alterman notes, few books are actually read, which, to conservative activists, is an opportunity rather than a problem. As a case study, he offers up Charles Murray, whose books promoting punitive welfare reform (Losing Ground, Basic Books, 1984) and the notion that black people may be genetically inferior (The Bell Curve, with Richard Herrnstein, Free Press, 1994) entered the mainstream because of an organized conservative effort to garner positive book reviews and establish Murray as an expert.

Alterman chooses some counterintuitive targets to make some of his points. For example, he points to the Washington Post’s David Broder, the "dean" of political pundits, as having established a reputation as a centrist, or even a liberal, despite taking numerous conservative positions over the years — from calling Eugene McCarthy’s and Robert Kennedy’s antiwar activities "degrading" in 1968 to arguing 30 years later that Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was "worse" than Richard Nixon’s criminal abuse of his presidential powers.

The Post’s media reporter, Howard Kurtz, who also hosts CNN’s Reliable Sources, gets whacked by Alterman for lending the respectability of his nonpartisan image to conservatives ranging from Tucker Carlson to Laura Ingraham in both the profiles he writes for his paper and the guests he chooses for his show, while rarely saying a nice word about liberals. Interestingly, Alterman also goes into some depth about Kurtz’s conflict of interest in reporting on CNN for the Post. Yet Alterman fails to mention that several years ago, when the Washington Post Company formed an alliance with MSNBC, the company reportedly tried to pressure Kurtz into moving to that cable outlet, which is jointly owned by corporate titans General Electric and Microsoft. Whatever Kurtz’s conflicts may be, they pale compared to those of his employer.

The neolib/neocon New Republic takes it on the chin for reasons that are not its editors’ fault: the magazine continues to be held up as an icon of liberal thought by the Washington establishment even though it hasn’t been truly liberal for many years. Alterman’s argument is that conservatives can disingenuously cite TNR as a font of liberalism, thus discrediting true liberals, which is hardly TNR’s responsibility. (He quotes an old joke from former TNR editor Michael Kinsley that the magazine should be renamed Even the Liberal New Republic ...) Alterman also rather courageously (and accurately) notes that his own magazine, the Nation, is widely viewed as out of the mainstream in part because of "the continued appearance in its pages of a long-time Stalinist communist, Alexander Cockburn, whose unabashed hatred for both America and Israel, ... tarnish the reputation of its otherwise serious contributors."

I don’t agree with everything in Alterman’s book (although I appreciate the mention on page 59). The misspelled names are wince-inducing. He also undeservedly slimes John Ellis, the presidential cousin who, as an exit-poll consultant for Fox, prematurely called Florida for Bush on election night 2000. I know Ellis, and there’s no doubt that he wanted to be first and get it right, not diabolically create a stampede for Bush. Nevertheless, What Liberal Media? is a comprehensive, deeply impressive overview of what’s wrong with the American media today.

And what’s wrong is that tens of millions of Americans are being told continuously — by Rush, by Fox News, by the Wall Street Journal editorial page, by dozens of Limbaugh wanna-bes on local talk radio (hello, Jay Severin), and by commentators such as Michael Kelly, Jeff Jacoby, William Safire, George Will, Mona Charen, Charles Krauthammer, Robert Novak, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, David Horowitz, Fred Barnes, et al., et al. — that the real problem with the media is that they’re too damn liberal


CONSERVATIVES WILL disagree with Alterman, of course. But commentators without any particular ideological ax to grind have their differences as well. Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television, at Syracuse University, argues that the liberal-conservative debate is over nuances. "From Fox News to NPR, if you look at all these mainstream mass media, they’re all pretty much hovering around this center," Thompson says. "The media are convenient because they’re a universal recipient of any kind of ire or anxiety that society is experiencing at any particular time."

Jack Shafer, who writes the "Press Box" column for Slate, and who recently wrote a three-part series on bias in the media, finds nothing new to complaints about the conservative media, pointing to A.J. Liebling in the New Yorker of the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s and Alexander Cockburn in the Village Voice of the 1970s. In fact, Shafer told me that he thinks Hillary Rodman Clinton’s complaints of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" were more credible than the current critique, although he added, "Where I disagree with her was that she thought because there was a conspiracy, that therefore exonerated her husband. He was a perjurer and a serial liar, and she really didn’t have much to complain about."

Shafer also believes that the rightward tilt of the media, and of the culture, over the past several decades is far more the result of vast social change than of media bias per se. He notes that even China has moved to a market economy over the past 20 years, saying, "You can’t blame that on Richard Mellon Scaife."

I think Thompson and Shafer are both right and wrong. Much of the ideological argument today may be over small differences, as Thompson suggests, but Alterman shows how liberal and left commentators who would express much larger differences with the conventional wisdom are kept out of the mainstream media. Shafer is looking at media bias through the prism of ideas, which are anathema to most segments of the media. Bias, at least as practiced by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, is more about raw partisanship than ideas, and describing how that partisanship works is where Alterman is at his best. Conservatives have clearly gotten the upper hand. Three years ago the media lied about Al Gore "without consequence," to quote Vincent Foster’s comment about the Wall Street Journal editorial page in a note found after Foster committed suicide. Yet when New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, a widely admired economist at Princeton University, simply lays out the lies inherent in Bush’s economic and tax policies, the right brays for Krugman’s head and the mainstream cowers.

"The problem has been very obvious for a long time. It can no longer be ignored," says Joe Conason, a columnist for the New York Observer and a blogger for Salon. "I don’t think reporting of news stories is necessarily influenced by liberal or conservative bias. I do think there’s a serious problem in the commentary media, which of course has taken over so much of the media world. In those new media, such as cable TV and talk radio, where so many people get their opinions formed, there’s a huge imbalance of conservatives."

Bob Somerby is the impresario behind the Daily Howler Web site, which dissects media untruths — such as the claim Gore never made about "inventing" the Internet — with withering sarcasm and argument-ending research. A Harvard roommate of Gore’s who nevertheless points out that he came to Bush’s defense, in 1999, over a series of ridiculous stories about his alleged cocaine use, Somerby told me by e-mail, "I would guess that the claim of liberal bias has by now become so completely absurd that it was inevitable that it would be challenged. After the treatment of Clinton, then Gore, it’s impossible for any sane person to keep arguing that the press corps is somehow driven by liberal bias.... ‘Liberal bias’ is the greatest propaganda tool of the past 40 years — a surefire way to explain away any news report that the right doesn’t like."

And though liberals may finally be fighting back, they’re still losing. Recently, MSNBC canceled its only prime-time show hosted by a liberal, Phil Donahue, even though his admittedly pathetic ratings were nevertheless higher than those of the bellicose Chris Matthews. The latter’s ideological views are hard to pin down, but his anti-Clinton/anti-Gore animus presumably makes him a better bet for the long haul in the eyes of the MSNBC brass. Among Donahue’s last programs was a rollicking hour during which Al Franken eviscerated the so-called facts contained in Bernard Goldberg’s Bias, leaving Goldberg, who was in the studio, to sit and scowl. But Donahue had to go — perhaps, according to a report posted on the Web site AllYourTV.com, because of an internal study that found Donahue’s liberalism made him a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" (see "Media Log," BostonPhoenix.com, February 27).

Donahue is expected to be replaced eventually with former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. Meanwhile, the latest entry in the right-wing cable-TV sweepstakes is Michael Savage, Allen Ginsberg’s onetime nude-swimming partner (according to a highly entertaining piece in Salon last week) whose nationally syndicated, San Francisco–based radio talk show, Savage Nation, has some six million listeners. Savage’s book, The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language, and Culture (WND Books), released in January, is number two on the current New York Times bestseller list; in a nice irony, Michael Moore’s very liberal Stupid White Men (ReganBooks, 2002) is number one. (Savage is heard in Boston on WRKO Radio, AM 680, Monday through Friday, from 7 to 10 p.m. To learn more about Savage, I recommend MichaelSavageSucks.com.)

Despite protests from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Savage brought his brand of right-wing ranting to MSNBC this past Saturday from 5 to 6 p.m. It was Savage Lite, as evidenced by his benign encounter with the presumably lesbian cop. ("I’m not anti-gay. What do they want from me?" he said, smiling, as he signed a copy of his book for her.) Yet he still managed to get in a few of his trademark shots, calling for Bush to seek a declaration of war so that peace activists can be prosecuted for sedition. ("Then we can stop some of these maniacs who are encouraging our enemies, weakening our troops’ resolve, and confusing the American people. What do you think about that?") He indulged his massive ego, referring to The Savage Nation as "a great book" without irony, and telling a caller whose message was "I love your show, Mike": "I don’t blame you. I would love it, too, if I was home watching it." And when a caller tried to challenge his characterization of Mexicans as coming from a "Turd World nation," Savage cut him off.

Recently, on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes, Savage compared his political philosophy to a National Geographic documentary he’d seen in which a pride of lions rips apart a water buffalo. "When one of the buffalo got pulled out by the lions, they bit the water buffalo in the nose, they bit her in the behind. They started pulling pieces out of her, this beautiful strong animal," he told the co-host, Alan Colmes. "And they could only bring her down by going for her vulnerable parts. And once they got her down on the ground, kaput, it was over, my friend. This country is like a giant water buffalo. We’ve been hit in the nose. They’re going for our anus, they’re going for our vitals. I don’t understand why anybody would want to support the civil liberties of the sleepers in America. That’s who I’m talking about, Alan."

Liberal media bias? You’ve got to be kidding. For more than a generation, the conservatives have been going for — well, our noses, certainly, if not our anuses as well.

Now, finally, liberals are starting to fight back.

Dan Kennedy can be reached at [e-mail]. Read his daily Media Log on BostonPhoenix.com.

Zuviel Text. Was Desinformation bewirkt

http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/03/03/14.html

[Joerver]

Mehr über Ann Telness unter:

http://www.anntelnaes.com/

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Ein Flash über Pre-emptive Diplomacy


http://www.markfiore.com/animation/un.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

15 March 2003
Bush Notes 15th Anniversary of Chemical Attack on Iraqi Kurds
(President says Halabja attack demonstrates threat from Saddam
Hussein) (730)
President Bush spoke to the nation via radio March 15, noting the 15th
anniversary of the Iraqi regime`s chemical weapons attack on the Iraqi
Kurdish village of Halabja. He said the world`s free nations need to
show "whether their stated commitments to liberty and security are
words alone -- or convictions they`re prepared to act upon." The text
of the radio address follows:
(begin text)THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press SecretaryMarch 15, 2003RADIO ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT TO THE NATIONTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This weekend marks a bitter anniversary
for the people of Iraq. Fifteen years ago, Saddam Hussein`s regime
ordered a chemical weapons attack on a village in Iraq called Halabja.
With that single order, the regime killed thousands of Iraq`s Kurdish
citizens. Whole families died while trying to flee clouds of nerve and
mustard agents descending from the sky. Many who managed to survive
still suffer from cancer, blindness, respiratory diseases,
miscarriages, and severe birth defects among their children.
The chemical attack on Halabja -- just one of 40 targeted at Iraq`s
own people -- provided a glimpse of the crimes Saddam Hussein is
willing to commit, and the kind of threat he now presents to the
entire world. He is among history`s cruelest dictators, and he is
arming himself with the world`s most terrible weapons.
Recognizing this threat, the United Nations Security Council demanded
that Saddam Hussein give up all his weapons of mass destruction as a
condition for ending the Gulf War 12 years ago. The Security Council
has repeated this demand numerous times and warned that Iraq faces
serious consequences if it fails to comply. Iraq has responded with
defiance, delay and deception.
The United States, Great Britain and Spain continue to work with
fellow members of the U.N. Security Council to confront this common
danger. We have seen far too many instances in the past decade -- from
Bosnia, to Rwanda, to Kosovo -- where the failure of the Security
Council to act decisively has led to tragedy. And we must recognize
that some threats are so grave -- and their potential consequences so
terrible -- that they must be removed, even if it requires military
force.
As diplomatic efforts continue, we must never lose sight of the basic
facts about the regime of Baghdad.
We know from recent history that Saddam Hussein is a reckless dictator
who has twice invaded his neighbors without provocation -- wars that
led to death and suffering on a massive scale. We know from human
rights groups that dissidents in Iraq are tortured, imprisoned and
sometimes just disappear; their hands, feet and tongues are cut off;
their eyes are gouged out; and female relatives are raped in their
presence.
As the Nobel laureate and Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, said this
week, "We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in
control. Today, that place is Iraq."
We know from prior weapons inspections that Saddam has failed to
account for vast quantities of biological and chemical agents,
including mustard agent, botulinum toxin and sarin, capable of killing
millions of people. We know the Iraqi regime finances and sponsors
terror. And we know the regime has plans to place innocent people
around military installations to act as human shields.
There is little reason to hope that Saddam Hussein will disarm. If
force is required to disarm him, the American people can know that our
armed forces have been given every tool and every resource to achieve
victory. The people of Iraq can know that every effort will be made to
spare innocent life, and to help Iraq recover from three decades of
totalitarian rule. And plans are in place to provide Iraqis with
massive amounts of food, as well as medicine and other essential
supplies, in the event of hostilities.
Crucial days lie ahead for the free nations of the world. Governments
are now showing whether their stated commitments to liberty and
security are words alone -- or convictions they`re prepared to act
upon. And for the government of the United States and the coalition we
lead, there is no doubt: we will confront a growing danger, to protect
ourselves, to remove a patron and protector of terror, and to keep the
peace of the world.
Thank you for listening.(end text)(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

[Joerver]

Ich möchte in diesem Zusammenhang auf #337 hinweisen:
"Adolf Hitler justified the Nazi invasion and occupation of parts of Europe as a benign move to protect them from Britain`s imperial tyranny. The Nazis called it Lebensraum. We call it `pre-emptive self-defense.`"
Eine ähnliche Behauptung in folgenden Artikel von zwei Juristen.
"This doctrine, however, was also used by the Nazis to defend their aggression in World War II and by the Japanese to justify their attack on Pearl Harbor. "
Solche Diskussion kann in Deutschland nicht geführt werden ohne Gefahr der Verharmlosung des Nazi-Unrechts.
J.

U.S. apes Nazi rationale
Allison Marston Danner and George Fisher
Sunday, March 16, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


If the United Nations Security Council ends up authorizing the use of arms against Iraq, then war would carry the sanction of international law. But what if it does not?

President Bush says the United States will go to war with Iraq anyway. To justify military action without Security Council approval, the president invoked the doctrine of "pre-emptive" self-defense. In doing so, he dismissed a centuries-old principle of international law and opened the door to a world of unknown dangers and grave moral challenges.

In his State of the Union speech, the president criticized those who "have said we must not act until the threat is imminent." By rejecting the requirement of "imminence," Bush dismissed a principle first articulated by Daniel Webster in 1837. After the British justified an attack on U.S. territory as an act of self-defense, Webster delivered a famous rebuttal: Self- defense can justify one nation`s invasion of another only if the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

The Bush administration is not the first to reject Webster`s vision. The doctrine of "anticipatory" self-defense supplied the justification for our 1986 bombing of Libya. This doctrine, however, was also used by the Nazis to defend their aggression in World War II and by the Japanese to justify their attack on Pearl Harbor. Just last month, North Korea announced that with American troops en route to the region, it had a right to launch a pre-emptive attack against us.

Our government may have good cause to fear Saddam Hussein. But in seeking to bring down his regime without respecting the strict demands of self-defense,

we will unleash on the world a tool that ultimately may prove far more damaging to our safety. The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is still controversial; our decision to employ it in such a spectacular way will surely embolden less powerful countries.

From a politician`s standpoint - and in the short term - the elasticity of anticipatory self-defense is surely a virtue. But the danger of anticipatory self-defense is that it is self-judged. A country, possessed of secret information, simply decides for itself whether circumstances justify the use of force. We may trust the U.S. government to use anticipatory self-defense in a responsible way. But many less scrupulous countries will surely embrace this convenient doctrine and claim that secret information of threats to their security justifies an armed attack. Every bully on the world block will rejoice at this all-purpose legal weapon.

Moreover, the administration has provided no limiting principle to this muscular vision of self-defense. Terrorists and dangerous weapons lurk in a host of other countries. As soon as the Iraqi operation is finished, will the United States turn its eyes - and weapons - to them?

Daniel Webster`s injunction that a nation may act in self-defense only in cases of "an instant and overwhelming necessity" was only incidentally about timing. More fundamentally, it was about alternatives and the need to avoid war until there was "no choice of means." But as proposals recently vetted in Europe make clear, there remain other ways to increase the pressure on the Iraqi regime to disarm. Time is not yet of the essence. With hundreds of inspectors now on the ground, it is difficult to see how any Iraqi threat can mature into a vital danger to U.S. security.

The Nuremberg Judgment invoked Webster`s time-honored formula in rejecting the Nazis` specious claim of self-defense. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who served as the U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, assured the tribunal`s judges that the tribunal did not simply represent "victor`s justice. " "We must never forget," he said, "that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our lips as well."

The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defense imposes on us the moral obligation to judge our evidence scrupulously and to act only in case of a genuine, vital threat to our security. If we attack Iraq, we will be judged both by the quality of our evidence and by the moral justification for force in the face of a peaceful alternative. Those of us outside the Bush administration`s inner circle have no way to scrutinize the administration`s evidence that Iraq poses a genuine near-term threat to U.S. security. But although the public cannot scrutinize the administration`s evidence, history surely will.

Allison Marston Danner and George Fisher are professors at Vanderbilt University Law School and Stanford Law school, respectively.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

"Do you know why they tested this bomb(MOAB*) in Florida? It`s conditions are almost identical to the ones in Iraq. Florida is full of people who don`t speak English, lots of sand, warm climate, and, of course, in Florida they don`t believe in fair elections either." —Jay Leno

Sad but true.

Nächsten Jahr soll es auch "Freedom Birds" zu Thanksgiving geben, wenn die Türken nicht noch klein beigeben.


*Mother off all Bombs

[Joerver]

Three Texas surgeons were arguing about who had the greatest skill.
The first began, "Three years ago, I reattached three fingers on a
pianist. He went on to give a recital for the Queen of England."
The second replied, "That`s nothing. I attended a man in a car
accident. All his arms and legs were severed from his body. Two years
after I reattached them, he won three gold medals for field events in the Olympics."
The third said, "A few years back, I attended to a cowboy. He was
high on pot and alcohol when he rode his horse head-on into a freight
train traveling at 100 miles per hour. All I had to work with was the
horse`s ass and a ten gallon hat. Two years ago he became President
of the United States."

[Joerver]

Poor Tony Blair wakes up
The prime minister thought he could sagely steer his impetuous American friends away from actions they would later regret. It turns out they were just playing him for a patsy

Terry Jones
Sunday March 16, 2003
The Observer

It`s not easy when you find out that your friends have been using you as a chump.

Tony Blair must have been really sick this week when Donald Rumsfeld casually let drop that Mr.Bush and his team couldn`t give a toss about Britain sending soldiers to Iraq. Truth is, they`d probably prefer it if we didn`t, but our participation at least means they can pretend it`s an international force.

But I bet Tony feels terribly slighted - after all he`s gone through to prove his devotion to the ideals of extremist Republican militarism. He`s practically split his party, put his own leadership in jeopardy and made himself look thoroughly ill in the process. And what has he got out of it? A few pats on the back and nice Christmas card from the White House, I expect.

I mean it`s simply not fair. Here he is - Prime Minister of Great Britain (just) - and he`s doing everything he possibly can including leaning over backwards and licking his own bottom. He`s spending vast amounts of money he hasn`t got on sending men to the Gulf. He`s put his entire nation in the front line for terrorist reprisals. He`s upset his other admirers in Europe, and - to cap it all - he`s put his name to a plan that is not just plain stupid but is actually wicked, and in return? Zilch.

All the contracts for reconstructing Iraq are to go to American companies - preferably ones like Haliburton, which remain such good friends with their old boss vice-president Dick Cheney. But not a single British company is to benefit from all the mayhem and destruction that the bombing is going to cause.

Poor old Tony doesn`t even get a bone.

I suppose he should have been more careful about who he was playing with in the first place.

But they took him for a sucker.

He thought he`d be able to cut a decent figure as the elder statesman, sagely steering his impetuous American friends away from actions they would later regret. And for that he was prepared to subscribe to the most hawkish, aggressive regime that has ever held power in the good ole US of A. A regime whose planners spelled out their schemes for American military world domination in a report for the Project for the New American Century published in September 2000, before the George Bush seized power. (You can look it up on www.newamericancentury.org).

Their aim, they say in their report, is "to shape a new century favourable to American principles and interests". And they make it quite clear that they envisage achieving those aims not by diplomacy but through military might. For which reason they need "increase defense spending gradually to a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross national product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually."

At the time they knew there was little hope of the American public buying into such imperialistic dreams. What was needed they said in their pre Sept 11th report was: "some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbour." Well the dreams came true.

And now it`s quite obvious that instead of Mr Rumsfeld and Mr. Cheney listening attentively to Mr Blair`s sage advice, they`ve simply been using him as a patsy - a convenient fig-leaf.

Tony Blair has merely been helping to give Mr. Bush`s barbaric planners for World domination credibility amongst the American public.

The only conceivable hope of stopping their militaristic global ambitions is for the rest of the world to oppose them. There might then be some hope that the American public would wake up to what sort of a government they currently have. The reawakening of American democracy is the only hope for a future world that is not ridden by terrorism and global warfare.

· Terry Jones writes regularly for The Observer. To all those readers who have written in to ask if this Terry Jones had anything to do with Monty Python, the answer is yes.

[Joerver]

Zufall?


Sunday, March 16, 2003

[Joerver]

Posted: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 6:05 AEDT

Bush says `moment of truth` tomorrow
US President George W Bush has called for the immediate and unconditional disarmament of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Without being specific, Mr Bush says tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world.

He has urged nations who have voiced a commitment to peace and security to demonstrate that commitment by supporting the disarmament of Iraq.

"The United Nations Security Council in resolution 1441 has declared Iraq in material breach of its long-standing obligations, demanded once Iraq`s full and immediate disarmament, and promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply," he said.

"That resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable, the Iraq regime will disarm itself or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp

Trotzdem:


Hope for peace in Iraq flickers
By Anwar Iqbal
From the International Desk
Published 3/16/2003 12:42 PM


WASHINGTON, March 16 (UPI) -- Hundreds of candles will light up Washington`s Lincoln Memorial Sunday evening when religious leaders from across the United States gather to pray for peace in Iraq.

Thousands more will join the candlelight vigil across the world, turning to prayers to stop a war that looks increasingly unavoidable.

It was at the memorial that Rev. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. made his historic speech of his dream of racial harmony in the United States. And only a few hundred yards from the memorial is the White House where war plans are apparently receiving final touches.

But a strange serenity has descended on the greens of the National Mall where peace lovers were quietly -- no drums, no slogans and no dances -- preparing to seek God`s help to stop a war they do not want.

On Saturday tens of thousands of anti-war protesters marched to the White House Saturday from the mall. They had come from more than 100 American cities to tell President Bush that al of "America wants peace," as the organizers said.

But by Saturday evening an eerie silence returned to the mall. Most of the outside demonstrators had already left the U.S. capital. Those who stayed were quiet and pensive.

"When it (the sun) rises again on Monday morning, I hope the administration would have realized there are two superpowers in the world: the United States and world opinion," said the Rev. Bob Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches. "And the world opinion is against the war."

But organizers of Saturday`s march were on Sunday quietly expressing the fear that this was their last stand against an invasion of Iraq.

"We do what we have to do," said a protester in a voice choking with emotions. Earlier in the day, he was carrying a placard with the message, "Stop Mad Cowboy Disease" above a picture of Bush.

"No blood for oil, no blood for oil," murmured another protester who stayed at the mall even after it was dark. "No blood for oil," he repeatedly quietly before moving to the nearest subway station.

But even during the day, when the entire area was ringing with anti-war slogans, there was no one at the White House to listen.

Its tenant was not at home. Bush, who has spearheaded the drive to disarm Iraq, by force if necessary, was at Camp David preparing for Sunday`s summit in the Azores with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Spain`s Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and Portugal Prime Minister Durao Barroso.

There`s widespread belief that once that summit is concluded, Bush would make a final demand that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein disarm and a war could begin by week`s end or sooner.

Despite the march`s peaceful atmosphere, Washington police said six protesters were arrested. Five protesters were arrested Saturday for entering the World Bank headquarters in downtown Washington. Police said those arrested have been charged with unlawful entry, while officers believe seven others escaped through a shattered window.

A group of about 50 demonstrators broke off from a rally on the National Mall and rushed to the building in downtown Washington.



Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

[Joerver]

"Did you see Bush`s press conference? I don`t want to say there`s nothing new there, but at one point
the closed captioning actually said `blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.` ...The president was so subdued and
there were so many long pauses, the Washington Post suggested today that he may have been on drugs.
Apparently we are seeing the side effects of a powerful codeine-based smirk inhibitor."
--Bill Maher on his HBO show

[Joerver]

[gewinnnix]

Leider kann ich mir nur Deine Bilder anschauen, weil es mir deren Sprache verschlagen hat.


Angenehme Woche noch

[Joerver]

Die Änderungen für den Irak halten sich in Grenzen.

Iraq, the 51st state
Engel in America

Matthew Engel
Wednesday March 19, 2003
The Guardian

Now that war is finally upon us, we must all hope or (if we share our leaders` piety) pray that, within a matter of days, the thing is done with, the Iraqi people will be free of their oppressor and able to enjoy the benefits of American-style democracy. Here is a brief reprise of some of the changes they can expect if the US decides to give Iraq a facsimile of its own highly regarded system.

1. At present, according to the official website of the Iraqi National Assembly ("a major organ for the expression of democracy") the 250 members are elected by blocs of 50,000 voters throughout the country. This suggests the outline principle is the same as in the US. However, the American constitution demands that the 600,000 inhabitants of its own capital city should not be allowed to take part in this process. The reasons are so obvious that no one can remember what they are, but most of those affected are poor and black, anyway. To ensure true devotion to US principles, the same will have to apply in Iraq; doubtless the Americans will break the news to the people of Baghdad tactfully.

2. In Iraq`s last presidential election, Saddam Hussein received 100% of the votes, a fact we know because officials said so. Instead, the Iraqis can expect a choice between two different American electoral models, either (a) the one employed in Florida in 2000, designed to ensure that the candidate with the most support loses, or (b) the modern version, as applied in more advanced states, where people vote on touch-screen computers. No one has yet got 100% of the votes by this method but Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did get 83%. We know this because the company that built the machines - which he part-owns - said so.

3. Under various decrees of the revolutionary command council, capital punishment can be handed out cruelly and whimsically in Iraq for a wide variety of offences. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is reported only by a few outside human rights bodies. This would cease under an American-installed system. Instead, executions would be largely confined to black murderers, most of whom will probably be guilty, accused of murdering whites and too poor to afford a decent lawyer. This will be reported only by a few outside human-rights bodies.

4. Under decree 59 of 1994, Iraqis can lose their right hand for theft of more than 5,000 dinars and their left foot for a second offence. This will presumably be replaced by the three-strikes law, ratified this month by the supreme court, under which Leandro Andrade has been jailed for 50 years for stealing nine videos and Gary Ewing got 25 years to life for the theft of three golf clubs.

5. Any Iraqi journalist thought likely to ask Saddam Hussein a difficult question is now subject to the dictates of paragraph 3. The American way (as seen during the presidential press conference two weeks ago) provides for such people to be stuck at the back of the room and simply not called.

6. Saddam has been universally seen firing his gun indiscriminately and menacingly. Under the second amendment, this right would be extended to everyone.

7. Saddam has conducted unnecessary and aggressive foreign wars to distract his benighted people from domestic economic collapse. Such behaviour would be unthinkable under American democracy.

8. Under Saddam, prisoners are held secretly and without trial, and tortured to extract information. Ditto.

9. The Iraqi system is largely dynastic and a leader like Saddam can pave the way for his son to attain wealth and power without regard to merit. Same again.

10. Saddam "electronically bugged" UN weapons inspectors, President Bush said in his speech on Monday night. The US has not yet tried to refute the Observer story that it bugged private meetings of other security council members. It`s probably too busy to dignify it with an answer.

11. Saddam has also threatened his neighbours. A well-placed source in Chile reports that Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, informed the Chilean foreign minister that, if they didn`t do as they were told in the security council, their free trade treaty would not be ratified and loans would mysteriously cease. One small example.

12. The National Assembly`s system of passing legislation has proved inadequate. Things are different here. When a Georgia congress man slipped in an exemption to organic food labelling rules into a recent bill to protect a firm that gave him a $4,000 campaign donation, it was noticed and criticised. True, the bill was already law before this happened, because no one in Congress had bothered to read it. But the US will ensure that the new legislature cannot be bought secretly for long. At least not that cheaply.

13. There will be no setting fire to oil wells. We need that stuff, dammit.

14. It would be impossible for a war to be conducted solely because one domineering leader forced a cowed and compliant parliament into agreement.

The new Iraq will be nothing like that. It could only happen in Britain.

[e-mail]

[Joerver]

THE MORON MAJORITY
Tue Mar 18,10:11 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ted Rall to My Yahoo!


By Ted Rall

An American Warlord Races to Waterloo



NEW YORK--Now it`s official: most Americans are idiots.


Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN`s poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.


There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials--a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA (news - web sites)--but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration`s most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq (news - web sites) is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.


So why do these pinheads think such a thing?


Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don`t stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. He`d certainly let us have it this week, now that Bush is revving up the war he wanted all along--but he won`t, because he can`t.


Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America`s role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators--as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan---not democrats.


Like a befuddled chemistry lab student who works backwards from the answer in order to ensure the correct results, the Moron Majority have talked themselves into an excuse they can live with for a war they can`t otherwise morally justify. Denial, after all, isn`t just a river in Egypt.


By a two-to-one margin, Americans think that their country should adhere to its tradition of attacking other countries in self-defense only, never preemptively. Thirty-seven percent say that they support an invasion of Iraq only with UN approval. This war against Iraq fulfills neither of these conditions, so Americans have managed to morph Bush`s insinuations about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link into full-on blame.


Sure, we`re about to begin killing innocent men, women and children over in Iraq. It`s not self-defense, so let`s just call it "vengeance for 9-11." Does that work for you? Great. Osama`s gotta be laughing like a hyena now that the heat`s off.


There is some good news in all this. I know, "good" is a relative term if you`re reading this in a bomb shelter under Baghdad or trapped at your work station under the rubble of an office building some Islamist wired and brought down on your head. But the war on Iraq is likely to lead to the political demise of the man whose evil and illegitimate rule currently represents the greatest threat to stability and peace in the world: George W. Bush.


Win or lose, Iraq will probably be Bush`s Waterloo. Victory over Saddam`s armed forces is a given; just as a company`s announcement of previously-anticipated profits fails to deliver an uptick in stock price, military success is already assumed by the market of public opinion. That`s why, even after it became evident that he`d be fighting this war alone (plus Tony Blair (news - web sites), minus the British public), Bush had to go ahead. His right-wing base, the part of the electorate that craves a belligerent president to protect it from future 9-11s, would have otherwise deserted him.


Even if Bush delivers a best-case scenario--quick defeat, minimal U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties--it won`t do him any good. His supporters already expect that.


Things are most likely to go wrong when Bush can least afford it, during next year`s campaign. Don`t believe Kurdish promises to rejoin a federalized Iraq--they`ve had de facto independence for 12 years and they`re not coming back. Turkey is already threatening to invade Iraqi Kurdistan, and they`re leaning on their own Kurds. Hoping to neutralize its unruly neighbor, Iran is arming the Shiite majority. Civil war is more than likely, possibly leading to the disintegration of Turkey and an American excuse for an attack on Iran.


It`s impossible to predict the effects of prolonged American occupation of an Arab country; increased terrorism, regional instability and even greater Muslim hostility to the U.S. and its allies seem likely. But a failure to establish a long-term U.S. military presence throughout the country could prove even more damaging than a quick pull-out. If Iraq follows Afghanistan (news - web sites) into neglect, political disintegration and anarchy, we`ll be able to count our resentful new enemies by the tens of millions.


American alliances and relations with the UN and NATO (news - web sites) have been stretched to the breaking point. By launching an illegal, unsanctioned invasion of a sovereign nation, the U.S. has abandoned its moral standing. We are, by definition, a rogue state. More frightening than that, foreign leaders from Paris to Berlin to Beijing to Moscow are starting to count more on one another than on us. This means trouble for us, sure, but also for Bush as we notice our nation`s loss of prestige.


As always, however, the fools will save us from themselves. The 51 percent who currently believe what is patently false will ultimately conclude that they were duped by Bush (though it`s not really true). Like stupid Americans before them (those who bought into the Domino Theory, Joe McCarthy and the necessity of interning Japanese-Americans in concentration camps), they`ll wonder what the hell they were thinking. And they`ll have lots of time to think about it, what with not having a job and all.


Then they`ll vote for an Unnamed Democrat, currently leading Bush 48 to 44 percent in the Quinnipiac poll released March 6.

(Ted Rall is the author of "Gas War: The Truth Behind the American Occupation of Afghanistan," an analysis of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline and the motivations behind the war on terrorism. Ordering information is available at amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com.)

[Joerver]

March 17, 2003 EDITORIAL ARCHIVES

Endgame

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

It`s the endgame of a mad, politically calculated war. From the beginning, everyone`s agreed that Saddam Hussein is a bad man, almost a prototype for a villain in a James Bond Film.

But that`s where the agreement stopped. The Bush Cartel, for a variety of politically and financially calculated reasons, decided that a war that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars was of strategic importance to its world domination game plan -- and to a second term for George W. Bush.

The corporate media -- for reasons of financial interest combined with sheer ineptitude -- enabled and facilitated a rush to war that was transparently self-serving for the Chickenhawks in the White House. The Democrats, as usual, allowed the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) to define the issue in such a way that it marginalized any dissent. This despite the fact that the Bush Cartel brazenly used lies and shifting justifications to mask the real reasons for the war.

In the end, Bush is going to war for two reasons. First of all, the Iraq war offers him and his Vietnam service evading administration many political positives from their perspective, including (but not limited to):

1. The permanent war public relations strategy is, in large part, aimed at keeping any of the numerous Bush domestic disasters off of the political table. War supersedes even an economy down the tubes.

2. Keeping the threat of terror simmering on the burner through ginned up and meaningless terror alerts scares Americans into supporting Bush, because they seemingly have no option, since they believe they are under a constant terrorist threat. This leads to a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" for the nation as a whole. Most Americans look to their psychological tormentor for protection from an outside threat perceived as the more serious of two evils.

3. A war in Iraq offers almost bottomless billion-dollar profiteering opportunities for Bush Cartel campaign contributors and Bush administration officials. Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc. are all set to reap big financial benefits from the destruction of the Iraq infrastructure. Blow the country up with bombs paid for by taxpayers -- and then use taxpayer dollars to pay campaign contributors and companies with connections to administration officials to rebuild it. A nice scam if you got a railroad car on the gravy train.

4. By using a brutal, thuggish "diplomacy" -- including threats, bribes and intimidation -- the Bush Cartel has alienated the populations of almost every nation in the world. It has managed to lure a few "leaders" into the alliance of the unwilling with a combination of inducements worthy of a crime family, but created a hostile reaction in almost every country. Why does the seemingly disastrous result actually benefit the Bush Cartel? Because they want to see the United Nations sink into the East River. They don`t want anybody but the Bush Cartel Chickenhawks calling the international shots. Sayonara, U.N., and good riddance. That`s what the Bush administration fanatics want -- and they are on the verge of achieving their goal.

5. Through the financial "inducements" the Bush administration has offered some nations to support the war, they have found an ingenious way to pay back campaign contributors. Take Poland, for instance. The Bush administration gives Poland six billion dollars in taxpayer money (which would be okay if it were for improving the lot of Polish citizens). What will Poland use the money for, according to a New York Times article? Why, to buy six billion dollars worth of fighter jets from Lockheed-Martin.

6. The assertion of raw, brute, power -- in the form of sophisticated killing war technology -- is meant to intimidate all of the nations of the world, not just our enemies. It is also meant to bully dissenters at home into submission. Since Democratic leaders usually cower when the Bush Cartel barks, it is, additionally, meant to scare them into "dazed and confused" passivity.

7. The conquest of Iraq will shore up a Middle East alliance with the Sharon government, with whom the Bush Cartel shares a common worldview. (The Sharon right wing government is, in this case, to be viewed as a distinct political entity. It is clear that Bush would not have cared a hoot about Israel if the Labor government were in power. Remember that the right wing in Israel killed Yitzhak Rabin, a man of peace. Sharon and Bush are two peas in a pod for whom war is peace.)

8. An attack on Iraq will almost surely be the catalyst for renewed terrorist attacks. After the next terrorist attack, the Bush Cartel will further dismantle the Constitution and move toward a Stalinist "KGB police powers" state of emergency with the likely passage of "Patriot II". It is the Bush Cartel`s goal to incrementally seize power until it one day, unnoticed, crosses the line into a dictatorship rather than a democracy. (If you think this is some fringe conspiracy theory, think about the theft of election 2000, think about the 6 year attempt to find a way to impeach Bill Clinton. This is a clique that thinks God has chosen it to run America.)

9. A permanent war will pave the way for even larger Republican majorities in Congress. This will further consolidate a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. It will also mean an accelerated dismantling of government services and the removal of any separation between church and state.

10. The media will be even more in the pocket of the Bush Cartel, because war has become a form of media news entertainment. War increases print readership and television news viewership. War is "exciting." War is profitable for the news media.

11. The war will increase oil prices and give the second largest oil reserves to American and British oil companies, who financially support the Republican Party.

12. A permanent war will ensure that no one digs up the truth about the Bush administration`s catastrophic failure to prevent 9/11, including an August 2001 briefing that warned Bush about terrorist hijackings. Bush did nothing in response to that briefing.

13. The religious right and Neo-Confederacy warrior culture will be energized to contribute more to the 2004 Bush election effort, as well as turn out at the polls.

14. There is nothing like a war to try out the latest mega-bombs and hi tech weapons. It`s hard to find a place to target practice nowadays, let alone a whole country with real live people in it -- alive for the moment, anyway. And, of course, when bombs are blown up, more bombs are needed. They just happen to be manufactured by companies that contribute to the Bush Cartel election fund. And when more taxpayer money goes toward bombs and new military equipment, there is even less money for government services. Ah, yes, the perfect war for the extremist right wingers running our nation.

But what is the number one reason that the Bush Cartel will send our sons and daughters into War?

The number one reason is that it has no Plan "B."

As BuzzFlash noted in an earlier editorial entitled "Muscle Beach Party":

In the end the Bush Cartel is banking on making the kind of impression on the world that a thug makes with a baseball bat on a car.

It`s all about image and firepower. It`s how the playground bully establishes himself. Pick the weakest guy in the school -- the one nobody likes much anyway -- and beat the living daylights out of him. Keep all the kids nervous and on edge. Let them think that you are a little bit mad and might just beat up on them for the fun of it. Tell them that you will protect them from the gang that lives in the next neighborhood in return for their loyalty. Make an example of anyone who challenges your leadership by denouncing them and bloodying them up. Establish a system of stool pigeons. Rummage through lockers, at your will, for any signs of betrayal. Issue warnings from time-to-time about how you have information that the other gang has plans to rape your mothers and sisters, and lay waste to your homes -- and that is why you need to trust in the playground bully from your school, because he will protect your mothers and sisters from the gang that few have ever actually encountered.

It`s governance by brazen muscle power, by unfailing commitment to picking a target to destroy as an example of your ruthlessness, and your will to use any means necessary to establish and preserve your leadership. And if your attack is successful, you will enjoy the spoils of war -- the second largest oil reserves in the world. This is all the better, because you double up your goal of displaying raw, harsh military power, by combining it with additional natural resources that reinforce your dominance. You will be sitting on top of the world, masters of the universe, controlling almost everything on the Monopoly board.

And to accomplish this goal, you never blink, you never apologize, you never let facts get in the way of your mission. You remain steadfast and focused. Getting distracted by truth and ethics is a sign of weakness. And weakness is something you can smell and feel in a man.

(See: http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/01/23.html)

In a just-published book about Karl Rove, "Bush`s Brain," a Democratic political consultant is quoted as saying about the Bush Cartel: "They just picked a war they could win....It has to be the most evil political calculation in American history."

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

[Joerver]

March 18, 2003
Things to Come
By PAUL KRUGMAN


f course we`ll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I`m not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.

What frightens me is the aftermath — and I`m not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I`m worried about what will happen beyond Iraq — in the world at large, and here at home.

The members of the Bush team don`t seem bothered by the enormous ill will they have generated in the rest of the world. They seem to believe that other countries will change their minds once they see cheering Iraqis welcome our troops, or that our bombs will shock and awe the whole world (not just the Iraqis) or that what the world thinks doesn`t matter. They`re wrong on all counts.

Victory in Iraq won`t end the world`s distrust of the United States because the Bush administration has made it clear, over and over again, that it doesn`t play by the rules. Remember: this administration told Europe to take a hike on global warming, told Russia to take a hike on missile defense, told developing countries to take a hike on trade in lifesaving pharmaceuticals, told Mexico to take a hike on immigration, mortally insulted the Turks and pulled out of the International Criminal Court — all in just two years.

Nor, as we`ve just seen, is military power a substitute for trust. Apparently the Bush administration thought it could bully the U.N. Security Council into going along with its plans; it learned otherwise. "What can the Americans do to us?" one African official asked. "Are they going to bomb us? Invade us?"

Meanwhile, consider this: we need $400 billion a year of foreign investment to cover our trade deficit, or the dollar will plunge and our surging budget deficit will become much harder to finance — and there are already signs that the flow of foreign investment is drying up, just when it seems that America may be about to fight a whole series of wars.

It`s a matter of public record that this war with Iraq is largely the brainchild of a group of neoconservative intellectuals, who view it as a pilot project. In August a British official close to the Bush team told Newsweek: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran." In February 2003, according to Ha`aretz, an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would "deal with" Iran, Syria and North Korea.

Will Iraq really be the first of many? It seems all too likely — and not only because the "Bush doctrine" seems to call for a series of wars. Regimes that have been targeted, or think they may have been targeted, aren`t likely to sit quietly and wait their turn: they`re going to arm themselves to the teeth, and perhaps strike first. People who really know what they are talking about have the heebie-jeebies over North Korea`s nuclear program, and view war on the Korean peninsula as something that could happen at any moment. And at the rate things are going, it seems we will fight that war, or the war with Iran, or both at once, all by ourselves.

What scares me most, however, is the home front. Look at how this war happened. There is a case for getting tough with Iraq; bear in mind that an exasperated Clinton administration considered a bombing campaign in 1998. But it`s not a case that the Bush administration ever made. Instead we got assertions about a nuclear program that turned out to be based on flawed or faked evidence; we got assertions about a link to Al Qaeda that people inside the intelligence services regard as nonsense. Yet those serial embarrassments went almost unreported by our domestic news media. So most Americans have no idea why the rest of the world doesn`t trust the Bush administration`s motives. And once the shooting starts, the already loud chorus that denounces any criticism as unpatriotic will become deafening.

So now the administration knows that it can make unsubstantiated claims, without paying a price when those claims prove false, and that saber rattling gains it votes and silences opposition. Maybe it will honorably refuse to act on this dangerous knowledge. But I can`t help worrying that in domestic politics, as in foreign policy, this war will turn out to have been the shape of things to come.






Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Sick Caesar: Remove Bush from office
March 15, 2003

It’s time for U.S. citizens to demand that President George W. Bush’s cabinet invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and remove him from office. By a majority vote of the cabinet and the Vice President, transmitted in writing to both the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the President may be declared “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Increasingly, journalists are willing to admit that the cognitively-impaired President may indeed be mentally ill.

What would drive a President who lost an election by over half a million votes to attack the arch-enemy of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, rather than to pursue the 9-11 terrorists in the Al Qaeda network? What would cause a President to ignore his generals, his own intelligence agencies, the major religious leaders of the world and the vast majority of the world’s people in pursuing an unnecessary and destabilizing war that is likely to plunge the world into chaos for the next hundred years?

Perhaps the “Madness of King George” is best summed up in Will Thomas’ February 12 article “Is Bush Nuts?” While there’s an emerging concern among some mental health care providers that the President is mentally disturbed, there’s no consensus as to his actual illness.

Carol Wolman M.D. asked the question, “Is the ‘President’ Nuts?” even earlier in the October 2, 2002 counterpunch.org. In an attempt to analyze Bush’s bizarre behavior, putting “the world on a suicidal path,” Wolman suggests the President may be suffering from antisocial personality disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, 4th edition. As the manual points out, “There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying . . . 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others.”

Professor Katherine Van Wormer, the co-author of the authoritative Addiction Treatment, worries about Bush’s brain chemistry following some 20 years of alcohol addiction and alleged illicit drug use. Van Wormer notes that “George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call ‘the dry drunk.’ His behavior is consistent with being brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use.”

Alan Bisbort echoes Van Wormer’s thought in the American Politics Journal, in an article entitled “Dry Drunk – Is Bush Making a Cry for Help?” The list goes on and on. Some suggest paranoia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, religious delusions and depression.

Former National Security Agency employee-turned-investigative-journalist Wayne Madsen noted that the President was slurring his speech during the State of the Union address. Perhaps more shocking is the title of Maureen Dowd’s March 9 New York Times column, “Xanax Cowboy.” Dowd’s lead read: “As he rolls up to America’s first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized.”

Of course many Americans will reject the notion that the President, with an estimated 91 I.Q. who could not name crucial Middle East leaders during his campaign, could be mentally unstable. Few realize that this has been a common problem with past presidents. Jim Cannon, an aide to incoming Reagan administration Chief of Staff Howard Baker suggested that President Reagan was incapable of performing his duties in March 1987. A March 1987 memo analyzing Reagan’s behavior found “He was lazy; he wasn’t interested in the job. They say he won’t read the papers they gave him – even short position papers and documents. They say he won’t come over to work – all he wanted to do was watch movies and television at the residence.” Cannon recommend we consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Reagan.

In retrospect, we know that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s; it was apparent to many political scientists and journalists at the time, who frequently commented on Reagan’s mistaking fictional movies for real historical events.

The images of Richard Nixon wandering around the White House drunk, asking a portrait of Abe Lincoln for advice, are forever immortalized in Woodward and Bernstein’s The Final Days. Luckily in Nixon’s case, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig took control to make sure the President would not launch a pre-emptive war or nuclear attack, or order a military coup to stop the impeachment.

Since the United States, if it indulges the apparent madness of Bush, will embark on a course similar to imperial Rome, historical analogies may be found in Michael Grant’s book, Sick Caesars, Madness and Malady in Imperial Rome. Searching through the text, the obvious comparison between imperial Roman inbred out-of-touch elite families and the Bush dynasty is an easy one.

What’s harder to determine is which sick Caesar Bush most emulates. Comparing him to Caligula prior to an attack on Iraq would be unfair, although historian A.A. Barrett noted that an eyewitness described Caligula as “. . . a fidgety neurotic.” Barrett writes, “Though his behavior perhaps fell short of madness, it is impossible to determine the degree of rationality he retained.” Caligula has been labeled as “epileptic, schizoid, schizophrenic or just chronically alcoholic.” There’s no evidence that President Bush has ever had epilepsy, other than that, the Caligula analogy does fit.

A case can be made for comparing Claudius to “I, Dubya.” As Grant explains, Claudius’ ailments included, “meningitis, poliomyelitis, pre-natal encephalitis, multiple sclerosis, alcoholism and congenital cerebral paralysis.” Except for the last two diagnoses, again, there’s no exact fit. However, as one Roman recorded, “. . . Claudius was, or was looked upon, as the idiot which he was sometimes made out to be. . . . he was far from normal . . . .”

Some may suggest a comparison to Commodus. As Grant writes, “. . . Physically, at least he was well proportioned. [However] his expression was vacant as is usual with drunkards, and his speech disordered.” Bush is a recovering alcoholic with a speech disorder, in need of therapy, not a current alcohol abuser. Thus, the search continues.

Finally, after much investigation, Bush is nearly a perfect match for the lesser known Caracalla. As Grant describes it, “Caracalla was always pushed forward by his father, who although he realised his defects possessed, like most emperors, [supported] strong dynastic ideas. His younger brother Geta [read: Jeb], was also pushed forward, although more slowly . . . .”

My favorite quote is: “For he [Caracalla] was sick not only in body, partly from visible and partly from secret ailments, but in mind as well, suffering from certain distressing visions, and often he thought he was being pursued by his father, and by his brother, armed with swords.”

But, another quote suggests that Bush may actually be the reincarnation of Caracalla: “Though it is at least certain that he was not only intemperate but had appalling nerves and nervous hallucinations, which made him very restless (not inactive) and all the more emphatic in his distaste for everyone except his soldiers. This meant that he could be judged as a criminal rather than a lunatic.”

One historian’s assessment of Caracalla is so strikingly similar, it sends chills: “His mind became unbalanced. His habitual mood of sullen and suspicious moroseness would sharpen into a craving for bloodshed which the slaughter of the arena [read: Texas’ death row] could not appease, and which would drive him into a homicidal fury in which revengefulness appears to have been confusedly combined with religious and moral motives.”

Thankfully, Grant tells us that Caracalla’s “short reign was a joke. A bad joke at that.” By invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, we can make Emperor Bush’s reign equally short. The problem, of course, is that we would be left with Vice President Dick Cheney, who may be even more disturbed than the President. Et tu, Cheney?

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Große Mehrheit der Amerikaner nach einer Umfrage angeblich für den Krieg

Florian Rötzer 19.03.2003
Doch andere Umfragen lassen daran zweifeln, belegen aber den Scherbenhaufen, den die US-Regierung auch bei den Menschen in den befreundeten Ländern hinterlassen hat

Vermutlich hat US-Präsident Bush die bislang beste Propaganda-Maschinerie für einen Krieg aufgebaut. Die Kommunikationsspezialisten haben bis ins Detail vorbereitet, wie Zug um Zug die Öffentlichkeit auf koordinierte Weise "informiert" und die Medien atemlos gehalten werden können, so dass möglichst kein Raum für Interpretationen oder gar für mögliche Meinungsunterschiede in der Regierung vorhanden sein soll. An der Heimatfront war man offenbar schon erfolgreich. Die Amerikaner wollen nun nach zwei aktuellen Umfragen mehrheitlich den Krieg - oder sie wollen ihn nun vielleicht auch nur möglichst schnell hinter sich bringen, wenn er schon dank der Regierung nicht zu vermeiden ist. In einer anderen Umfrage sieht das Bild schon wieder anders aus - und lässt sich das außenpolitische Debakel der US-Regierung bei den Menschen in vielen Ländern feststellen.


Wenn zwar auch nicht im Ausland, so hat sich die Einrichtung des "Office of Global Communications" im Weißen Haus anscheinend schon gelohnt. Das neue Propagandabüro verschickt beispielsweise jeden Abend an alle Botschaften und US-Behörden auf der Welt Mails mit den Informationen, die sie zu vertreten haben. Dazu gehören bestimmte Themen oder Zitate aus den Reden von Bush. So haben alle Diplomaten dieselben Fakten und Zitate, die endlos wiederholt werden können. Geschlossenheit und Wiederholung müssen allerdings nicht für Überzeugung sorgen - vornehmlich nicht im Ausland, in dem es auch noch mehr einflussreiche kritische Medien gibt als in den USA.





Für aufrechte Gesinnung werben denn auch viele amerikanische Medien direkt oder indirekt. Die New York Post schreibt etwa in diesem Sinn, dass die New Yorker den "Wieseln" die nicht bedeutungslose Botschaft haben zukommen lassen: "you can kiss our derrieres!" Ansonsten schwärmt man hier vom Boykott französischer Waren.

Zuhause, an der "Heimatfront", die vornehmlich von der Medienöffentlichkeit der Fernsehsender bestimmt wird, hat die Entscheidung für den Krieg angeblich die Mehrzahl der Amerikaner hinter Bush gebracht, will man der aktuellen Umfrage und der Washington Post ("71% of Americans Support War, Poll Shows") glauben. Für die Washington Post und ABC News wurde in der Nacht vom Montag nach der Rede von Bush eine telefonische Umfrage ausgeführt. Hatten eine Woche zuvor sich noch 59 Prozent für den Krieg ausgesprochen, so sind es jetzt 71 Prozent. Mit 64 Prozent befürworten auch mehr Menschen allgemein die Irak-Politik ihres Präsidenten.

Dem Aufwärtstrend für Bush entsprechend sank die Zustimmung zur UN. Nur noch 20 Prozent stimmten ihrem Umgang mit dem Irak zu, 75 Prozent missbilligten diesen. Ende Februar sprachen sich noch 38% für die UN und nur 56% gegen sie aus. Zwei Drittel der Befragten stehen daher auch hinter der Entscheidung, ohne einen Beschluss des Sicherheitsrats in den Krieg zu ziehen. 72% meinen, die US-Regierung habe genug getan, um andere Länder für ihre Politik zu gewinnen. Selbst wenn manche Demokraten kritische Anmerkungen machen, so scheinen jetzt auch die Mehrzahl der demokratischen Wähler auf die Kriegsseite von Bush gewechselt zu haben. Immerhin sind die Befragten in der Mehrzahl dafür, mit der UN weiter wie bislang zusammen zu arbeiten - was immer genau dies bedeuten mag -, nur eine knappe Mehrheit ist dieser Meinung auch im Verhältnis zu Frankreich.

Zu ähnlichen Ergebnissen kommt eine andere Umfrage von CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup, die gleichfalls am Montag Abend durchgeführt wurde. Nach dieser würden 66 Prozent der Befragten hinter dem Kriegskurs ihres Präsidenten stehen. Davon gaben allerdings über 20 Prozent an, dass sie nicht wissen, ob ein Krieg wirklich richtig ist. Aber, so könnte man sagen, wenn es der Präsident will, so stehen sie hinter ihm.

Das Pew Research Center befragte zwischen dem 10. und dem 17. März 5.500 Menschen aus Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Italien, Polen, Spanien, Russland, der Türkei und den USA. Seit der letzten Umfrage Mitte 2002 ( Keine Lust auf Krieg) ist die positive Haltung gegenüber den von Präsident Bush regierten USA überall stark zurück gegangen. Besonders krass ist dies im Fall des engsten Vasallen Großbritannien. Waren vor weniger als einem Jahr noch 75 Prozent der Briten den USA positiv gegenüber eingestellt, sind es heute nur noch 48 Prozent. In der Türkei haben gar nur 12% und in Spanien 14% eine positive Einstellung.
In allen anderen Ländern ist die Zustimmung um etwa 30% abgesackt, in Polen beispielsweise von 79% auf 50%. In Frankreich und Italien haben noch ein Drittel der Befragten eine wohlwollende Meinung von den USA, in Deutschland nur noch ein Viertel. Daher steigt auch in allen Ländern der Anteil der Menschen ganz beachtlich, die sich dafür aussprechen, eine größere Unabhängigkeit von den USA zu suchen. Daran sieht man, dass die US-Regierung und ihre europäischen Vasallen mit ihrem Verhalten bei den Menschen das transatlantische Bündnis nachhaltig gestört haben.

Das ist trotz oder wegen des Office for Global Communications eigentlich ein Fiasko für die Bush-Regierung und ihre Diplomatie. Wahrscheinlich hofft man, dass ein schneller Sieg im Irak und ein befreites Land mit jubelnden Menschen manches wieder gut machen und von der amerikanischen Haltung nachträglich überzeugen wird. Schließlich kommt dann auch wieder die Stunde der UN, die für Hilfe zuständig sein wird, während die USA das Land solange kontrolliert, bis das nächste Kriegsziel sich aufbaut.

Für den Krieg sind nach der Pew-Umfrage aber nur mehrheitlich die Amerikaner mit 59 Prozent (die Bush-Rede alleine dürfte für den Unterschied zu den anderen Umfragen nicht verantwortlich sein). Im Gegensatz zur Umfrage der Washington Post sank hier aber die Zustimmung zum Krieg ab, während die Kritik zunahm. Mehrheitlich sagen die Amerikaner in dieser Umfrage auch, dass die US-Regierung sich weiter international bemühen müsse und noch nicht genug getan habe, und dass für den Krieg eine zweite Resolution erforderlich sei. An den Erfolg der Waffeninspektionen glaubt aber auch hier die Mehrheit nicht.
Ansonsten sind die Menschen in allen anderen Ländern überwiegend gegen den Krieg. Über 80 Prozent sind in Italien, Spanien, Russland und der Türkei gegen eine militärische Invasion. Auch in Polen wollen sich im Gegensatz zu ihrer Regierung über 70 Prozent nicht daran beteiligen. Hinter den Briten, die den Krieg zu 39 Prozent befürworten, kommen denn als treueste Anhänger der USA die Deutschen, bei denen 27 dieser Meinung sind. Trotz der Ablehnung des Kriegs glaubt eine Mehrzahl von Menschen daran, dass es nach dem Krieg den Menschen im Irak besser gehen und dass der Nahe Osten dann stabiler sein wird. Daran zweifeln allerdings die meisten Russen, Türken und Spanier. Am optimistischen sind natürlich die Amerikaner, gefolgt von den Briten.

Die Liste der Staaten, die sich der "Koalition der Willigen" angeschlossen haben oder sich dieser anschließen mussten, spricht gleichfalls Bände. Richard Boucher, der Sprecher des US-Außenministeriums, hatte sie gestern während einer Pressekonferenz endlich bekannt gegeben ( Die Koalition der Willigen). Dass angeblich 15 zusätzliche Staaten nicht genannt werden wollten, die angeblich mit der Koalition kooperieren wollen, spricht nicht für große Überzeugung, sondern eher für Vorsicht. An Kampfhandlungen beteiligen werden sich nur Australien und Großbritannien:



Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.
Each country is contributing in the ways that it deems the most appropriate. Some of these countries, I suppose all these countries have talked in public about what they`re doing.

In addition to these countries, there are actually another 15 or so that we know of, probably more than 15, that are cooperating with us in -- and the coalition, or perhaps offering defensive assets in the event that Saddam resorts to the use of weapons of mass destruction."

[Joerver]

Alles über die letzten Umfragen. Ist etwas komplizierter als im Posting davor dargestellt.
J.


http://pollingreport.com/


.

[Joerver]

Der Fahrplan von Mr. Perle


Next stop, Iraq
By Richard Perle December 4, 2001


It was inevitable that an event like September 11 would eventually materialize. A history had developed, particularly over the last decade, of failing to respond to acts of terrorism. In 1993 Iraqi intelligence plotted the assassination of former president George H.W. Bush. That plot was foiled when we uncovered it and the response was a handful of cruise missiles aimed at an intelligence headquarters in Baghdad.

The dust hadn`t settled from that attack when various administration officials at pains to announce that the timing of the attack, midnight, had been selected so as to minimize any casualties. It`s worth observing that the casualties, had any occurred, would have been to one of the most vicious secret police organizations operating today.

That was followed not long thereafter by the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center, in 1993. The intention of the individuals who carried it out and their state sponsors was to collapse one of the towers against the other by placing explosives in the underground garage of one of the two towers. They misplaced the explosive by a few feet. The crater that was created by that explosion was six stories deep, and it is a miracle they didn`t succeed. Had they done so, the losses would have been even greater, far greater, than on September 11 -- because there would have been no opportunity to escape. There was no response to that except the eventual apprehension of the individuals responsible, and no serious effort to trace the activity back to the source.

This was followed by the Khobar Towers attack, an attack on an American barracks in Saudi Arabia. There was no response at all to this attack, and we never really got to the bottom of it, or at least we never got much support from the Saudis on whose territory it took place in attempting to investigate it.

That was followed by attacks on two American embassies in East Africa. The response there was a small, ineffective cruise missile attack that destroyed a pharmaceutical plant. It was an intelligence failure and we destroyed the wrong target. But even if it had been the right target, it was a single symbolic gesture.

Then there was the attack on the USS Cole and there was no response at all to that.

After each of these attacks I think it is reasonable to assume that the terrorists who planned and carried them out celebrated their success, and the governments that sponsored them, that provided them with the intelligence, the logistics, the money, the access to diplomatic purse, movement of contraband, the false documentation, the logistic support -- those governments understood that no significant cost attached to working with and supporting networks of terror. So September 11 or something like it was inevitable. We were training terrorists and their state sponsors to believe that what they were doing was free of risk to them; except for the terrorist themselves who in many cases were prepared to die in the course of committing their acts of terrorism.

After September 11 the first words of President Bush included the statement that "we will not distinguish between terrorists and the states that harbor them." In enunciating that American policy he reversed a decade of not responding against states that sponsor terrorism. He took what I believe is the only effective step to the control of terrorist attacks against the country. There are too many terrorists and they are too easy to recruit. When some die, others will be found. We cannot deal with terrorists one and two and 19 at a time, We must deal effectively with the states that permit them to plan, to organize and to carry out acts of terror on the scale that we saw on September 11. We can`t stop acts of terrorism, but we can reduce it to the occasional violent act of an individual or two if we can separate the terrorists from the state sponsorship that provides them with the essential means of carrying out their evil acts.

High on the list of essential means could be as something as simple as sanctuary, a place where terrorists can plan in peace, where they can communicate with one another and organize. If you can imagine -- and I hope this will soon be true in Afghanistan -- if you imagine al-Qaida hunted down, on the run, hiding out in caves, unable to communicate, unable to dispatch individuals and money and intelligence and the other instruments of terror, you can see the difference between what we are subjected to now and what we could do if we are serious about taking the war to the terrorists themselves. So I think President Bush from the beginning established the right headline policy of the US going forward. But it is a big change.

In January 1997 I debated this very topic -- should we take war to the terrorists, should we use military means against the states sponsoring terrorism -- with the former director of the CIA, Stansfield Turner. The topic was whether the United States should use military force in the war against terrorism, and the former head of the CIA took the negative position. This wasn`t an Oxford debate where you could take either side, he took it out of conviction, and he reflected a long-standing policy orientation, and much of what he said on that occasion remained policy until the immediate aftermath of September 11.

So now we are taking the war to the first state on the list of active supporters of terrorism, Afghanistan. We got off to a slow start. I say slow start, but there`s still smoke rising from the ruins of the World Trade Center and probably will be for days to come. We got off to a slow start because we had poor intelligence to begin with. We simply didn`t know very much about the disposition of the Taliban forces, and we certainly didn`t know where Osama bin Laden was hiding. And we didn`t have enough of an intelligence presence in Afghanistan to begin to organize the effective integration of American military power with the Northern Alliance, which was soon to become our ally, at least for now. We lost some time because some of our colleagues in the diplomatic service thought that we should start to organize a post-Taliban government for Afghanistan before we started the war. It`s a lot easier to get allies and build coalitions when you`re taking territory. The idea that we could start to put a government together before we had taken an inch of territory never made much sense to me, and ultimately it didn`t make much sense to the president and others, and so we abandoned that approach after about ten days of fruitless political maneuvering with exiles in and around Afghanistan.

Having gotten that out of the way, we were then confronted with the problem of bringing essential support to the Northern Alliance and integrating our air power with their force on the ground. This was an extraordinarily difficult thing to do. We were reluctant for understandable reasons to send American units into territory whose control could not be clearly ascertained. We didn`t want to send a group of Americans in only to have them slaughtered on the ground.

The Northern Alliance in the beginning was weak. They lacked ammunition, they lacked other resources, and they didn`t have any money. We wanted to give them money. You may not believe this, but in order to give the Northern Alliance money under the existing laws and regulations, it was necessary for them to make a grant proposal -- I kid you not. A group of people -- dedicated civil servants in the U.S. Department of State -- worked through the night to create a grant proposal, which was then signed by the Northern Alliance leaders and acted upon by the Department of State and ultimately we were able to get them a modest amount of money.

I`m sorry to say I could spend the rest of the time we have together telling stories like that. But suffice it to say that eventually we got our act together, and you see the result: a very rapid, aggressive, successful campaign to remove the Taliban from many of the places where it has been in power, and I have little doubt that eventually we will get the rest of them.

The whole experience can be summed up in Churchill`s great comment that the Americans eventually get it right but not until they`ve exhausted all possible alternatives. And so we`re getting it right, we`re getting the war against the Taliban right. They`ve turned out to be much weaker than many people expected. The concerns about a quagmire have proved to be unfounded. In expressing those concerns we were fighting not the last war, but the one before that -- the lingering memories of Vietnam, with which Afghanistan has nothing in common. And quite unlike the Soviet debacle in Afghanistan, we are not there as invaders we are really there as liberators, as you have seen on the evening news. Keep that in mind, because when we get to the other supporters of terrorism in the region, the potential there too is for the US to act not as a conqueror, not as an invading force that will earn the enmity of the Arab world, but as a liberator that will earn the approbation of the people who are liberated and in due course of much the rest of the world as well.

In approaching the war against terror we`ve been building a coalition. I have some reservations about that. In 1991 in order to expel the armed forces of Iraq from Kuwait we sent 500,000 men to the region, we deployed a fleet of 1600 aircraft and for a military operation on that scale and of that nature it was essential to secure a large number of bases from which we could operate. We needed logistic support, we needed runways and warehouses and stevedores and all the rest. We could not have done Desert Storm as it was done without an alliance. But there was another reason for an alliance in 1991, and that was the deep division in this country about whether to go to war against Saddam. I was much involved in that as co-chair, with the former head of the Democratic National Committee, of the group innocently called the Committee for Peace in the Middle East. They all had titles like that, and it was really the Committee to Launch the War Against Saddam. We had a tough time encouraging the minimum number of votes we needed to have a real mandate. The country -- the legislature -- was deeply divided. So an alliance then was essential.

An alliance today is really not essential, in my opinion. We don`t need the bases, or at least we don`t need much in the way of bases. And those bases that we do need are in places Where individual arrangements can be made -- with Uzbeks, who are interested in what we can do for Uzbekistan and there`s a lot we can do and it isn`t really very expensive. The term "alliance" confuses the phenomenon that`s taking place there. It`s good to have the Europeans supporting us to the degree they do, and the British have certainly been enthusiastic in our support, but the enthusiasm drops off substantially when you cross the channel and the price you end up paying for an alliance is collective judgment, collective decision-making. That was a disaster in Kosovo. We had lengthy negotiations over which targets could be struck -- the French had one view, the Germans had another - the military authorities and the civilians often disagreed, targets were struck from the lists, and you all remember the spectacle of President Chirac proudly proclaiming after Kosovo was over that he had personally spared any number of targets in Serbia. We don`t need that in the war against terrorism. I think it is time for us to say to the world if necessary that we have been attacked, a war was initiated against us, and we are going to defend ourselves, and we`re not going to let the decisions to do that, the manner in which we do it, the targets we select to be decided by a show of hands by countries whose interests cannot be identical to our own and who haven`t suffered what we have suffered.

One of the sources of enthusiasm for the coalition I suspect is a strong desire on the part of those who are promoting the coalition to see the United States restrained -- to submit judgments about what we should do to a larger collective. I think we should reject that. I guess my bottom line on coalitions paraphrases Robert Frost that coalitions are wonderful salves, but they`re something that ought to be done by halves.

There`s going to be a Phase 2. If there is no Phase 2, there can be no victory in the war against terrorism. The war against terrorism is not the war against al-Qaida or the Taliban, worthy though they may be. They`re only one of the sources of terror in the United States. You cannot end this war and lay any claim to victory if the other sources of terror are left intact.

So there must be a Phase 2, and there will be lots of debate and room for disagreement over exactly how to go about Phase 2. I have my own ideas about that and have not been hesitant to express them. At the top of the list for Phase 2 is Iraq, and there are several reasons for that. I`m going to offer a couple of them.

One is that we know that Saddam hates the United States. He says so on every occasion. In that particular Middle Eastern way, there`s even something of a blood feud between Saddam Hussein and the Bush family. We know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction: we know he has anthrax, we know he has nerve agents; we believe he has other biological weapons. And he has used chemical weapons/nerve agents against civilians, and killed many tens of thousands including 5,000 in a single village in a single village in his own country. So he has motive and he has means, and the question is whether he will he have an opportunity to do grievous damage to this country. Those who believe he will not have contented themselves until now with the view that he would not be so foolish as to attack the United States directly with instruments of mass destruction because we would retaliate with such ferocity that he would be deterred. And you even hear the story told of how former Secretary of State Baker warned Tariq Aziz that if the Iraqis used chemical weapons in Desert Storm, we would respond with nuclear weapons. I don`t know if that story is true, but the general idea was that Saddam would be deterred by the threat of retaliation. But we now know as we observe anthrax arriving in the letter box that it is possible to deliver weapons of mass destruction, even though in this case not on a mass scale, anonymously. And if you can deliver an envelope with anthrax spores anonymously, you can deliver a larger quantity of anthrax spores anonymously. Without wishing to alarm anyone, I think it is reasonably well known that a five-pound bag of anthrax spores released over an urban area would potentially kill many thousands of people. So the question in my mind is do we wait for Saddam and hope for the best, do we wait and hope he doesn`t do what we know he is capable of, which is distributing weapons of mass destruction to anonymous terrorists, or do we take some preemptive action.

In 1981 the Israelis faced a similar question. The Iraqis were about to complete the construction of a French nuclear reactor at Osirak and they decided that the risk of waiting was just too great and so they destroyed that reactor in a breathtaking effective bombing run. I was working for Ronald Reagan at the time and it`s just a footnote to history but the State Department of course got out the obligatory condemnation of Israel`s unilateral action; the president thought it was a terrific piece of bombing.

By the way, for those who are not sufficiently concerned about the possibility of the anonymous delivery of biological weapons from Saddam`s arsenal of those weapons, he is busily at work on a nuclear weapon. One of the people who ran the nuclear weapons program for Saddam defected to the US in 1996, a man named Khidhir Hamza. He has written a book that I recommend called "Saddam`s Bomb maker." I met with him in Washington. Until I started taking him around, the senior-most person Hamza had met with was a GS15 at the State Department. We`ve now gotten him in to see some pretty senior officials. Hamza described the reaction to the bombing of the Osirak reactor as follows: We knew then that we should never again put so much of our program in a single location where it would be vulnerable, so we began to build uranium enrichment facilities, many facilities, and we built 400 of them and they`re all over the country. Some of them look like farmhouses, some of them look like classrooms, and some of them look like warehouses. You`ll never find them. They don`t turn out much but every day they turn out a little bit of nuclear materials.

So it`s simply a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.

Those who think Iraq should not be next may want to think about Syria or Iran or Sudan or Yemen or Somalia or North Korea or Lebanon or the Palestinian Authority. These are all institutions, governments for the most part, that permit acts of terror to take place, that sponsor terrorists, that give them refuge, give them sanctuary, and very often much more help than that. When I recite this list, people typically say, "Well, are we going to go to war against a dozen countries?" And I think the answer to that is that, if we do it right with respect to one or two; we`ve got a reasonable chance of persuading the others that they should get out of the business of supporting terrorism. If we destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan, and I`m confident we will, and we then go on to destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein, and we certainly could if we chose to do so, I think we would have an impressive case to make to the Syrians, the Somalis and others. We could deliver a short message, a two-word message: "You`re next. You`re next unless you stop the practice of supporting terrorism." Given the fact that until now there has been no cost attached to supporting terror, I think there`s a reasonable prospect that looking at the costs on the one side -- that is, that those regimes will be brought to an end -- and the benefits on the other -- they will decide to get out of the terrorist business. It seems to me a reasonable gamble in any event.

Let me just say before concluding this that when you propose Iraq as the next phase in the war against terrorism many people have in mind the enormousness of the effort it took to remove Saddam from Kuwait. They think, can we do that again? I think it would be an entirely different proposition this time. Saddam is despised in his own country, as anyone who rules the way he has would be. He is hated in the north by the Kurds, in the south by the Shi`a, in the west even by many Sunnis -- and organizing a resistance to Saddam would not be difficult. Now a lot of people look at the Iraqi opposition today, some of it in exile, some of it in the north and the south, and they say it`s weak, it`s divided, it`s fragmented, and that`s certainly true, although it`s not nearly as fragmented as is sometimes said. But what is essential here is not to look at the opposition to Saddam as it is today, without any external support, without any realistic hope of removing that awful regime, but to look at what could be created, what could be organized, what could be made cohesive with the power and authority of the United States, especially the power and authority of the United States fresh from a successful campaign to destroy the Taliban in Afghanistan. So my plea to my colleagues in government is to start the planning now for the removal of Saddam Hussein, work with the opposition now so we won`t be in the situation we were in when we went into Afghanistan where we had no one on the ground, because we could put Iraqi opposition on the ground tomorrow in Iraq.
Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

[Joerver]

Michael Moore
Alles über M. Moore Homepage (Stupid White Man)

http://www.michaelmoore.com/index.php

Aus dem Brief an Bush:

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let`s see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What`s that you say? You don`t THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don`t think so either!

[Joerver]

President`s Letter To Congress
WASHINGTON, March 19, 2003


Text of a letter from the president to the speaker of the House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the Senate:


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


March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,
George W. Bush

[Joerver]

March 19, 2003
D-Day
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


resident Bush is fond of cowboy imagery, so here`s an image that comes to mind about our pending war with Iraq. In most cowboy movies the good guys round up a posse before they ride into town and take on the black hats. We`re doing just the opposite. We`re riding into Baghdad pretty much alone and hoping to round up a posse after we get there. I hope we do, because it may be the only way we can get out with ourselves, and the town, in one piece.

This column has argued throughout this debate that removing Saddam Hussein and helping Iraq replace his regime with a decent, accountable government that can serve as a model in the Middle East is worth doing — not because Iraq threatens us with its weapons, but because we are threatened by a collection of failing Arab-Muslim states, which churn out way too many young people who feel humiliated, voiceless and left behind. We have a real interest in partnering with them for change.

This column has also argued, though, that such a preventive war is so unprecedented and mammoth a task — taking over an entire country from a standing start and rebuilding it — that it had to be done with maximum U.N legitimacy and with as many allies as possible.

President Bush has failed to build that framework before going to war. Though the Bush team came to office with this Iraq project in mind, it has pursued a narrow, ideological and bullying foreign policy that has alienated so many people that by the time it wanted to rustle up a posse for an Iraq war, too many nations were suspicious of its motives.

The president says he went the extra mile to find a diplomatic solution. That is not true. On the eve of the first gulf war, Secretary of State James Baker met face to face in Geneva with the Iraqi foreign minister — a last-ditch peace effort that left most of the world feeling it was Iraq that refused to avoid war. This time the whole world saw President Bush make one trip, which didn`t quite make it across the Atlantic, to sell the war to the only two allies we had. This is not to excuse France, let alone Saddam. France`s role in blocking a credible U.N. disarmament program was shameful.

But here we are, going to war, basically alone, in the face of opposition, not so much from "the Arab Street," but from "the World Street." Everyone wishes it were different, but it`s too late — which is why this column will henceforth focus on how to turn these lemons into lemonade. Our children`s future hinges on doing this right, even if we got here wrong.

The president`s view is that in the absence of a U.N. endorsement, this war will become "self-legitimating" when the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. I think there is a good chance that will play out.

But wars are fought for political ends. Defeating Saddam is necessary but not sufficient to achieve those ends, which are a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying the U.S., so Americans will feel safer at home and abroad. We cannot achieve the latter without the former. Which means we must bear any burden and pay any price to make Iraq into the sort of state that fair-minded people across the world will see and say: "You did good. You lived up to America`s promise."

To maximize our chances of doing that, we need to patch things up with the world. Because having more allied support in rebuilding Iraq will increase the odds that we do it right, and because if the breach that has been opened between us and our traditional friends hardens into hostility, we will find it much tougher to manage both Iraq and all the other threats down the road. That means the Bush team needs an "attitude lobotomy" — it needs to get off its high horse and start engaging people on the World Street, listening to what`s bothering them, and also telling them what`s bothering us.

Some 35 years ago Israel won a war in Six Days. It saw its victory as self-legitimating. Its neighbors saw it otherwise, and Israel has been trapped in the Seventh Day ever since — never quite able to transform its dramatic victory into a peace that would make Israelis feel more secure.

More than 50 years ago America won a war against European fascism, which it followed up with a Marshall Plan and nation-building, both a handout and a hand up — in a way that made Americans welcome across the world. Today is a D-Day for our generation. May our leaders have the wisdom of their predecessors from the Greatest Generation.




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

This is not a act of al-Qaeda terrorism





The Golden Gate bridge is depicted in a scene from the new sci-fi film `The Core`. The scenario depicted in the film mirrors a scientist`s new theory about the Earth`s core. Geophysicist Dr. J. Marvin Herndon published his theory that the Earth`s nuclear furnace could die in as little as 100 years or as long as one billion years, and if it did it`s possible that the planet`s magnetic field would collapse in. Paramount Pictures/Handout

No doubt about it, Mother Nature is a terrorist. Rumor has it that George Bush is adding her to his axis of evil

[Joerver]

Sorry the cartoon today isn`t funny -- but that was my intent as we are on the brink of starting an unprovoked war. I was inspired by a poll I saw. The poll said almost 50% of Americans think Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9-11 attack. The blarney this administration has fed to the media has worked

[Joerver]

For Immediate Release - Office of the Press Secretary - March 17, 2003 - 8:01 P.M. (EST)


PRESIDENT`S TELEVISED ADDRESS GRANTING SADDAM HUSSEIN 48 HOURS TO STOP MISTAKING THIS GEORGE BUSH FOR THAT OTHER SISSYPANTS CHICKEN QUITTER
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Cross Hall
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of my willingness to keep my personal blood lust for Saddam Hussein in check. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have successfully crushed Iraq into the ground with crippling economic sanctions and almost-constant bombing of nearly half their worthless desert landscape. Yet today, Iraq`s ruling regime remains in power, seemingly for no other reason than to rub my maniacally proud family`s patrician honker in a big steaming loaf of its most humiliating failure.

Twelve years ago, another American President named George Bush stormed into Iraq on a noble mission of political expediency and petrochemical liberation. Today, Saddam Hussein had better stop mistaking this George Bush with that one. For indeed, we are two very different George Bushes. That George Bush grew up a Yankee. That George Bush excelled in academics. That George Bush flew fighter jets in actual combat. That George Bush started companies that were profitable. That George Bush was elected to the Presidency. And that George Bush successfully forged an international coalition to support his profit-motivated exploitation of the United States Military. But you know what? When push came to shove, that George Bush folded like a frickin` origami ballerina because he was too chicken to send a few thousand worthless grunts into the mean streets of Baghdad for some down-and-dirty, kill-for-the-hell-of-it whoopass.

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. And still, our boundless paranoia cannot be eliminated.

Today, totally objective intelligence gathered by our government leaves no doubt that the Iraqastani regime continues to be unable to prove that it has destroyed all those weapons Don Rumsfeld sold them in the 70`s so they could wipe out the Iranian menace. To be sure, this regime has already used American-produced weapons of maxi destruction against not only its worthless Arabiac neighbors, but also the against its own people - the majority of whom it should be noted are America-hating terrorists.

Now some other George Bush might have been content to sit by and pass up an opportunity to use this scoundrel as an election-winning scapegoat. Well this George Bush is another story, and he`s sick and tired of knowing that Saddam Hussein is living it up in the Iraqazoid White House, having himself the kind of good old booze-and-sex-drenched parties that make Osama bin Laden routinely call for his ouster. And all the while, he`s laughing at my daddy. And THAT is something I cannot abide. Dare anyone doubt me on that point, I urge them to look at the facts:

When former Texas Governor Ann Richards talked shit about my daddy at the Democratic Convention, I gave up my cushy life as a baseball team`s sure-thing investor to show that silver-haired gash what happens when you fuck with the Bush klan. When Bill Clinton kicked my daddy into the gutter of the one-termer ghetto, I spared no expense or energy sending his hand-picked boy Al "Qaeda" Gore packing to Prozacville. And when Ari Fleischer once snickered because my dad had a piece of spinach stuck in his teeth, well I didn`t hestiate to grab him by that greasy horseshoe of scruff he calls hair and get all Goodfellas on his hellbound Jewboy ass.

And so today, the first two years of my administration`s deceit and political manipulation are now reaching a moment of simulated truth. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in the personal vendatta-inspired military conflict that has been a foregone conclusion since the day of my near-election. Indeed, the hour of my blood dynasty`s desissification is near.

And hear me well: I don`t care how many colored American GI`s or sub-human Muslamian babies get killed, Saddam – so long as I never have to spend another Kennebunkport Thanksgiving watching my pathetic old man sob like a woman over not having had the balls to take you out when it was legally legitimate to do so.

That is the future I have chosen. Plutocracies have a duty to perpetuate themselves by uniting against the conveniently demonized and almost effortlessly defeated. And tonight, as we have done before, the Republican Party embraces that course of least resistance.

Good night, and may God continue to bless my re-election prospects.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 20. März 2003, 6:19
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,241106,00.html
Bush-Rede im Wortlaut

"Wir werden als Ergebnis nur den Sieg akzeptieren"

US-Präsident George W. Bush hat in der Nacht in einer nur vier Minuten langen Rede den Beginn des Krieges gegen den Irak angekündigt. Die Rede im Wortlaut:

"Liebe Landsleute, zu dieser Stunde befinden sich amerikanische und verbündete Streitkräfte in der Anfangsphase der militärischen Operationen zur Entwaffnung des Iraks, um seine Bevölkerung zu befreien und die Welt vor einer ernsten Gefahr zu schützen. Auf meinen Befehl hin haben die Streitkräfte der Koalition begonnen, ausgewählte Ziele von militärischem Wert anzugreifen, um Saddam Husseins Fähigkeit zu unterminieren, Krieg zu führen. Dies sind die ersten Stufen eines breit angelegten und koordinierten Feldzugs.

Mehr als 35 Länder gewähren entscheidende Unterstützung, von der Benutzung von Marine- und Luftwaffenstützpunkten bis zu Informationen und Logistik zum Einsatz von Kampfeinheiten. Jedes Land in dieser Koalition hat entschieden, die Pflicht und die Ehre zu übernehmen, sich an unserer gemeinsamen Verteidigung zu beteiligen.

Allen Männern und Frauen der US-Streitkräfte im Nahen Osten sage ich, der Frieden einer besorgten Welt und die Hoffnungen eines unterdrückten Volkes hängen jetzt von Ihnen ab. Dieses Vertrauen ist wohl begründet. Die Feinde, die Ihnen gegenüberstehen, werden Ihre Fähigkeit und Tapferkeit kennen lernen. Die Menschen, die Sie befreien werden, werden Zeugen des ehrenhaften und ehrenwerten Geistes des US-Militärs werden.

In diesem Konflikt steht Amerika einem Feind gegenüber, der Konventionen des Krieges oder moralische Regeln missachtet. Saddam Hussein hat irakische Truppen und Ausrüstung in zivile Gebiete gebracht, um unschuldige Männer, Frauen und Kinder als Schutzschild für sein Militär zu benutzen, eine letzte Grausamkeit an seinem Volk.

Die Amerikaner und die ganze Welt sollen wissen, dass die verbündeten Streitkräfte alles tun werden, um unschuldige Zivilisten zu verschonen.

Ein Krieg im harten Terrain eines Landes von der Größe Kaliforniens könnte länger und schwieriger sein, als einige voraussagen, und es wird unsere anhaltende Verpflichtung erfordern, um den Irak zu einem geeinten, stabilen und freien Land zu machen. Wir kommen in den Irak mit Respekt für seine Bevölkerung, für seine große Zivilisation und für die Religionen, die sie ausübt. Wir haben keine Ambitionen im Irak, außer die Bedrohung zu beseitigen und die Kontrolle der Bevölkerung über ihr eigenes Land wieder herzustellen.

Ich weiß, dass die Familien unserer Soldaten für ihre sichere Heimkehr beten, und dass Millionen von Amerikanern für die Sicherheit ihrer Lieben und den Schutz der Unschuldigen beten. Für ihr Opfer haben sie die Dankbarkeit und den Respekt des amerikanischen Volkes und die Gewissheit, dass niemand von der Gnade eines rechtlosen Regimes abhängig sein wird, das den Frieden mit Waffen des Massenmords bedroht.

Wir werden uns dieser Bedrohung jetzt mit unserer Armee, Luftwaffe, Marine, Küstenwache und Marineinfanterie stellen, so dass wir es nicht später mit einer Armee von Feuerwehrleuten und Polizei und Ärzten in den Straßen unserer Städte tun müssen. Nun, da der Konflikt da ist, ist der einzige Weg, seine Dauer zu begrenzen, entschlossen zuzuschlagen. Und ich versichere Ihnen, dies wird kein halbherziger Feldzug, und wir werden als Ergebnis nur den Sieg akzeptieren.

Meine Mitbürger, die Gefahren für unser Land und die Welt werden überwunden. Wir werden diese gefährlichen Zeiten hinter uns lassen und mit der Arbeit des Friedens fortfahren. Wir werden den Frieden verteidigen. Wir werden Anderen den Frieden bringen. Und wir werden siegen. Möge Gott unser Land schützen und alle, die es verteidigen."




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

[Joerver]

Der Wille zum Krieg triumphiert über das Recht

Goedart Palm 20.03.2003
Bush und Blair beginnen ihren völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg

Bush habe komplett die Verbindung zur Realität verloren, meinte unlängst der Wirtschaftsprofessor Paul Krugman: "Die Entmachtung Saddams ist inzwischen eindeutig eine Obsession geworden." Nun könnte die Wirklichkeit jedoch selbst wieder Kontakt mit dem US-Präsidenten aufnehmen, wenn er diese Obsession in einigen Wochen ausgelebt haben dürfte. Eine dieser Wirklichkeiten sollte die Frage sein, ob sich Bush, Blair, Aznar und die anderen selbstermächtigten Kriegsherren in naher oder ferner Zukunft für das nun einsetzende Gemetzel vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof oder einem vergleichbaren Tribunal rechtfertigen müssen. Die USA haben zwar das Statut nicht unterzeichnet, aber das allein dürfte im Blick auf andere historische Prozesse dieser Art, denen Kriegstreiber auch ohne ihre vorhergehende Einverständniserklärung unterworfen wurden, weniger das Problem sein, als eben die pure Gewalt, sich dem Recht und der Rechenschaft zu entziehen.
US-Präsident Bush erklärt den Kriegsbeginn

"Wir kommen in den Irak mit Achtung vor seinen Bürgern, ihrer großen Zivilisation und ihren Religionen, die sie ausüben. Wir verfolgen keine Interessen im Irak, außer der Beseitigung einer Bedrohung und der Übergabe der Kontrolle über dieses Landes an seine Menschen." - US-Präsident Bush in seiner Rede zur Ankündigung des Kriegsbeginns

Rechtsexperten streiten heftig über die Frage, ob der nun ausgebrochene Krieg rechtmäßig ist. In einem offenen Brief zweifelten sechzehn britische Jura-Professoren die Legitimität dieses Krieges auf der Basis der UN-Resolution 1441 an. Nach der Meinung der Experten wäre dieser Krieg nur gerechtfertigt, wenn er der Selbstverteidigung gegen einen bewaffneten Angriff dient oder wenn eine neue Resolution des Sicherheitsrats dazu ermächtigt.

Bushs Doktrin präventiver Selbstverteidigung ist völkerrechtswidrig

Diese Charta beeinträchtigt im Falle eines bewaffneten Angriffs gegen ein Mitglied der Vereinten Nationen keineswegs das naturgegebene Recht zur individuellen oder kollektiven Selbstverteidigung, bis der Sicherheitsrat die zur Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit erforderlichen Maßnahmen getroffen hat." - Artikel 51 der UN-Charta.

Nach Professor Colin Warbrick, Jura-Professor an der Durham University, scheitert das Selbstverteidigungsargument Bushs bereits daran, dass der Irak nicht mit einem Krieg droht und weiterhin auch keine Verbindungen zwischen Bagdad und terroristischen Gruppen, die eine solche unmittelbare Bedrohung darstellen könnten, nachgewiesen sind. Dass Bush einen fortschreitenden Abrüstungsprozess mit unilateraler Gewaltausübung zur Unzeit unterbricht, entlarvt bereits faktisch die Perfidie der bushistischen Selbstverteidigungsrhetorik.

Dies ist nicht eine Frage der Autorität, es ist eine Frage des Willens.
US-Präsident Bush bei der Verkündigung des Ultimatums am 17. März 2003

Betrachtet man den historischen Diskurs zum präventiven Krieg wird die Unrechtmäßigkeit des gegenwärtigen Angriffs auf den Irak zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt besonders deutlich. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), der die Lehre des gerechten Krieges entwickelte, hielt Selbstverteidigungskriege für zulässig. Präventive Kriege als Selbstverteidigungsakte werden in der Folge dieses juristischen Diskurses daran gemessen, ob auf Grund einer sorgfältigen Prüfung ein Angriff in der allernächsten Zukunft besonders wahrscheinlich ist.

Der frühe Schweizer Völkerrechtler Emmerich de Vattel (1714-1767) hatte demgemäß einen präventiven Krieg für zulässig erklärt, wenn er sich nicht auf vage und zweifelhafte Verdächtigungen stützt. Anderenfalls würde der präventiv agierende Staat selbst zum Aggressor. Auf Grund des hohen Missbrauchsrisikos trägt der präventive Angreifer daher die volle Beweislast für die behauptete Wahrscheinlichkeit eines bevorstehenden Angriffs auf ihn.

Der US-Außenminister Daniel Webster (1782-1852) forderte anlässlich des berühmten, von Bush und seinen Rechtsberatern offensichtlich verdrängten "Caroline-Falls" für diesen hochproblematischen Kriegstypus, dass die Selbstverteidigung unmittelbar notwendig ist, die Gründe "erdrückend" sind und das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit beachtet wird: "...instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation".

Selbstverteidigungskriege setzten daher auch jenseits einer UN-Resolution voraus, dass die Verhältnismäßigkeit eines Präventivkrieges und die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines unmittelbar bevorstehenden Schadens besonders skrupulös zu beurteilen sind. Nicht nur die Ergebnisse der Waffeninspektoren sprechen eindeutig dafür, dass vom Irak keine unmittelbare Gefahr ausgeht. Selbst die USA haben keinen Hinweis darauf zeigen können, dass der Irak atomare Massenvernichtungsmittel besitzt. Die B- und C-Bedrohungen stützen sich nur auf Vermutungen - trotz einer großen Zahl von UN-Kontrollen und geheimdienstlichen Tätigkeiten diverser Staaten. Die übrigen Gefahrenszenarien, die Bush in seiner Rhetorik vernebelt, sind zu keiner Zeit je über das Stadium der Propaganda hinausgegangen.

Statt der äußerst restriktiven Anwendbarkeit des Selbstverteidigungsarguments hat Bush mit seiner, von jeder historischen Erfahrung unbelasteten Präventionsdoktrin ( Zur neuen Präventionsmoral alter Krieger) diesen Kriegsgrund so aufgeweicht, dass praktisch alle potenziellen bis hin zu völlig imaginären Gefahren als Kriegsgründe ausreichend sein sollen. Auf die weitere Praxis dieser Doktrin darf man so gespannt sein wie auf den Diskurs, wie die Weltgemeinschaft mit rücksichtslosen Hegemonialstrategien zukünftig zu leben gedenkt ( Amerikanischer Internationalismus).

Zusätzlich hat Bush das fragile Selbstverteidigungsargument auch noch dadurch entwertet, dass er nun die Notwendigkeit seines Krieges in der Befreiung des irakischen Volkes erkennen will. Fazit: Dieser Krieg ist nach den völkerrechtlichen Anforderungen an einen Selbstverteidigungskrieg illegitim.


Zum Missbrauch des UN-Sicherheitrats
Amerika hat versucht, mit den Vereinten Nationen zusammenzuarbeiten, um auf diese Bedrohung zu antworten, weil wir die Frage friedlich lösen wollten. Wir glauben an die Mission der Vereinten Nationen.


Nicholas Grief, Rechtswissenschaftler an der Bournemouth University, verweist auf die Rechtsmeinung, dass ohnehin jeder Krieg, der nicht durch den UN-Sicherheitsrat gebilligt werde, grundsätzlich einen Verstoß gegen die UN-Charta darstellt. Grief zufolge sollten Bush und Blair daher ernsthaft um die Frage besorgt sein, ob sie sich nicht in einigen Jahren für diesen Krieg vor einem Tribunal zu verantworten haben.

Professor Anthony Aust, bis vor kurzen Chef-Rechtsberater des britischen "Foreign and Commonwealth Office", geht indes wie das Kriegstriumvirat auf den Azoren und maßgeblich auch der britische Außenminister Jack Straw davon aus, dass mit der Sicherheitsrats- Resolution 1441 bereits eine ausreichende Ermächtigungsgrundlage vorliegt.

Hier stellt sich zunächst die Frage nach der richtigen Auslegung, da die Resolution 1441 von "ernsthaften Konsequenzen" für den Irak spricht. Nach Colin Warbrick wäre indes auch die Entscheidung über die Interpretation der Klausel wiederum eine Angelegenheit des Sicherheitsrates selbst. Auch dem deutschen Völkerrechtler Gerd Seidel zufolge muss der Sicherheitsrat die Frage beantworten, ob überhaupt eine Bedrohung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit durch den Irak vorliegt. Wenn der Sicherheitsrat über den Bedeutungsgehalt seiner eigenen Resolutionen wie offensichtlich im vorliegenden Fall uneins ist, obliegt es alleine diesem Gremium, entweder eine klärende Entscheidung über die Reichweite der Resolution 1441 herbeizuführen oder eine zweite, explizite Resolution zu verabschieden, die Art und Umfang der Maßnahmen und insbesondere auch Fristen festlegt, um die Voraussetzungen eines zulässigen Kriegseinsatzes so weit zu konkretisieren, dass "last resort" nicht "prima ratio" wird.

Folgt man dieser Argumentationslinie, so wird deutlich, dass sich Bush und Blair mit dem jetzigen Beginn der Aggressionen eine rechtswidrige Definitionshoheit anmaßen, die den Sicherheitsrat und seine aus vielen historischen Gründen entwickelte Logik - einvernehmliche Ausschöpfung aller friedlichen Möglichkeiten - grob missachtet. Insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund, dass sich die Veto-Mächte Frankreich und Russland expressis verbis gegen diesen Krieg und auch gegen die Interpretation der Resolution 1441 im Sinne der amerikanisch-britischen "Vorausverteidigung" ausgesprochen haben, ist die Auslegung der kriegsentschlossenen Parteien nicht lediglich eine Umgehungsstrategie, sondern eine vorsätzliche Verletzung der UN-Charta.

Das Nichteinbringen des zweiten amerikanischen Resolutionsentwurfs untermauert die Absicht, eine Kriegspolitik in bewusster Missachtung der Mehrheit der Mitglieder im Sicherheitsrat verfolgen zu wollen. Bush und Blair können sich später also nicht auf einen Interpretationsfehler, eine respektable Mindermeinung oder einen Verbotsirrtum bei ihrem illegitimen Krieg berufen, weil sie mit dem Abbruch der Politik erklären, gegen die UNO, gegen den Sicherheitsrat, gegen die Regeln des Völkerrechts, gegen das Ultima-Ratio-Prinzip des Krieges verstoßen zu wollen.

Die Kriegsallianz begründete das Nichteinbringen der zweiten Resolution indes damit, diese wäre zwar politisch wünschbar, aber im Blick auf die Resolution 1441 nicht notwendig gewesen. Auch hier lässt sich insbesondere beim US-Präsidenten ein fundamentales Missverständnis über die Funktionen der UNO und des Sicherheitsrats feststellen. Denn Resolutionen des Sicherheitsrates sind keine politischen Good-Will-Kampagnen, sondern Rechtsakte, die entweder notwendig sind oder nicht.

Selbst wenn der amerikanische Versuch erfolgreich gewesen wäre, die Stimmen der unentschlossenen Nationen mit höchst zweifelhaften Methoden zu kassieren, hätte das - auch im Fall des Zustandekommens einer ausdrücklichen Kriegsresolution gegen den Irak - nichts an der Rechtswidrigkeit dieses Krieges zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt geändert. Selbst der Sicherheitsrat besitzt nicht das unumschränkte Recht, militärische Gewalt zu autorisieren. Denn eine solche Resolution würde der UN-Charta widersprechen, alle Möglichkeiten einer friedlichen Konfliktlösung auszuschöpfen.


Verstoß der Kriegsallianz gegen die UN-Resolution 1441


Weiterhin wird der Krieg der Bush-Koalition auch dadurch unrechtmäßig, dass er zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt der UNO-Resolution 1441 zuwiderläuft. Denn das vom Sicherheitsrat erklärte Ziel der Waffenkontrolle und Abrüstung, das bisher erfolgreich verfolgt wurde, wird durch den Krieg gerade vereitelt. Solange der Irak abrüstet, unterwirft er sich der Resolution - zumal die Resolution keine zeitlich eindeutigen Vorgaben gemacht hat.

Die Entscheidung, ob die Abrüstung und Offenbarung von Waffen ausreichend ist, konnte nur auf der Grundlage der Waffeninspektionsberichte getroffen werden. Der Sicherheitsrat hatte die UNMOVIC und IAEA beauftragt, diese Fragen zu untersuchen - weder den britischen Premier noch den Präsidenten der USA, der viele Wege gefunden hat, seine Kriegsentschlossenheit nicht durch Diplomatie unterminieren zu lassen.

Es ist daher zynisch, wenn der britische Außenminister Straw Bush sekundiert, es ginge darum, die Autorität der Vereinten Nationen zu erhalten, dass ihre Resolutionen auch ausgeführt werden. Selbst das Plenum der Vereinten Nationen, nicht nur der UN-Sicherheitsrat, hat sich öffentlich mehrheitlich und vehement gegen diesen Krieg ausgesprochen. Bush und Blair ersetzen die Vereinten Nationen daher durch eine imaginäre UNO, die sie angeblich repräsentieren. Die Auffassung Straws ist dagegen juristisch abwegig, dass die Sicherheitsratsmitglieder gewusst hätten, welche Bedeutung der UN-Resolution 1441 zukomme. Selbst wenn diese Resolution Krieg implizieren würde, was weder ihre Interpretation noch die gegenwärtigen Fakten hergeben, stünde es dem Sicherheitsrat auch frei, seine Entscheidungen neu zu justieren.

Für Kofi Annan stellt der Waffengang ohne zweite Resolution daher zu Recht einen Bruch der UN-Charta dar. Es bleibt der grausame Zynismus dieses Feldzugs, dass ein "outlaw regime" (O-Ton: Bush) nun unter Voraussetzungen bekämpft wird, die ihrerseits außerhalb des Gesetzes stehen, mithin nicht weniger "outlaw" sind. Von der Logik der UN-Charta her müssten gemäß Art. 1 Nr. 1 nun wirksame Kollektivmaßnahmen getroffen werden, um die amerikanisch-britische Bedrohung des Friedens zu verhüten und zu beseitigen. Nur dürfte sich nach der faktischen Demontage des UN-Sicherheitsrates und der ab jetzt wieder erweckten Logik gewaltbereiter Willkür niemand mehr finden lassen, der dem entfesselten Leviathan Einhalt gebietet.

Der Krieg wird bald vorbei sein, die von Bush und Blair angerichteten schwersten Schäden für das Recht der Völkergemeinschaft sind dagegen längst nicht abzusehen, von der nun einsetzenden humanitären Katastrophe ganz zu schweigen. Hoffen wir darauf:



"Kriegsverbrechen werden verfolgt werden, Kriegsverbrecher werden bestraft werden, und es wird keine Verteidigung sein zu sagen `Ich habe nur Befehle ausgeführt`." - Präsident Bush,17. März 2003.

[Joerver]

Protesters brace for war, police brace for protesters
JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/20…



(03-19) 20:13 PST (AP) --

Anti-war protesters from Los Angeles to San Francisco blocked traffic Wednesday in a warm-up to the waves of demonstrations expected statewide now that the war against Iraq has started.

Though the marches and rallies were generally peaceful, Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton called for an investigation after an officer there struck at least three people with a baton.

Most large demonstrations were geared toward Thursday in anticipation of the first full day hostilities. Still, on Wednesday, smaller protests sprouted up across California as the U.S.-imposed deadline for Saddam Hussein to accept exile passed unheeded.

Many anti-war activists spent the day polishing their plans -- while police braced for civil disobedience. Protesters vowed to lay down in the streets and paralyze downtown San Francisco, among other areas.

Given the months-long buildup to a U.S. advance on Baghdad, organizers have had plenty of time to plan. Many groups planned solemn vigils or restrained rallies, while others insist only open defiance of authorities will get their message across.

"If I don`t speak out, then the blood is on my hands," said Rich Hubbard, a musician and piano tuner from Berkeley who joined the thousands of protestors in San Francisco. "If I sit still and stay silent, it`s on me and I don`t want that."

In San Francisco, where demonstrators have twice occupied financial district intersections in recent days, a group called Direct Action to Stop the War said thousands of volunteers would try to paralyze the city by closing 20 intersections at dawn on Thursday, as well as off-ramps from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.

Police have had to be as focused on unrest as they are on the possibility of a terrorist attack in retaliation for the war.

"We`re trying to be ready for the worst, but we`re hoping for the best," said Bob Mammone, a spokesman for San Francisco police, which beefed up staff to process arrestees and updated phone lists so that all the department`s 2,300 officers could be roused to hit the street.

Police also were monitoring Internet sites used by the decentralized protest groups use to plan events -- and, in one case, call for "a creative rampage" in the city.

In Los Angeles and other cities, police went on 12-hour shifts to keep as many officers as possible on the street.

Prewar demonstrations dotted the state Wednesday.

In Berkeley and Palo Alto, rubbernecking drivers on the interstates slowed to view anti-war signs on highway overpasses. About 500 workers in Oakland spent their lunch hour winding a peaceful route through downtown, and hundreds gathered in Santa Rosa during the afternoon.

At an afterwork rally near San Francisco`s toniest shopping district, thousands of people chanted and drummed before marching off into the rainy night. Police escorted the rain-drenched crowd, which was led by actor Danny Glover and stretched as long as six blocks.

"I`m here because our nutty president, he thinks he can just move unilaterally and do all the dastardly things that he`s accusing other people of doing," Charles Williams, 27, who lives in Pinole but came to San Francisco to protest.

In West Los Angeles, police in faceshields and flak vests arrested 35 protesters for failure to disperse during an afternoon demonstration a block from the Federal Building, Assistant Police Chief Jim McDonnell said.

Two blocks of busy Wilshire Boulevard were closed to traffic for two hours and at one point dozens of protesters laid down in the middle of the street. That`s when police stepped in.

The arrestees, including an elderly woman in a wheelchair, were bound with plastic handcuffs and put on buses to be taken to the central jail.

One police officer`s aggressive tactics prompted Chief Bratton to visit the scene after he saw the confrontation on television, said Lt. Horace Frank, a police spokesman.

"What we`ve seen in the video is very disturbing," Frank said. "If the investigation concludes any misconduct on the part of the officer, we will take appropriate action."

Like many groups, the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center has for weeks told demonstrators to gather on the afternoon after war starts. The group spent Wednesday negotiating a protest march route with Palo Alto police.

That was a stark contrast to groups in San Francisco that have called for efforts to shut down commerce by blocking intersections and businesses.

"Some people are almost apologizing that they`ll probably be in San Francisco because they feel that we`re at the point where civil disobedience is a necessity," center director Paul George said Wednesday. "Other people want to do something in their own community, and they`re looking for a peaceful, legal way to voice their opinion."

In Fresno, peace activists planned organized demonstrations, not civil disobedience, said Peace Fresno`s spokeswoman, Camille Russell.

"What we`re really interested in doing is just calling attention to the fact that there are people who vehemently are in disagreement with the war plans," Russell said.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Net:
San Francisco Bay area organizing site: www.indybay.org/

©2003 Associated Press

[Joerver]

Arrogance of Power
Today, I Weep for my Country...

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm


I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.

After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America`s image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?

A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America`s true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

###

[Joerver]

Die Kriegserklärung zum Beginn des 2. Weltkriegs.

Familiar, Haunting Words
Jimmy Breslin

March 20, 2003

At 8 o`clock Wednesday night, the Sikh in a blue turban in the subway change booth at 42nd Street gave me a little wave and I waved back. Suddenly, he was a front-line soldier in a war. I designate the subway at Times Square as a prime target in America in the war with Iraq.

I had just been at the public library, where I discovered the speech that started World War II. I print much of it here. It is darkly familiar to what we have been hearing here, when for the first time in American history we became all the things we ever hated and invaded another country. Herewith the speech:

Address by Adolph Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939.

For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the Versailles Diktat created -- a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes intolerable for us ...

As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions through by pressure. Fifteen years before the National Socialist Party came to power there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On my own initiative I have, not once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected -- proposals for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament, proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts I made for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and later of the problem of the Sudatenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in vain.

It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the Versailles Diktat is not law to us.

In the same way, I have tried to solve the problems of Danzig, the Corridor, etc., by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem was to be solved had little interest for the Western Powers. But time is not a matter of indifference to us ...

For four months I have calmly watched developments, although I never ceased to give warnings. In the last few days I have increased these warnings ...

I made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part of the British government. They proposed, not that they themselves should carry out the negotiations, but rather that Poland and Germany should come into direct contact and once more pursue negotiations.

I must declare that I accepted this proposal and worked out a basis for these negotiations which are known to you. For two whole days I sat in my government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Polish government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Wednesday night they did not send us a plenipotentiary, but instead informed us through their ambassador that they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a position to go into the British proposals. The Polish government also said they would inform Britain of their decision.

Deputies, if the German government and its leader patiently endured such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided Wednesday night and informed the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Polish government to conduct serious negotiations with us.

The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all to thank Italy, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand for the on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task ourselves.

This night for the first time, Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be fought with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect that we shall do the same ... until the safety, security of the Reich and its rights are secured.

***

On that night, Hitler used this dry, unimaginative language to start a world war that was to kill 60 million, and they stopped counting.

Wednesday night, George Bush, after speech after speech of this same dry, flat, banal language, started a war for his country, and we can only beg the skies to keep it from spreading into another world war.
Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybr…

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

In Manchem funktioniert die amerikanische Demokratie besser als bei uns. Die Senatoren entscheiden sich unabhängiger, weil sie direkt gewählt werden.

March 20, 2003
Drilling in Alaska, a Priority for Bush, Fails in the Senate
By DAVID FIRESTONE


ASHINGTON, March 19 — The Senate narrowly voted against drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge today, dealing a crippling blow to the central element of the Bush administration`s energy plan.

The vote, 52 to 48, came after the hardest-fought lobbying campaign yet in the Congressional session, setting environmental groups, who said oil production would destroy an unspoiled wilderness, against Alaskan business interests, who said the oil was necessary for jobs and energy independence. Until the final moments, neither side was certain of victory, and the decision came down to two Republicans — Senators Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Gordon H. Smith of Oregon — whose opposition to drilling was not final until the floor vote.

The two days of debate that preceded the vote were unusually passionate and caustic, filled with battling statistics about the amount of oil under the tundra and sarcastic asides asking whether caribou were more important than American jobs. The chief proponent of drilling, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, ended his remarks on the floor with an unusual but unmistakable threat to use his power as Appropriations Committee chairman against those who disagreed with him.

"People who vote against this today are voting against me," Mr. Stevens said. "I will not forget it."

Even though Mr. Stevens has the ability to kill any senator`s pet project, the threat did not seem to change any votes on what national environmental groups have called a core issue. Republican leaders had expressed hope that their takeover of the Senate this year would change the chamber`s longstanding opposition to oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but eight Republicans sided with most Democrats against drilling, while five Democrats supported it.

"I`m so proud of my colleagues because that`s kind of a threat from a very powerful senator," Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who led the opposition to drilling, said after the vote. "But you know what? There`s something more powerful out there than any senator, even than any president, and that`s God`s gift to us. And we stood on that side of preserving this wondrous gift."

Today`s vote, which stripped the drilling provision from the Senate`s annual budget resolution, did not kill the possibility of approving drilling this year, but it made it much harder. Had the measure been included in the resolution, opponents would not have been able to filibuster it, because of the Senate`s budget procedures. After today`s vote, opponents will be able to filibuster future efforts, which will require drilling supporters to come up with 60 votes.

Mr. Stevens nonetheless vowed to bring up the measure repeatedly.

"It`s never decided until we win," he said, calling today`s vote the most important to him in his 32 years in the Senate.

In addition to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Smith, the other Republicans voting against drilling were Senators Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter G. Fitzgerald of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona. Democrats voting for drilling were Senators Zell Miller of Georgia, John B. Breaux and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, and Daniel K. Akaka and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii.

Representative Tom DeLay, the House Republican leader, said his chamber would probably approve drilling next month as part of an energy bill, which could force another vote in the Senate.

The House could also approve drilling in its budget, which would mean Republicans on a conference committee would have to decide whether bringing the issue back to Senate would put the entire budget at risk of being voted down.

Alaska`s government, along with its oil and labor interests, has long sought permission to begin drilling in the 1.5-million-acre northern coastal plain of the wildlife refuge, which was created in 1960. The area is 65 miles east of Prudhoe Bay, North America`s largest oilfield, and proponents say it contains enough oil to constitute half of all domestic oil production in five years, an estimate that has been disputed. Administration officials had hoped that Republican control of Congress would shatter the power of the environmental lobby and had used the rising price of gasoline and the imminent war with Iraq as arguments for increased domestic oil production.

But opinion polls showed that most people still opposed drilling in the remote area, and opponents capitalized on that sentiment in the Senate by showing photographs of frolicking polar bears, sumptuous wildflowers and calving caribou, all of which they said would be irreparably damaged by the search for oil.

"Do we value this land and are we prepared to protect it, or are we going to desecrate it, diminish it, change it forever for a small amount of oil?" asked Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democratic presidential candidate who appeared at several rallies with environmental groups.

But the colorful wildlife photographs were ridiculed by supporters of drilling, who said the area was little more than a barren, frozen wasteland most of the year. Alaska`s two senators, in particular, expressed fury that their state was considered an untouchable environmental paradise by people in the lower 48 states.

"We in Alaska are starting to feel cut off from the rest of the world," said Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. "The rest of the country would just as soon lock us up and say, `Nothing, nada, zip, you cannot do anything. You are not responsible enough to carry on development because we are concerned about the environment.` "

She added that many Americans seemed to care more for the caribou than for the jobs of Alaskans.

"We talk about the caribou and we are concerned about the caribou and we care for the wildlife," Ms. Murkowski said. "But the fact is, you have to have money to buy your kids shoes and put food on the table, and only the jobs can provide that."

The White House, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had heavily lobbied Senate Republicans, and Senate officials said that Mr. Coleman and several members were promised sizable investments in new energy sources like biomass diesel fuel. But environmental groups promised to pillory any senator who switched a vote, and after the vote their lobbyists were so exuberant that they had to be quieted by a guard.

Republicans said today`s vote would not slow their drive to approve a budget later this week for the 2004 fiscal year.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
March 20, 2003
How Senators Voted on Drilling in Alaska
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


ASHINGTON, March 19 — Following is the roll call by which the Senate voted 52 to 48 today against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. A yes vote was a vote to remove the drilling provision from the budget resolution. A no vote was a vote to keep it in. Voting yes were 43 Democrats, 8 Republicans and an independent. Voting no were 5 Democrats and 43 Republicans.


DEMOCRATS YES

Baucus, Mont.; Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Bingaman, N.M.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Clinton, N.Y.; Conrad, N.D.; Corzine, N.J.; Daschle, S.D.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Dorgan, N.D.; Durbin, Ill.; Edwards, N.C.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Graham, Fla.; Harkin, Iowa; Hollings, S.C.; Johnson, S.D.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Kohl, Wis.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

DEMOCRATS NO

Akaka, Hawaii; Breaux, La.; Inouye, Hawaii; Landrieu, La.; Miller, Ga.


REPUBLICANS YES

Chafee, R.I.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Me.; DeWine, Ohio; Fitzgerald, Ill.; McCain, Ariz.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Me.



REPUBLICANS NO

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Campbell, Colo.; Chambliss, Ga.; Cochran, Miss.; Cornyn, Tex.; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Ensign, Nev.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Tex.; Inhofe, Okla.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Nickles, Okla.; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.


INDEPENDENT YES

Jeffords, Vt.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

March 20, 2003
Setting the Stage
By MICHAEL R. GORDON


CAMP DOHA, Kuwait, Thursday, March 20 — Some wars begin with a bang. Others begin with limited airstrikes, stealthy border movements and psychological operations to weaken the enemy`s resistance.

This war began with both. The major blows were cruise missile attacks from the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and strikes by F-117 stealth fighters against three "leadership targets," an apparent effort to decapitate Saddam Hussein`s regime. The strike recalled the cruise missile attack the Clinton administration mounted — unsuccessfully — to try to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. It was an attempt to end the war with a single, decisive blow.

But even before the Baghdad attack took place, the final preparatory phase of the war was under way. It included attacks on artillery, a major psychological operations campaign, and the positioning of ground troops along the Kuwait-Iraq border.

Despite these twin developments — the attack on the leadership and the maneuvering at the border — the major air and land assault to collapse Mr. Hussein`s regime has not yet been unleashed. If the attempt to wipe out the Iraqi leadership is not successful, the United States is still preparing the knock-out punch.

Meanwhile, it has already hit some targets. On Wednesday afternoon, allied warplanes attacked about a dozen Iraqi artillery pieces near the southern Iraqi town of Al Zubayr and on Al Faw peninsula. The strikes were important militarily and also for what they signaled politically. Allied planes patrolling the southern no-flight zone have attacked surface-to-air missiles, radar and surface-to-surface missiles in southern Iraq. But this was the first attack on artillery.

The military rationale seemed clear: to set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. The artillery pieces that were attacked included GHN-45 howitzers, an Austrian-made 155-millimeter gun that has been part of Iraq`s arsenal for some time and that the Iraqi military moved south near Al Zubayr about three weeks ago. With a range of about 25 miles, the howitzers could reach the American and British forces moving into northern Kuwait and threaten them as they advanced north.

Allied warplanes also attacked Type 59 field guns stationed on Iraq`s Faw peninsula, which were in range of Kuwait`s Bubiyan Island.

The attacks were also something of a political milestone. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, the allied land war commander and his top deputies have been concerned about the artillery and had wanted to destroy them before sending American and British troops into harm`s war in Iraq. The Bush administration had been reluctant to give General McKiernan the go-ahead when the issue of Iraqi compliance with orders to disarm was before the United Nations Security Council. Officials argued that an attack then would suggest that Washington had written off a peaceful resolution.

After President Bush issued his ultimatum that Mr. Hussein leave Iraq within 48 hours, however, it was clear that the diplomatic phase had come to an end. So Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld gave the approval to strike.

The American military took another step on Wednesday to create the conditions for a full-fledged air and land assault, issuing instructions to what it hopes are poorly motivated Iraqi troops on how to surrender to allied forces or at least ensure that they are not attacked. The message was delivered by a radio station near the Kuwaiti-Iraqi border operated by American Special Operations forces and by an airborne radio station. Leaflets with similar instructions were dropped by allied aircraft.

One American concern was that any Iraqis who heeded the instructions would be attacked by security agents deployed with Iraqi soldiers to enforce Mr. Hussein`s will. The instructions were disseminated on the clear assumption that allied troops were soon to be the dominant force in Iraq.

Leaflets dropped by United States aircraft instruct the Iraqis to park their vehicles, put white flags on them, move more than half a mile away from their vehicles and "wait for further instructions."

Other indications of a looming attack were evident in Kuwait. American and British forces moved to attack positions inside the previously demilitarized zone that separates Kuwait and Iraq. Careful cuts have also been made in the elaborate $33 million electrified fence that separates Kuwait from Iraq.

The Army`s Third Infantry Division and 101st Airborne are still on the Kuwaiti side of the demilitarized zone, as are the United States Marines and British forces. By moving forward toward the border and arranging for gaps to be cut in the fence, however, the allied ground troops are leaning forward to gain a bit of a head start.

None of this should be mistaken for the crushing blow that is likely to descend on Iraq soon. That attack is expected to feature precision bombing in Baghdad, strikes against Iraq`s elite Republican Guard and the advance of Army and Marine forces toward the Iraqi capital.

The airstrikes in Baghdad will be more concentrated than in 1991, so concentrated that its advocates have called the plan "shock and awe." The land forces will travel farther than during the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict. When it happens, the invasion will be unmistakable and there will be no debates as to whether the war is truly under way.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

I Read The News Today, Oh Boy

I read the news today, oh boy,
About the President who`s mucking it,
And though the news was rather sad,
Well, I just had to laugh.
I saw his photograph.

He blew his job up on this war,
He didn`t notice that the world had changed,
A crowd of people stood and stared,
They`ve seen his face before.
Nobody was really sure if he knew right from wrong.

I saw a film today, oh boy,
The U.S. army had just won a war,
A crowd of people turned away,
But I just had a look.
Having read some books, I`d like to stop this war.

Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head,
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my hat,
Made the bus in seconds flat,
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke,
And somebody spoke and I went into a dream...

I heard the news today, oh boy,
Ten thousand bombs have dropped on old Baghdad,
And though the holes weren`t very small,
They learned to count them all.
Now they know how many holes they`ll take to make up for the dead.
I`d love to stop this war.

--by Lennon-McCartney, with additions by Jerry Politex, 03.17/03

[Joerver]

Noch eine Figur im Hintergrund

Hughes`s New Role In Shaping Bush`s Message Questioned
Ethics, Politicization Concerns Cited

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 20, 2003; Page A12


Former White House aide Karen P. Hughes, now a $15,000-a-month consultant to the Republican National Committee, has been playing a key role in advising President Bush and the administration on a communications strategy for the Iraq war.

Hughes flew with Bush on Air Force One to the Azores on Sunday and helped to draft his speech to the nation delivered Monday night. Hughes briefed reporters in the White House on Monday in advance of Bush`s speech, saying he would offer exile as the only option to avoid an attack. And Hughes, who officials say has worked from the White House for the past week, has played a key role in developing the administration`s plan for a coordinated communications strategy during the Iraq war.

The arrangement has prompted accusations from Democrats and government watchdog groups that the role of Hughes improperly blends politics and government business. Democrats complain that the presence of Hughes gives an inherently political tinge to the war effort. "George Bush should be focused on winning this war and making sure our troops are safe, not on how his partisan campaign hacks are going to score political points in the aftermath," said David Sirota, spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee.

Government watchdog groups said the arrangement essentially allows Hughes to serve as White House official without being subject to its ethics rules, such as disclosure of income sources. Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said that "in effect they`re having the RNC paying her salary so she isn`t paid by the White House and doesn`t come under the ethics rules of the White House." Noble said the arrangement "is a way to avoid disclosing outside income."

Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, said the matter is an ethical "gray area" because Hughes is not under disclosure requirements.

A spokesman for the RNC, Jim Dyke, said Hughes`s presence at the White House did not politicize the situation or present a conflict of interest. "She has been providing advice to the president since before he was president based on their relationship, and I don`t think that would change regardless of who happens to be paying her," he said. He added that Hughes is "providing communications advice, not making policy decisions." Hughes, who has been receiving $15,000 monthly plus expenses since July, will have her pay cut to $5,000 monthly because of restrictions forced by campaign finance laws, Dyke said.

Hughes did not return messages left at the White House and at her office in Austin. A White House official said he was not aware whether Hughes has filed or would file disclosures.

Hughes is one of Bush`s most trusted, longtime confidantes, serving as an aide while he was Texas governor and during the first 18 months of his presidency. She directed the White House communications apparatus, including the global message operation during the war in Afghanistan. Since she left in the middle of last year because of her family`s desire to return to Texas, Hughes has continued to advise Bush and has campaigned for GOP candidates. She is writing a book about her White House experiences.

A decade ago, a similar White House consulting arrangement caused an uproar among congressional Republicans, who were infuriated that Democratic National Committee consultants were given access to the 1993 deliberations on President Bill Clinton`s first budget and economic plan. Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.) attempted to pass legislation requiring the consultants to file the same financial disclosure statements as White House aides did. The legislation failed, but the White House directed the four consultants -- James Carville, Paul Begala, Mandy Grunwald and Stan Greenberg -- to make the disclosures.

"This issue is not a partisan maneuver, but a responsible, good government action," Wolf wrote at the time. "We are trying to make public policy to ensure public accountability for this White House and any White House in the future, whether occupied by a Democrat or a Republican." Wolf argued that the four could be considered government employees under some readings of the law and therefore subject to conflict-of-interest restrictions.

A spokesman for Wolf, Dan Scandling, said the issue with the Clinton advisers was more about security clearances and White House passes. But on the disclosure matter, Scandling said: "That`s where he is and what he believes."

Begala said Hughes`s role at the White House is a vindication of his view. "I couldn`t be happier," he said. "I think it`s terrific the president has turned to people he`s comfortable with who can tell him `no.` You never have to worry with Karen Hughes about divided loyalty."

Begala said "it`s not for me to say" whether Hughes should disclose her finances. He said that after Wolf demanded the disclosures a decade ago, Clinton told him: "You do have great access. Why not do it?"



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

!

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

[Joerver]

Rede von Präsident Kennedy


American University Speech
June 10, 1963

President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, ladies and gentlemen: - It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst`s enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of the public`s business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation`s thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.

Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.

"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield, in his tribute to English universities-and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children-not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the glove and to generations yet unborn.

Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year of weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - which can only destroy and never create - is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace. I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.

Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament - and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude - as individuals and as a Nation - for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that mankind is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man`s reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again.

I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.

Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions-on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process-a way of solving problems.

With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor - it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists z write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims - such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars ... that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union ... [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries ... [and] to achieve world domination ... by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements - to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning - a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements - in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation`s territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland - a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again no matter how - our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nation`s closest allies our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours - and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest. So, let us not be blind to our differences - but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children`s future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communist`s interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy - or of a collective death - wish for the world. To secure these ends, America`s weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self-restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For we can seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people - but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system - a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.

At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian sub continent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others - by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope - and the purpose of allied policies - to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.

This will require a new effort to achieve world law - a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other`s actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long-range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920`s. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.

The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security - it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards. I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.

First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.

Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.

Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives - as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government - local, State, and National-to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.

All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man`s ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights - the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation - the right to breathe air as nature provided it - the right of future generations to a healthy existence?

While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can-if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers-offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough - more than enough - of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on - not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.

Was sonst noch so geschrieben wurde

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/20_war.html

[Joerver]

Full-Court Press
American readers look to international news for perspective on current crisis

by Alan Bisbort - March 20, 2003

WWW.GUARDIAN.CO.UK

"English written, truth told."

The World This Week
American journalism is in a state of freefall as precipitous as the stock market, and it is not close to bottoming out.
Witness the recent Bush press conference. At one point, he agreed to call on a reporter -- in the process making a joke about how unrehearsed the event was, and the gathered press corps laughed. How were we, the listeners, to know they were laughing because they knew it was such unmitigated bullshit?

Indeed, it turns out that the press agreed to run questions by Ari Fleischer for approval before they were allowed the charade of asking Bush spontaneously. This is part of the Bush entitlement program. He has never participated in anything his entire life for which the results haven`t already been rigged ahead of time.

And yet, even with the answers in the back of the book, he still flunked the quiz.

The press shamed itself even further by putting up with the debacle. They should have walked out en masse. And they should draw and quarter that boot-licking lapdog reporter who, when given the chance to ask a question on the verge of what may be World War III, asked, How is your faith helping you through this process?

No doubt, some of the other questions on the approved list that didn`t get asked were: How badly has your golf game suffered? or Do you like kittens or puppies best?

Far-fetched you say? Consider: Posted this week on the Poynter Institute`s website was a message from Washington Post business reporter Jonathan Weisman. Weisman was brave enough to admit he`d played the White House game in order to get insider access. While writing a profile of Glenn Hubbard, one of Bush`s (now deposed) economic advisers, Weisman went through the White House press office to set up interviews. When -- at their request -- he showed the press office the quotes he was planning to run in his article, they suggested a rewording. In other words, they wanted him to write fiction, which he did. Sort of. He ran a bastardized quote halfway between what Hubbard said and what the White House wanted him to have said. The White House denounced Weisman and accused him of abrogating press ethics.

He admits that he, in fact, abrogated his ethics by Placing into quotation marks a phrase that was never uttered by the source I had also played ball with the White House using rules that neither I nor any other reporter should be assenting to. I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House.

It`s too late for that, Mr. Weisman. You and your colleagues in print, radio, TV and Internet media have failed so miserably that over half of the American people polled believe that some or all of the hijackers on Sept. 11 were Iraqi. And it gets even weirder.

Seymour Hersh did what he`s been doing for years, being an aggressive reporter with more scoops than Ben & Jerry. Hersh`s story in the most recent New Yorker places Bush adviser Richard Perle in talks with Adnan Kashoggi (the criminal arms dealer at the center of Iran-Contra). From many sources besides Kashoggi, Hersh suggests that Perle was, essentially, extorting money from Saudi billionaires to invest in the new Iraq that he (Perle) will personally enrich himself in rebuilding. Perle, when confronted with the story, called Hersh a terrorist and threatened a lawsuit.

This is par for Perle`s course. In the 1970s, when he was on Sen. Scoop Jackson`s staff, Perle was investigated for possibly passing secrets about the U.S. nuclear program to Israel. Hersh reported on that years ago. Perle`s threats against Hersh, like Bush`s against Saddam, are personal and dangerous.

Where`s the outrage or shame from the nation`s reporters?

If the U.S. media can`t be shamed into doing their job, perhaps a loss of revenue will nudge them. Consider: Americans are turning away from U.S. media in record numbers, and turning toward other English-language venues. The Nielsen Net-Ratings reports that the hits on Great Britain`s two biggest news sites, the BBC News Online and Guardian Unlimited, have gone through the roof the past year; most are from new users in the U.S. Americans are not getting what they want or need from their own media so they are seeking out other sources. It`s not just the U.K. that`s seeing an increase. Also sought out are the CBC and The Globe and Mail sites in Canada, as well as The Philippine Daily Inquirer -- www.inq7.net -- with whose editor, William Esposo, I have been in regular contact. In short, Americans are flocking to any place where English is written and truth is told.

Any place but here, where one American paper captioned a picture of young German antiwar protesters, Hitler`s children.

[Joerver]

Der Text in 405 stammt aus:

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/Cover/index


.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Is Bush A `Dry Drunk`?
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, March 17, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/sorensen/



What if we elected a crazy man as president? Or what if we elected a sane president who then went crazy? How would we handle it?

I am not now suggesting that President George W. Bush is even a little bit crazy. I do believe his judgment is flawed, but that`s a matter of opinion. I could be wrong. It could be that my judgment, not his, is flawed.

The 25th Amendment, passed and ratified in the mid-1960s, attempts to deal with the problem of a disabled president. In the case of physical disabilities, there seems to be not much of a problem. But how about mental disabilities?

It gets a bit complicated. If I read the amendment right, it appears a majority of the president`s Cabinet can decide their boss is mentally unfit, and then the vice president takes over.

But wait! If that happens, the president can insist in writing that he`s as sane as Antonin Scalia, and he`s back on the job.

Not necessarily for long, however, because then the issue can get thrown to Congress, which, by a two-thirds majority, can kick the allegedly deranged president out of office.

Thank goodness no psychiatrists are involved in this process, but even without them stirring up the pot, you can see what a mess it would be if our president flipped out.

Unfortunately, mental illness is not always obvious.


I`ve seen slobbering nutcases carry on long conversations with street signs, and I`ve known well-dressed paranoid schizophrenics who are intelligent, well spoken and very persuasive.

George W. Bush`s apparent obsession with Saddam Hussein actually has the appearance of paranoid schizophrenia: the fear that someone is out to get us (paranoia) and the belief that only we can save the world (grandiosity).

But Bush`s beliefs wander into dangerous mental territory only if they`re wrong. If he`s right about the danger presented by Saddam and our role in ending that danger, then he`s perfectly rational.

Even if he`s wrong, that doesn`t make him mentally ill. If he`s wrong, his error could simply be an honest mistake.

We`re swimming in murky waters here.

Bush`s victory over alcoholism is a big plus for him. In my book, anybody who overcomes any addiction deserves recognition and praise.

But there is sometimes a down side to winning such a victory: the tendency to take on a holier-than-thou attitude and to denigrate others who don`t demonstrate the same apparent strength of character.

(I`m a reformed smoker myself, but I don`t take any particular credit for it. The credit belongs to a Mayo Clinic doctor, who told me in no uncertain terms what my future held if I didn`t quit right away. Fear, not character, motivated me.)

Bush appears to me to have a bit of that attitude. In fact, Bush appears to have many of the characteristics of what Alcoholics Anonymous members call a dry drunk.

A dry drunk, in simplest terms, is someone who doesn`t drink but still retains many of the characteristics of a drinking alcoholic.

One can argue over what those characteristics are, but I like the list I found in a Counterpunch article about the possibility that Bush is a dry drunk: exaggerated self-importance and pomposity, grandiose behavior, a rigid, judgmental outlook, impatience, childish behavior, irresponsible behavior, irrational rationalization, projection and overreaction.

Now, if you`re a rabid conservative, the kind who called Bill Clinton a sex maniac and a rapist, you`ll accuse me now of not showing proper respect for the office of the presidency.

OK, so I don`t have much respect for offices -- but that doesn`t change the fact that George W. Bush seems to have every one of the characteristics attributed to dry drunks.

Last Friday, for a recent example, he confidently announced a new peace plan he wants to impose on Israel and its Palestinian minority. Coming on the eve of a war instigated in large part by the Arab world`s disdain for Israel`s treatment of Palestinians and America`s unquestioning support of Israel, Bush`s road map to peace pretty much fits the description of childish behavior.

To suggest, as Bush did, that one of the requirements for success is for the Palestinians to cease terrorist activity (suicide bombings in Israeli neighborhoods) is ludicrous as well as childish. It`s like making a requirement that crime be abolished. There is no way the Palestinians can control all the criminals within their community.

It ain`t gonna happen, folks. The bombings might stop someday, but not before the Israelis make some serious concessions. And, with Ariel Sharon as their leader, that`s not likely to happen, either.

And then Bush jetted off to the Azores for a top-level conference with our valuable allies, the Spanish.

Say what? With his administration in disarray, with his attempt to manipulate the United Nations in shambles, Bush runs off to Spain in a last-ditch attempt to salvage a victory in the United Nations?

I`m not sure which of the dry-drunk symptoms comes into play here. It may be all of them.

Bush`s toying with the U.N. is a good example of dry-drunk behavior. If a U.N. resolution goes his way, he`s very precise in saying that the United States is acting in accord with international law. If a U.N. resolution does not go his way, he simply dismisses the U.N. as ineffective and does what he meant to do all along.

I`m not prepared to say with finality that Bush is a dry drunk. But, if he is, is that sufficient grounds to dust off the 25th Amendment and see how it works?

Trying to dislodge Bush from office would be chaotic, but it`s fair to ask if it would be any more chaotic than the messes he is so busy creating.

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

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

CounterPunch

March 18, 2003

Why I Had to Leave Blair`s Cabinet
This Will be a War Without Support at Home or Agreement Abroad
by ROBIN COOK

I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour`s foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us.

I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.

The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the security council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The security council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq`s military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq`s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a seri ous threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term - namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam`s ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persis tent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.

I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favourite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.

Robin Cook was, until yesterday, leader of the House of Commons.


Yesterday`s Features

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Now Bush`s doctrine of war will be put to the test
Will pre-emption survive the war on Iraq?

Martin Woollacott in Washington DC
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Doctrine, it is said, never survives the battlefield unscathed. The strikes aimed at killing Saddam Hussein probably cannot be counted as a true example of that proposition, since the theory of precision weapons does lay down that they are only as good as the intelligence which provides the target, coupled with the speed with which fire is brought to bear.

But they certainly represent the first of the tests of the American and British armed forces, their governments and their doctrines of war at every level, which this conflict will bring. Such doctrines go all the way from the smallest unit in the desert to the command staffs, and beyond them to governments pondering, as they will as soon as the violence ends, what will be the best course, whether military or non-military, in conflicts to come.

President Bush`s ultimatum on Monday cited the new national security strategy, first outlined in January 2002, to the effect that, in an age when weapons of mass destruction are increasingly available, waiting to act after the enemy has "struck first is not self-defence, it`s suicide". Critics have pointed out that the new doctrine blurs the distinction between pre-emption, which implies an imminent threat, and prevention, which implies more distant dangers.

The doctrine, as so far advanced, also tends to stress military rather than non-military solutions, and unilateral rather than multilateral decisions about the seriousness of threats. Although it does not neglect containment and deterrence, it pushes them down the list. Taken to the extreme, it would seem to allow one country, the US, to attack others at will if it deems them to represent a future rather than a present threat - and it might also encourage other countries to take pre-emptive action of the same kind in their neighbourhoods.

The administration repudiates such sweeping interpretations and seems genuinely convinced that this is a big idea which justifies the Iraq war and will be a key to action for years to come. Much of the rest of the world disagrees, either on the general principle, or on its application to Iraq, deeming the doctrine cover for other motives. In the most immediate sense that doctrine will be tested as it becomes clear what Iraq does possess in the way of weapons of mass destruction.

For the doctrine to be justified to any extent, there must be evidence that Iraq does have substantial stocks, and, equally important, that evidence must not take the form either of the effective use of such weapons against our troops or their transfer to terrorists who could use them in our home countries. The stocks, and any information on serious continuing weapons programmes, would show a degree of real threat, which would go some way to justifying the doctrine in principle. Even if the stocks are very substantial, that would not prove, of course, that the Iraqi regime planned to use them or could not have been deterred by means short of war. But it might nevertheless change the minds of many people across the world.

The completion of the military campaign without such weapons - assuming they exist in some quantity - being effectively used or transferred, would justify the doctrine at the level of execution. It would in other words show that the US had developed the military means to deal with an enemy, or at least this particular enemy, without its action leading to disaster rather than disarmament. To develop the capacity to paralyse an enemy and the speed and flexibility to get in sufficiently close to inhibit the use of weapons of mass destruction has been a preoccupation of reformers inside and outside the American services throughout the 90s. Major-General Robert Scales (author of Yellow Smoke, a new book on such requirements) stresses the weight of firepower, and the speed and especially the cunning of manoeuvre. The British military theorist of the 30s, Basil Liddell Hart, who advocated the "indirect approach", slicing through the enemy to cut up his nervous system, is an inspiration for such officers. What Scales calls the "new American style of war" has to be both fast and indirect, for the consequences otherwise could be horrendous.

Such wars now demand not just victory but the right kind of victory. The forces entering Iraq, including the British ones, which are widely praised by military reformers here, have some of these qualities, but far from all of them. "They are halfway between the dinosaurs and the next stage of evolution," according to a senior army officer involved in joint strategic planning. That they will win is not in doubt, but whether they are sufficiently evolved to do the job in the clever way men like Scales recommend is another matter.

The broadest test of doctrine will come after the war. Even assuming that it has passed the lesser tests in Iraq, the question will be whether it is useable or acceptable in other situations. Bush`s linking of Iran and North Korea with Iraq has led to fears that the US might contemplate pre-emptive wars against them. Some see an endless progression of such wars, stretching into the future, whenever the US sees, or thinks it sees, a danger of proliferation or of weapons being transferred to terrorists.

But there is a uniqueness about the Iraqi case which makes such a sequence less than automatic. First, Iraq is ruled by a particularly evil regime and one which has defied UN resolutions, neither of which is true of Iran, while, with North Korea, there is an element of haplessness to an admittedly dire regime. Second, both North Korea and Iran could soon have much more in the way of weapons of mass destruction than Iraq has, making attacks on either a far more serious proposition.

There is much to suggest that other forms of pressure would be not just preferable to a military solution, but that a military solution would be too risky for any American government, including this one, to contemplate. That said, the Bush administration clearly hopes that victory in Iraq will make Iran and North Korea readier to bend to American concerns. Even if another effect is that such countries accelerate their nuclear weapons programmes, it need not be truly threatening, said Robert Scales, if North Korea, for instance, was "just going to sit on them".

Principles of pre-emption and prevention, in the broader and indisputably justifiable sense of dealing with threats in their early stages, were the subject of much attention during the last decade. In humanitarian intervention, in preparing for crop failures, refugee flows, and natural disasters, in environmental protection, or in military planning, they are hardly objectionable. Military pre-emptive doctrine will survive Iraq, in particular if its contradictions are cleared up and if the rules for intervention are subject to genuine multilateral discussion. But in the particular form that the Bush administration has proposed it, this may prove to be a one-war doctrine, even if that war goes very well, a doctrine tailored for Iraq and only distantly relevant to other situations.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Wo soll ich mich in Reih und Glied stellen?

Michaela Simon 21.03.2003
Zwei Wochen US-Fernsehberichterstattung zum Irak-Konflikt

Wie anders könnte die Welt aussehen, wenn das amerikanische Volk von all den Dingen wüsste, die seine Medien ihm vorenthalten!
Mark Hertsgaard in: "Im Schatten des Sternenbanners"


Eine interessante Studie ("In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views") der New Yorker Medienbeobachter Fairness and Acuracy in Reporting analysiert zwei Wochen Fernsehberichterstattung zum Irak-Konflikt in einer "heißen" meinungsbildenden Phase (30.1.03 - 12.2.03).


Es sind große Namen wie ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS - und sie verfügen über ordentlich viel Macht, Macht, die sie zur Zementierung der herrschenden Verhältnisse einsetzen, wie FAIR konstatiert. Diese Analyse kommt nicht überraschend in einem Land, in dem - wie in den USA - über 50 Prozent des gesamten Medienmarktes in der Hand von zehn Konzernen liegen. Wie ungeniert und dreist radikale Meinungsbildung gemacht wird, zeigt das nüchterne Fazit von zwei Wochen Fernsehen dennoch recht eindrücklich. Ein Beispiel: 267 von 393 eingeladenen Studiogästen sind US-Amerikaner, davon arbeiten 199 für Regierung oder Militär oder haben dafür gearbeitet. Nur einer von ihnen allen drückt - vorsichtige - Zweifel an einem Irak-Krieg aus (interessant wäre auch gewesen, wie viele Frauen eingeladen werden, dies ist jedoch eine Frage, die der Bericht von FAIR nicht beantwortet).

Das Strickmuster der TV-Journalisten: Hole einen Militär vor die Kamera und lass ihn reden, bis die Zeit um ist. Bei der nächsten Sendung darf ein Regierungsangehöriger etwas sagen. Dann wieder ein Militär. Dass auch viele der Moderatoren ehemalige Militärs sind, macht die einträchtigen Runden noch gemütlicher, zusätzlich gibt es "Milatainment" Reality Shows wie Profiles from the Front Line und Military Diaries.

Die US-Fernsehnachrichten und die ausländischen Medien berichten über zwei verschiedene Planeten.
Paul Krugman, New York Times

Auch wenn es um Sex ( nicht vor der Ehe!), Abtreibung ( naain!) oder Hip Hop ( böse!) geht, lassen die Journalisten saftige Kommentare regnen: je hemdsärmeliger und pseudovolksnäher, je lieber.

Aber man sollte den amerikanischen Rezipienten nicht unterschätzen. Zunehmend holt er sich im Netz, was die heimischen Quellen nicht bieten. Nicht-amerikanische und weniger eindimensionale Nachrichtenquellen wie der Guardian, die BBC oder Ha`aretz werden zunehmend auch von Amerikanern besucht.
George Bush ist der Präsident....Wenn er will, dass ich mich in Reih und Glied stelle, muss er mir nur sagen wo.
Dan Rather, preisgekrönter Journalist und Buchautor, Moderator von CBS Evening News

Die Angesprochene Studie:

http://www.fair.org/reports/iraq-sources.html

[Joerver]

Anti-War Protests Swell After Iraq Attack
2 hours, 3 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!


By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer

Galvanized by the American attack on Iraq (news - web sites), thousands of anti-war activists around the country set off their own barrage of street protests, chaining themselves together, blocking workers and traffic, walking out of classes, and parading in mock chemical suits.

More than 1,500 people were arrested from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. But the anti-war groundswell brought out thousands of counterdemonstrators. One in Mississippi carried a sign saying, "Support the U.S. or keep your mouth shut."


Thursday was one of the heaviest days of anti-government protesting in years.


"This is no ordinary day," said Jason Mark, a San Francisco activist. "America is different today: We`ve just launched an unprovoked, unjust war."


One protester died after tumbling from the Golden Gate Bridge. Authorities were investigating the death as a possible suicide.


San Francisco had some of the largest anti-war activity, hobbling the morning and evening commutes. Thousands in roving bands temporarily took control of some downtown streets and closed several exits from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.


Police wearing helmets and carrying nightsticks arrested more than 1,300 people by early evening. About 1,000 protesters remained on downtown streets late Thursday, vowing to shut down the city again Friday.


Smaller splinter groups broke windows, heaved debris into streets and occasionally scuffled with police. Some protesters hurled rocks at trains, briefly halting service at a station in nearby Oakland.


"We went from what I would call legal protests to absolute anarchy," Assistant Police Chief Alex Fagan Sr. said.


"We don`t want to alienate people. I hope people realize that political murder merits action that inconveniences them," said protester Quinn Miller, who took the day off from his job for a banking company.


About 1,000 anti-war protesters demonstrated outside the West Los Angeles Federal Building, briefly clashing with police, burning an American flag and forcing the closure of one of the city`s busiest intersections at rush hour. At least 14 were arrested.


Protesters in Portland, Ore., smashed in three windows at a McDonald`s restaurant, while another sprayed graffiti on a sign at a Shell gas station. About 35 people were arrested.


Several thousand marchers snarled afternoon rush-hour traffic along Chicago`s main arteries, repeatedly breaking through lines of police on horseback or in riot gear.


"I supported the first Gulf War (news - web sites). I think this is going to send a message," demonstrator Bill Quigley said. "I think a broad-based protest against the war is the way to go."


In Washington, dozens of activists temporarily shut down inbound lanes of a Potomac River crossing, holding up the morning commute. Outside the White House, about 50 stood in chilly rain and shouted, "No blood for oil!"


Anti-war activists in Philadelphia blocked entrances to the downtown federal building, forcing police to detour motorists away from the area. Police arrested 107 protesters.


In New York, about 350 rallied at Union Square under a steady drizzle.


About a dozen students lay down in black garbage bags. "We`re expressing how the Iraqis are being killed for no reason," said Rachel Klepner, 14, who left class at Beacon High School for the protest.

In Massachusetts, students and professors walked out of college classes around the state in protest of war. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites), in Cambridge, about 600 students converged on the student center, some chanting and wearing mock biochemical protective suits.

In Austin, several hundred University of Texas students linked arms and sat down in a busy street. Police closed the area to traffic.

Other demonstrations were more solemn, with the reciting of Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers through a bullhorn at a federal building in Pittsburgh.

A number of demonstrations reflected backing for the war effort or support for U.S. troops.

Some 2,000 people gathered outside the state Capitol in Mississippi, a state that has seen 4,500 guardsmen and reservists activated during the buildup to war and where many families also have relatives in the military full time.

Marlena Puckett, who is engaged to a Marine in the war zone, fought back tears as she watched people waving American flags and carrying handmade signs with slogans like "God bless our troops" and "Let`s roll."

"I`m proud of him. I`m just ready for him to be home," Puckett said of her fiance, Danny Myers.

One sign in the Jackson crowd said "Thank God for Bush" on one side and "Support the U.S. or keep your mouth shut" on the other. After the rally, hundreds of people signed a banner to be sent to troops.

In Lincoln, Neb., more than 200 people sang, cheered and prayed outside the state Capitol.

Sheila Murphy, who works with families who have members in the Nebraska Air National Guard, said, "This is a time they need to know that everyone is behind the troops and supporting the troops."

On the edge of a protest at Brown University in Providence, R.I., a young man stood in a T-shirt that read "I am threatened by Iraq" in front and "Regime change now" in back.

An anti-war group, West Virginia Patriots for Peace, placed candles and flowers outside a federal courthouse in Charleston. Members said they wanted both to protest the war and support U.S. troops.

"We don`t want our men and women over there to feel like they did in Vietnam," said Barbara Ferraro.

In Nashville, Tenn., Peter Fossel, a 57-year-old former Marine, wore a Purple Heart he won in the Vietnam War as he joined about 300 anti-war protesters outside a federal building.

"This America is not the America that I bled for," Fossel said. "This America is the aggressor, and this America is the type of nation that I risked my life to fight against."

[Joerver]

Was und erwarten wird. Texas für alle.

Thank God for the death of the UN

Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order

Richard Perle
Friday March 21, 2003
The Guardian

Saddam Hussein`s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.
As free Iraqis document the quarter-century nightmare of Saddam`s rule, let us not forget who held that the moral authority of the international community was enshrined in a plea for more time for inspectors, and who marched against "regime change". In the spirit of postwar reconciliation that diplomats are always eager to engender, we must not reconcile the timid, blighted notion that world order requires us to recoil before rogue states that terrorise their own citizens and menace ours.

A few days ago, Shirley Williams argued on television against a coalition of the willing using force to liberate Iraq. Decent, thoughtful and high-minded, she must surely have been moved into opposition by an argument so convincing that it overpowered the obvious moral case for removing Saddam`s regime. For Lady Williams (and many others), the thumb on the scale of judgment about this war is the idea that only the UN security council can legitimise the use of force. It matters not if troops are used only to enforce the UN`s own demands. A willing coalition of liberal democracies isn`t good enough. If any institution or coalition other than the UN security council uses force, even as a last resort, "anarchy", rather than international law, would prevail, destroying any hope for world order.

This is a dangerously wrong idea that leads inexorably to handing great moral and even existential politico-military decisions, to the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France. When challenged with the argument that if a policy is right with the approbation of the security council, how can it be wrong just because communist China or Russia or France or a gaggle of minor dictatorships withhold their assent, she fell back on the primacy of "order" versus "anarchy".

But is the security council capable of ensuring order and saving us from anarchy? History suggests not. The UN arose from the ashes of a war that the League of Nations was unable to avert. It was simply not up to confronting Italy in Abyssinia, much less - had it survived that debacle - to taking on Nazi Germany.

In the heady aftermath of the allied victory, the hope that security could be made collective was embodied in the UN security council - with abject results. During the cold war the security council was hopelessly paralysed. The Soviet empire was wrestled to the ground, and eastern Europe liberated, not by the UN, but by the mother of all coalitions, Nato. Apart from minor skirmishes and sporadic peacekeeping missions, the only case of the security council acting during the cold war was its use of force to halt the invasion of South Korea - and that was only possible because the Soviets were not in the chamber to veto it. It was a mistake they did not make again.

Facing Milosevic`s multiple aggressions, the UN could not stop the Balkan wars or even protect its victims. It took a coalition of the willing to save Bosnia from extinction. And when the war was over, peace was made in Dayton, Ohio, not in the UN. The rescue of Muslims in Kosovo was not a UN action: their cause never gained security council approval. The United Kingdom, not the United Nations, saved the Falklands.

This new century now challenges the hopes for a new world order in new ways. We will not defeat or even contain fanatical terror unless we can carry the war to the territories from which it is launched. This will sometimes require that we use force against states that harbour terrorists, as we did in destroying the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The most dangerous of these states are those that also possess weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is one, but there are others. Whatever hope there is that they can be persuaded to withdraw support or sanctuary from terrorists rests on the certainty and effectiveness with which they are confronted. The chronic failure of the security council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognise that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

Richard Perle is chairman of the defence policy board, an advisory panel to the Pentagon.

This is an edited version of an article that first appeared in this week`s Spectator.

[Joerver]

Thousands of demonstrators crowded into the Civic Center plaza as part of a major anti-war rally in San Francisco Thursday. Chronicle photo by Brant Ward

[Joerver]

# 417 Hinweis auf einen Artikel #382 von 2001 von Richard Perle.
Das Weltbild dieser Herren tritt immer klarer zu Tage. Siehe auch #403 Spiegel Artikel:
Professor War über Paul Wolfowitz.
J:

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Washington Times ein Blatt von Reverend Moon, ein (ehemaliger?) Buddy von Bush Senior.

A reckless path
Paul Craig Roberts
CREATORS SYNDICATE

Published March 20, 2003


We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.

Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America`s allies.
What better illustrates Mr. Bush`s isolation than the fact that he delivered his March 16 ultimatum to the U.N. concerning Iraq from an air base in the Azores, where there was no prospect for massive demonstrations against his policy. Standing with Mr. Bush against the world were Britain and Spain.
The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.
On the eve of Mr. Bush`s ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.
As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The administration`s use of forged evidence opens Mr. Bush to unflattering comparisons that his enemies will not hesitate to make. They will point out that it was Adolf Hitler`s strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country. He used S.S. troops dressed in Polish uniforms to fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on Aug. 31, 1939. Following the faked attack, Hitler announced: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory." As German troops poured into Poland, Hitler declared: "The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms." The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack."
Thanks to his neoconservative cadre, outside the U.S. Mr. Bush is now a disliked and distrusted politician. Mr. Bush`s enemies will exploit parallels to "naked aggression." After many decades of U.S. leadership in building an "international order," Mr. Bush`s enemies will hold him accountable for his defiance of this order.
As much as those of us who prefer national sovereignty to world government lament the fact, the many decades of appealing to "world opinion" and enlisting it in behalf of our foreign policies has resulted in considerable authority being poured into that nebulous concept. In setting Mr. Bush in opposition to this American creation, neoconservatives have exposed him to serious charges. Democrats, who intended to use allegations about the 2000 Florida vote to destroy Mr. Bush`s presidency as illegitimate, now have more deadly ammunition.
Mr. Rockefeller will not be the only one to ask if the forged nuclear documents are part of a Bush administration campaign to deceive the public. Polls show that 50 percent of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Inattention or media incompetence are the likely explanations for this extraordinary misinformation, but some will now blame deception.
Others are already thinking the forged documents are part of a neoconservative campaign to deceive President Bush and win his support for their Middle Eastern policy.
Many perceive Mr. Bush as following a reckless path, one that politicians normally try to avoid at all costs. If Iraq resists and devastating new explosives, which our military has been testing at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, are dropped on Baghdad, there will be massive civilian deaths and charges of war crimes fueled by anger at American arrogance.
Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world`s leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief?

Paul Craig Roberts is a nationaly syndicated columnist.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Joerver]

Nochmal Richard Perle garnicht mehr der große Theoretiker.

March 21, 2003
Pentagon Adviser Is Also Advising Global Crossing
By STEPHEN LABATON


WASHINGTON, March 20 — Even as he advises the Pentagon on war matters, Richard N. Perle, chairman of the influential Defense Policy Board, has been retained by the telecommunications company Global Crossing to help overcome Defense Department resistance to its proposed sale to a foreign firm, Mr. Perle and lawyers involved in the case said today.

Mr. Perle, an assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, is close to many senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who appointed him to lead the policy board in 2001. Though the board does not pay its members and is technically not a government agency, it wields tremendous influence in policy circles. And its chairman is considered a "special government employee," subject to federal ethics rules, including one that bars anyone from using public office for private gain.

Mr. Perle and his lawyer said yesterday that his involvement with Global Crossing did not violate the ethics rules.

According to lawyers involved in the review and a legal notice that Global Crossing is preparing to file soon in bankruptcy court, Mr. Perle is to be paid $725,000 by the company, including $600,000 if the government approves the sale of the company to a joint venture of Hutchison Whampoa, controlled by the Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, and Singapore Technologies Telemedia, a phone company controlled by the government of Singapore.

Lawyers said today that Mr. Perle had been helping Global Crossing for several weeks. They said he was brought in as a prominent Republican with close ties to the current officials. He has taken on a particularly important role, they said, since the company recently pulled back its request for the government to clear the sale in the face of opposition from the Defense Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those agencies have said that the proposed deal presents national security and law enforcement problems, because it would put Global Crossing`s worldwide fiber optics network — one used by the United States government — under Chinese ownership.

Mr. Perle and his lawyers were preparing to file an affidavit dated March 7 and a legal notice dated today, March 20, that said he was uniquely qualified to advise the company on the matter because of his job as head of the Defense Policy Board.

But after a reporter raised questions today about whether Mr. Perle was using his job at the Defense Policy Board for the benefit of a client, they said the references to his job should not have been in the legal papers and would be deleted before they were filed in the bankruptcy proceeding.

In the March 7 affidavit, Mr. Perle said, "As the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, I have a unique perspective on and intimate knowledge of the national defense and security issues that will be raised by the CFIUS review process that is not and could not be available to the other CFIUS professionals." The company used similar language in its legal notice.

CFIUS refers to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a government group that includes representatives from the Defense Department and other agencies. It has been considering the deal and has the power to block it. "CFIUS professionals" refers to the other lawyers and lobbyists who have been trying to get the committee to approve the deal.

Mr. Perle, in an interview late this afternoon, said that he had not noticed the language in the affidavit and that it was an erroneous reference because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with reviewing the sale of American companies to foreign investors.

"It was drafted by the lawyers, and I frankly didn`t notice it," he said.

Shortly after that interview, Mr. Perle called back and said that he remembered that the language concerning the Defense Review Board had appeared in an earlier draft of the affidavit and that he had struck it out because it was incorrect.

"You have a draft that I never signed," he said.

After consulting with a company lawyer, Mr. Perle called back and in a third conversation said that he had taken the phrase out of the affidavit "because it seemed inappropriate and irrelevant" but that someone put it back in the document and he signed it without noticing it.

"This was a clerical error, and not my clerical error," he said.

An adviser involved with one of the parties in the case said tonight that Mr. Perle had not read the affidavit closely and that he had, in fact, signed it but that it would be changed before it was filed.

Mr. Perle said he did not seek an ethics opinion as to whether he could work on the Global Crossing matter, because he said it posed no legal problems.

"I`ve abided by the rules," he said. "The question, I should think, is have I recommended anything to the secretary or discussed this with the secretary, and I haven`t," he said, referring to Mr. Rumsfeld. "The alternative is if you are on the board, you can`t have any action before the Defense Department. That isn`t the rule. If that were the rule, I`d have to make a choice between being on an unpaid advisory board and my business."

Mr. Perle said that he was not engaged in lobbying with senior officials at the Defense Department and that his role was to advise Global Crossing on the process of gaining approval. He said his sole discussions with Pentagon officials had been over what assurances they would need to satisfy themselves that a deal would not pose any national security problems.

"I`m not using public office for private gain because the Defense Policy Board has nothing to do with the CFIUS process," he said.

But other lawyers and advisers to the companies involved in the deal said that Mr. Perle had been brought in precisely because he has access to top officials. They noted that Mr. Perle`s fee was largely contingent on the deal`s being approved, an unusual arrangement in Washington legal circles. And they noted that he was retained after Global Crossing, which has a history of using well-connected lobbyists, had realized that many of the other lawyers and lobbyists had strong Democratic ties but no solid Republican ones.

Among others who have been retained to gain approval of the proposed deal are Thomas F. McLarty III, the former Clinton chief of staff; Stuart E. Eizenstat, a former deputy Treasury secretary, and lawyers at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Dewey Ballantine.

Mr. Perle, who as chairman of the Defense Policy Board has been a leading advocate of the United States` invasion of Iraq, spoke on Wednesday in a conference call sponsored by Goldman Sachs, in which he advised participants on possible investment opportunities arising from the war. The conference`s title was "Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[SchwarzerLord]

Europäische Interessen und der Irakkrieg

Die Interessen hinter dem Irak-Krieg werden, so weit sie die USA betreffen, in der Öffentlichkeit relativ breit diskutiert. So auch in Andreas Buros Artikel "Kein Blut für Öl und Militärstützpunkte!" in der Zivilcourage 6/01. Die Interessen der europäischen Staaten und insbesondere der BRD werden meist nur gestreift, dabei gibt es auch über diese eine Menge zu schreiben. Dieser Text soll einen groben Überblick zu diesem Thema bieten.

Von Gerit Ziegler

Bezüglich der EU-Staaten stellt Andreas Buro fest, dass diese keine einheitliche Politik im Fall Irak entwickelt haben. „Der vehemente Protest der politischen Klasse EU-Europas gegen die Durchlöcherung der UN-Charta und des Internationalen Rechts ist bisher ausgeblieben.“ Und er wird auch weiter ausbleiben, weil sich eine einheitliche EU-Politik militärischer Optionen selbstverständlich bedienen wird. Das Interesse an der Schaffung gemeinsamer EU-Streitkräfte zeigt an, dass eine einheitliche EU-Politik militärisch „abgestützt“ sein wird. Insofern ist der Wunsch nach einer mehr eigenständigen Politik der EU-Staaten gegenüber den USA gefährlich, wird diese doch absehbar darin bestehen, ein Mehr an eigenständigen militärischen Operationen durchzuführen.

Zwei, drei, viele Interessen

So uneinheitlich wie die Politik sind die Interessen der verschiedenen EU-Staaten hinsichtlich des Irak. Für Großbritannien als einer der engsten Verbündeten der US-Regierung kann ein den USA ähnliches wirtschaftliches Interesse angenommen werden. Da Großbritannien eine nicht gerade zimperliche Kolonialmacht war, verwundert es nicht, daß seit der Verstaatlichung irakischer Ölquellen Anfang der 70er Jahre britische Firmen an deren Erschließung und damit an deren Profiten nicht mehr beteiligt sind. Deshalb verspricht sich die britische Regierung von der Einrichtung eines US-freundlichen Regimes im Irak, wieder einen Fuß in das dortige Geschäft zu bekommen.

Frankreich hingegen hat ebenfalls starke Interessen im arabischen Raum, aber zum Teil entgegengesetzte. Nach Aziz Alkazaz vom Orientinstitut in Hamburg haben französische Firmen nach der Verstaatlichung der irakischen Ölindustrie eine Sonderbehandlung erhalten „und spielen seitdem – ähnlich wie russische Unternehmen – eine zentrale Rolle bei der Erschließung neuer Erdölfelder im Irak.“ Frankreich ist Handelspartner Nummer zwei des Iraks. Französische Firmen konnten im letzten Jahr immer noch Waren im Umfang von drei bis vier Milliarden Dollar absetzen. Es liegt von daher kaum im Interesse Frankreichs, das gegenwärtige durch ein US-freundliches Regime zu ersetzen. Andererseits würden Frankreichs Beziehungen zur US-Wirtschaft stark geschädigt, setzte es sich engagiert gegen einen Angriff auf den Irak ein. Beim Abwägen dieser entgegengesetzten Interessen ist im Ergebnis kaum ein Veto im UN-Sicherheitsrat zu erwarten.

Ähnliche Interessenkonflikte gelten auch für die anderen EU-Staaten, was auch erklärt, warum eine einheitliche Politik hier schwieriger ist als sonst.

Deutschland

Traditionell verfügt Deutschland über gute wirtschaftliche Beziehungen zur Golfregion. Während es der deutschen Wirtschaft vor allem um die Versorgung mit Ölprodukten geht, sind die arabischen Staaten an Technologieimporten sowie an deutschen Anlagenobjekten und deutscher Kapitalverwaltung interessiert.

Der deutsche Export in den Irak ist aufgrund der Sanktionen von sechs Milliarden DM Anfang der 90er Jahre auf 270 Millionen DM im Jahr 2000 gesunken. Im Jahr 2001 konnte wieder ein Anstieg verzeichnet werden.

In einer Analyse des Auswärtigen Amtes zu den Beziehungen zwischen Irak und Deutschland heißt es: „Die ehemals im wirtschaftlichen Bereich intensiven deutsch-irakischen Beziehungen sind 1991 größtenteils zum Erliegen gekommen und gewinnen allmählich wieder an Moment. (...) Deutschland wird (...) im Irak nicht dem Lager der offenen Gegner (USA und Großbritannien) zugerechnet und eine Verbesserung der bilateralen Beziehung wird von irakischer Seite ausdrücklich gewünscht.“

Aus einer ähnlich gelagerten Analyse dürfte im Mai 2000 der Bundesverband der deutschen Industrie die Bundesregierung aufgefordert haben, „den Mut zu entwickeln, den Irak unverkrampfter zu sehen und ihre langfristig strategischen Interessen zu definieren.“ Deutlicher drückte es der Hauptgeschäftsführer des BDI ein Jahr später in der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung aus, indem er analysierte, daß die Sanktionen einer Expansion der deutschen Wirtschaft im Wege stünden. Er sagte, man müsse die Bitte der Industrie verstehen, "daß man ein Land mit 24 Millionen Einwohnern und mit den zweitgrößten Ölreserven der Welt nicht vernachlässigen dürfe.“

So rief Schröder rechtzeitig zum Wahlkampfauftakt in Hannover am 05. August 2002 laut „Nein" zum geplanten Feldzug gegen den Irak. Ein Stimmenfangmanöver? Es steckt wohl mehr dahinter. In den Umfragen sprach sich eine große Mehrheit der deutschen Bevölkerung gegen eine Teilnahme der Bundeswehr an Militäraktionen in Bagdad aus, und die Wirtschaft stand damals auf derselben Seite. Das Nein zum Krieg entsprach damals den wirtschaftlichen Interessen Deutschlands.

Der angebliche Friedenskurs stieß allerdings bald auf ernsthafte Hindernisse:

Es sind starke wirtschaftliche Interessen vorhanden, die ein Einlenken gegenüber der US-Politik angezeigt erscheinen lassen. So fordert heute die deutsche Wirtschaft von der Bundesregierung eine Korrektur ihrer Politik, denn: „Die Klimavergiftung in den diplomatischen Kontakten wird nicht ohne Folgen für die ökonomischen Beziehungen bleiben“, glaubt Hans Jürgen Müller, Abteilungsleiter für Außenwirtschaft beim Bundesverband des Deutschen Groß- und Außenhandels (BGA). So könnte das amerikanische Verteidigungsministerium vor allem bei Rüstungsaufträgen an deutsche Firmen Zurückhaltung üben und so eine Kettenreaktion für andere Geschäfte auslösen.

Die Besorgnis hat einen guten Grund: Knapp hinter Frankreich sind die USA der wichtigste Absatzmarkt für die deutsche Exportwirtschaft, wobei gerade im Geschäft mit den USA deutlich höhere Gewinnspannen als im euroäischen Geschäft erzielt werden. Weitere Milliarden erwirtschaften deutsche Unternehmen über ihre Tochterfirmen. Über 140 Milliarden Euro hat die deutsche Wirtschaft in den USA investiert.

Sollte sich die rot-grüne Regierung selbst bei einer entsprechenden Resolution der Vereinten Nationen weigern, einen Militärschlag gegen den Irak zu unterstützen, entstünde „eine ganz neue Situation“, warnte auch US-Handelskammer-Präsident Thomas Donohue, mit „spürbar negativen Konsequenzen für Deutschland“.

Die Friedensbewegung

Vor diesem Hintergrund verwundert es nicht, dass sich die Bundesregierung um ein klares Ja oder Nein zum Krieg möglichst drücken will. Appelle an den Bundeskanzler, sein Wahlversprechen einzuhalten, sind da reichlich hilflos. Das Wahlversprechen, beim Krieg nicht mitzumachen, wurde schließlich nicht aus prinzipiell antimilitaristischen Motiven gegeben, sondern um die deutschen Wirtschaftsinteressen zu wahren. Wenn diese, wie es nun aussieht, eine zumindest passive Kriegsunterstützung erfordern, ändert sich damit der Wortlaut des Versprechens, nicht aber sein Sinn.

Mit dieser Analyse erledigt sich dann auch der Vorwurf, die Bundesregierung oder gar die EU-Staaten betrieben eine Vasallenpolitik gegenüber den USA. Tatsächlich handelt es sich um Interessenpolitik, die der Förderung des Standorts Deutschland dient – dass von den USA entsprechender Druck ausgeübt wird, ist eindeutig, eine Unterordnung lässt sich hieraus aber nicht lesen, vielmehr eine realistische Einschätzung der Kräfteverhältnisse.

Andreas Buros Empfehlung an die Friedensbewegung, diesen Verhältnissen durch eine Zusammenarbeit mit allen Gegnern einer westlich-kapitalistischen Globalisierung zu begegnen, ist hoffentlich nicht zu Ende gedacht. Sie führte aufs falsche Gleis: So richtig es ist, dass im Zuge der Globalisierung kein „ Respekt [...] vor anderen Lebensweisen und Kulturen“ geäußert wird (wobei noch zu fragen wäre, ob gerade darin das Übel der Globalisierung liegt), so wenig respektvoll sind viele Gegner dieser Politik. Saddam Hussein, Kim-Il Sung, Yassir Arafat, Osama Bin Laden usw. sind mit Sicherheit Globalisierungsgegner. Ebenfalls mit Sicherheit sind sie keine Verbündeten der Friedensbewegung, oder sollten doch keine sein.

Anstatt also die Feinde unserer Feinde als Partner zu betrachten, anstatt der deutschen Regierung ausgerechnet die Forderung nach einer mehr eigenständigen Politik zu unterbreiten, was unter den gegebenen Umständen nur eine noch kriegerischere Politik wäre, sollten wir das Augenmerk ein wenig mehr darauf legen, warum eine deutsche Regierung, die bereits über ein Dutzend Mal ihr Militär ins Ausland geschickt hat, sich ausgerechnet jetzt so zögerlich verhält. Es sind die gleichen Gründe, weswegen sie sich ansonsten gerne einmischt, wenn es irgendwo etwas zu verteilen gibt. Dass die USA nun diejenigen sind, die ein besonders starkes Interesse am Krieg gegen den Irak äußern, darf nicht zur Illussion führen, die EU-Staaten abzüglich Großbritannien seien weniger bereit, die Einwohner anderer Länder auf dem Altar ihrer wirtschaftlichen Interesse zu opfern.

Quelle: http://www.frieden21.de/html/interessen.html

[Joerver]

COMPLETE TEXT OF PRESIDENT BUSH`S ORGASMIC REBEL YELL HERALDING THE LAUNCH OF OPERATION GODLESS IRAQAZOID SMACKDOWN
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation
The Oval Office
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow cowboys: WHO, WHO, WHO LET THE DOGS OF WAR OUT?! BOO-YA! RAQ AND ROLL!

Tonight, having grown tired of waiting for Jesus, Big Daddy and The Spook to get off their high horses, I have decided to act unilaterally to open the gates of Hell and bring about the apocalypse. I don`t have to tell you how fucking "A" awesome this is. I say jump, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff cock and lock!

Jogging, beer, hording ill-gotten wealth, fixing elections – those are all pretty cool rushes. But nothing beats being able to call down a cloudburst of hot, throbbing JDAM missiles to crash onto the brows of uppity, mud-colored sons of bitches who got a little too big for their girly sarongs, dig? WOW. Man – after this, I can tell you, I`m gonna pound the old lady but GOOD!

Tonight, on my orders, Christian forces have begun moving against Saddam Hussein, striking selected mosques, evildoer orphanages, and hospitals to undermine his ability to continue festering ineffectually in his impoverished, eunuch-like desert cesspool. We are also targeting Saddam`s new Ford F150, rusted tank husks, Ho Chi Minh`s grave, and the French Embassy.

These are opening stages of what will be a media-drenched and politically invigorating campaign. More than 35 countries – including invaluable Nicaragua – have been handsomely compensated to suppress the will of their peoples and offer up insincere hosannas of support. Each of these nations has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of extorting your tax dollars to provide me with the politically necessary illusion of international backing.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, by putting your innocent lives in jeopardy, I exact personal vengeance on a tin pot dictator who made my feeble old man – and by extension, the whitebread pyramid scheme that is the Republican party – look weak. Furthermore, by exploiting your skill and your bravery, I will ensure that my family`s petrochemical stock portfolio is not only protected, but is also vastly enhanced.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens - the ones we`re not killing - and for their great subterranean natural resources and their ability - like all humans - to be convinced into accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Dudes and my fellow middle Americans: the dangers to my re-election prospects will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of fearmongering while the United States economy continues to implode. We will talk about defending our freedom while decimating our civil liberties. We will bring freedom from taxation to affluent white males and we will prevail.

Thank you, and good night. LET`S KICK SOME RAGHEAD ASS!

[Joerver]

Und Rummy ging zum Regenbogen

[Joerver]

SPIEGEL ONLINE - 21. März 2003, 15:37
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,241474,00.html
Zeitungsanzeigen

Juden in den USA protestieren gegen Irak-Krieg

In den USA lebende Juden überraschten mit einer groß angelegten Protestaktiont: In ganzseitigen Zeitungsanzeigen machten sie Front gegen den Krieg im Irak.

Washington - "Warum Juden gegen den Irak-Krieg seien sollten", stand in großen Buchstaben über einer Anzeige des amerikanischen Shalom-Centers in der "New York Times". Jüdische Organisationen hatten in den vergangenen Tagen Sorge vor antisemitischen Tendenzen geäußert. Einzelne Politiker und Journalisten hatten den Juden öffentlich vorgeworfen, die US-Regierung aus Solidarität mit Israel in den Krieg getrieben zu haben.

"Einen gefährlichen Diktator zu entwaffnen, ist eine gerechte Sache. Aber ist der Krieg das richtige Mittel?", heißt es in der Anzeige mit mehreren hundert Unterzeichnern. Der Krieg töte tausende Unschuldige, bringe die Gefahr weiterer Terroranschläge und verschlinge Geldsummen, die für Gesundheit und Bildung dringend gebraucht würden.

[Joerver]

The Sidney Morning Herold

`Dead bodies are everywhere` ... Saddam`s first martyrs lost

March 22 2003


There was little initial resistance as the United States Marines swept into southern Iraq early yesterday. One of the first encounters of the ground war was more like a massacre than a fight.

The Iraqi gunners fired first, soon after United States President George Bush announced the attack on Saddam Hussein was under way.

It was a fatal mistake.

The Iraqi artillery unit, preparing for the American invasion, had tested the range by firing registering shots at a likely spot where the American tanks would cross from Kuwait. US radar picked up the incoming shells and pinpointed their source.

Within hours, the Iraqi gunners and their Russian-made 122mm howitzers were destroyed as the Americans unleashed an artillery barrage that shook the ground and lit up the night sky with orange flashes.


"Dead bodies are everywhere," a US officer reported by radio.

Later in the day, the American firepower was turned on Safwan Hill, an Iraqi military observation post a couple of kilometres across the border. About six hours after US marines and their 155mm howitzer guns pulled up at the border, they opened up with a deafening barrage. Safwan Hill went up in a huge fireball and the Iraqi observation post was obliterated.

"I pity anybody who`s in there," a marine sergeant said. "We told them to surrender."

The destruction of Safwan Hill was a priority for the attacking forces because it had sophisticated surveillance equipment near the main highway that runs from Kuwait up to Basra and then Baghdad. The attacking US and British forces could not attempt to cross the border unless it was destroyed.

Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.

A legal expert at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva said the use of napalm or fuel air bombs was not illegal "per se" because the US was not a signatory to the 1980 weapons convention which prohibits and restricts certain weapons. "But the US has to apply the basic principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and take all precautions to protect civilians. In the case of napalm and fuel air bombs, these are special precautions because these are area weapons, not specific weapons," said Dominique Loye, the committee`s adviser on weapons and IHL.

When dawn broke on Safwan Hill, all that could be seen on top of it was a single antenna amid the smoke. The marines then moved forward, their officers saying they were determined to push on as quickly as possible for Baghdad.

The first air strike on Baghdad, and Mr Bush`s announcement that the war was under way, appeared to catch US officers in the Kuwait desert by surprise.

The attack was originally planned for early today. But the US officers did not seem worried.

Within hours of Mr Bush`s announcement, a vast army of tanks, trucks, bulldozers and heavy guns was surging through the dust of the Kuwaiti desert to positions on Iraq`s border.


This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749944836.html

[Joerver]

Thoughts on the Eve of a Disaster

By Ernest Partridge
Co-Editor, "The Crisis Papers."
March 20, 2003



To secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.
Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence

If we keep relying on the facts and logic,
then we’re going to lose this battle.”
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA),
Nucleus (UCS), Fall 1995



Tonight, in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, mothers will put their children to bed, and will greet their husbands as they return home from work. These people, along with 22 million of their compatriots, victims of a cruel and despotic dictator, have no quarrel with you or with me.

In a few days or even hours, tens of thousands of these innocents will be dead or horribly injured, and those who are spared will grieve the loss of their friends and family. And with their country`s infrastructure destroyed, they will face malnutrition and disease.

All this because a petulant and callous little man, appointed to his office by political cronies, has decided, in the face of world-wide protest and in defiance of international law, to unleash this horror.

Meanwhile, a captive media has spewed out a torrent of lies and distortions upon an uncritical and uninformed public, while, at the same time, essential information and dissenting opinions have been suppressed or, at best, exiled to marginal insignificance. And virtually missing from the media is any mention of the coming slaughter of the innocents.

These are the thoughts that oppress my soul during these final moments of peace.

This, and the confident expectation that when the massacre-called-"war" is concluded, we will enter into a new era in which peace, security and personal liberties will be fading memories, as terror is unleashed in our cities and as new alliances coalesce beyond our borders to resist the common threat, the outlaw rogue nation, the would-be empire -- the United States of America, my country.

We have consented to have a gang of psychopaths take control of our government, and their pathology, having captured the media, is now spreading like an uncontained plague to every corner of our once-blessed land.


Josef Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s notorious propaganda minister, famously proclaimed the doctrine of “The Big Lie.” Tell a lie often enough, and boldly enough, and the masses will accept it as proven truth.

Now note this: None of the hijacker-terrorists of 9/11 were Iraqi. Yet in a recent survey, only seventeen percent knew this to be a fact. Another poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The first claim is a confirmable falsehood. The second claim is completely without supporting evidence, and thus may confidently be assumed to be false.

And yet, Bush and his administration flacks, along with the compliant punditry and media, repeat these lies over and over again. Still worse, the same media have taken no noteworthy effort to report the refuting truth, as these “convenient lies” are spread promiscuously without rebuttal and for partisan purposes, by "the public media.”

So now, sure enough, a growing majority of Americans falsely believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and actively promotes terrorism , and that majority now supports the war.

In Europe, where the people still enjoy a free and diverse press, there are no such delusions, and the vast majority of Europeans oppose George Bush’s war.

A foolish and gullible public now accepts uncritically the "establishment" line as presented the US media, which has fallen into a disgraceful condition reminiscent of Das Reich under the Nazis, and Pravda under Stalin. And so, the astute citizen must look for news and insight to the foreign press, to the internet, and to the very few remaining honest and independent journalists at home.

There remains enough news “out there” (from the aforementioned independent and mostly foreign, sources, as well as the internet), that the astute and diligent citizen can see through this tapestry of lies. Indeed, by simply placing “official” pronouncements side-by-side, flat-out contradictions can be clearly detected. For example, in a radio address, Bush said that he was “doing all he could” to avoid war. How can anyone who followed the Security Council debates believe that? And alongside the announcement that a rain of 3000 “shock and awe” missiles will fall upon the cities of Iraq, we are told that “we seek to minimize civilian casualties.” And who can fail to notice that when accusations are made (“Saddam has an active and dangerous nuclear weapons program”) absolutely no credible supporting evidence is forthcoming?

Moreover, there is the long list of embarrassing failed attempts to produce “evidence.” The “aluminum tubing,” useless for nuclear weapons production, the ten-year-old plagiarized term paper, the forged documents intended to “prove” shipment of uranium ore to Iraq. (For more lies and concoctions, see “The View from Wonderland”).

We are like prisoners in Plato’s cave, as the propagandists and spin-meisters throw shadows on the wall and call it truth. Yet, with deliberate effort, we can, on our own initiative, glimpse the sunlit reality outside the cave

Some day the villainy of this war will become known to the American people, as it is known now throughout the world. But enough information is available today that the mournful cry, “if only we had known!” will not in that future stand as an excuse.


The unelected, illegitimate regime that now controls our fate and the fate of the world, is itself in the thrall of dogma – dogma which, like that of a fundamentalist religion, has no place for logic, evidence, science, or even common sense. For example, “supply-side economics,” decisively refuted by the failures of the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and the success of the Clinton administration, is re-instituted intact by Bush II, with dreadful, yet predictable, results all- too-evident today.

It is a dogmatism that is unburdened with cultural sensitivity or historical knowledge – a dogma that implements radical policies, and launches a war, with no thought of side effects or unintended consequences, and which never asks “...and then what?” It is a dogma that believes that American economic and political institutions can be transplanted, intact, in alien cultures – undeterred by spectacularly failures of previous attempts to do so (notably in post-Soviet Russia).

This is the dogmatic mind-set which has launched a war today, confident that after we have slaughtered tens of thousands of their parents, sons, daughters, and neighbors, the surviving Iraqis will greet their “liberators” with flowers and kisses. In the face of dogma, “history is bunk” and wishful thinking triumphs.

But now we are at war. Should we put all differences aside, stifle our criticisms, and “stand by our leader,” however much we might disagree with him? That is what such prominent Democrats as Paul Begala, James Carville, Joseph Lieberman and Joseph Biden are urging. Are the remaining dissidents (such as Yours Truly), “traitors,” as Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh tell us?

We beg to differ. We fail to understand why a war that is justly criticized as unwarranted and immoral before it begins, all of a sudden is to be placed beyond criticism after it is launched.

Why are we said to "support our troops" by sending them into the jaws of death, while we "betray our troops" when we insist that they be brought home at once, safe and sound?

Such blind obedience and willful silence extended the Viet Nam war by several years, at the cost of thousands of American and millions of Vietnamese lives -- until, that is, the American public finally wised up, spoke up, took to the streets, and put a stop to that disaster.

The demand for critical silence raises some intriguing questions: Does a failure to “stand by the leader, right or wrong,” cause us to condemn Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Klaus von Stauffenberg and Hans and Sophie Scholler ("The White Rose") for failing to support their "leader" in a time of war? And what, today, is a just moral evaluation Daniel Ellsberg?


As of today, March 19, 2003, the United States of America, once the beacon of liberty, justice and decency, stands condemned before the world and, unless the evil just commenced is renounced, by history as well.

America’s honor has been stained, and only Americans can restore it. We must, within our borders and among our citizens, enlist the means to rid ourselves of this regime and the arrogance, cruelty and dogmatism that goes with it. The Founders of our Republic gave us a system of checks and balances to defend us all against the abuses of power that now oppress us. Those checks and balances, residing in the tripartite branches of government, have now been eroded as the Judiciary has become an obedient accomplice, and the “opposing party” in the Congress has been cowed into insignificance. The remaining “check,” the “fourth estate” of the press, has also been captured by the ruling establishment. There is even reason to suspect that ballot box, the repository of the will of the people, has been compromised.

Even so, this regime of wealth and power can only be sustained with the consent of the governed, even if that consent is nothing more than passive acquiescence. The declining economy, and our coming isolation from the world community, may put an end to that passivity. Once the citizenry is aroused, we can, with determination, courage, and sacrifice, take back our country.

Don’t wait for “them” to do it for you. It us up to you and to me. Our fate is in our hands.

Only the American people can restore the honor of the United States of America!


Copyright 2003, by Ernest Partridge



http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/disaster.htm

.

[Joerver]

We Begin Combing in Five Minutes!


By Lloyd Grove

Friday, March 21, 2003; Page C03


The White House is vowing a strong retaliatory response after the BBC aired live video of President Bush getting his hair coiffed in the Oval Office as he squirmed in his chair and practiced on the teleprompter minutes before Wednesday night`s speech announcing the launch of military operations against Saddam Hussein.

The British network broadcast 1 minute and 37 seconds of presidential primping to hundreds of millions of viewers in 200 countries around the world (and locally on WETA, Channel 26) before Bush`s formal address at 10:15 p.m. Yesterday the BBC`s White House producer, Mark Orchard, profusely and repeatedly apologized to irked staffers for airing video of an "unauthorized" portion of the pool feed while Washington anchor Mishal Husain chatted up a colleague about the significance of the moment.

CBS News Washington bureau chief Janet Leissner, whose news crew was responsible for pool coverage of the speech, also apologized to the White House, explaining that a technician accidentally flipped a switch that fed the images of a not-ready-for-prime-time Bush -- his eyes darting to and fro as a female stylist sprayed, combed and patted down his hair.

A BBC spokeswoman told us that her network promptly realized the video was not for broadcast "but they couldn`t pull away because of technical difficulties." Meanwhile, we hear that in Britain, the commercial network ITV also aired the hair-raising feed.

"It was an honest mistake," Leissner told us yesterday -- but the Bushies were not impressed.

"The facts are that it was an unauthorized use of footage and video," a senior White House official told us, asking not to be named. "Both the BBC and CBS have apologized, and it would be understandable if this were the only time this has happened. I`m not suggesting it was intentional, but this kind of thing has happened more than once."

Henceforth, the official said, the White House -- not the networks -- will throw the switches that make pool feeds available to broadcast outlets. "There have been too many incidents," the official said, listing various presidential speeches allegedly marred by pool-feed glitches. "We have to make sure we are comfortable with the situation."



Many BuzzFlash Readers have asked us where they can see these videos. You can download videos of that broadcast from the globalfreepress web site at the URL below:

http://news.globalfreepress.com/images/wonk/VariousMovies2/

As reported by Knight Ridder Newspapers (See: Link), "Minutes before the speech, an internal television monitor showed the president pumping his fist. "Feels good," he said." Although BuzzFlash could not accurately point to that moment, something else about the broadcast bothered us.

When you watch the videos, think about the fact that Bush is about to tell the world that he`s sending our soldiers to possibly die, but definitely to kill innocent people in Iraq as our military bombs and shoots its way to Saddam. Think about that and contrast that with Bush`s jovial, playful attitude, seen unfiltered in the German broadcast (digitized in the 11.3M "BushGroomed2.mpg"):



Hey, Bush, it sure is funny thinking about all those innocent Iraqi women and children who are going to die painful and horrible deaths because of your bombs, isn`t it? Just downright slap-happy funny. We bet you haven`t had this much fun since you mocked Karla Faye Tucker`s plea for clemency (See: Link) and executed at least 135 people while Governor of Texas (See: Link | Link 2).

And then the show really begins and Bush puts on his face of concern and tempered anxiety. What a farce. What a shameful, despicable farce. Every moment fabricated.

[Joerver]

Es schreiben sich so viele ihren Frust aus der Seele.

Do you trust George Bush to run the war?
The thought of the President losing the plot suddenly is frightening - and not implausible
Johann Hari, Young Journalist of the Year
21 March 2003
George Bush is terrifying. The anti-war campaigners regularly explain that they loathe Saddam – and most of them honestly do. It is just as urgent for those of us on the left who side with Iraqi democrats in supporting this war to make clear that we recoil in horror from the US President. No single article could count the ways in which he has made the world a worse place – and America a far worse country – since his inauguration, so let`s just look at some highlights of his awfulness.

Let`s begin with the 151 people he killed. When he was governor of Texas, it was his job to oversee the biggest rise in the state-authorised injection of poisons into living human beings ever seen in the US. Not only did it fail to disturb his conscience; he actually laughs about it. He was asked by the Talk magazine writer Tucker Carlson about his last conversation with Karla Faye Tucker. She was a woman who had been horribly abused since childhood, and had undoubtedly repented of her crimes during her long stay on death row; she had a five-minute conversation with the President to plead for her life the day before she was put down. George Bush recalled their chat by laughing, sinking to his knees and imitating Karla in a squealing, high-pitched voice. Carlson reports: "`Please,` Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, `don`t kill me.`"

The President`s chilling (or, to be accurate, globally warming) approach towards the environment has been pushed back on to the news agenda today because the US Senate has voted to block his plan to drill for oil in Alaska. His plan would have had a literally poisonous effect, both on one of America`s last great wildernesses and on the world`s poor, who are already disproportionately suffering the effects of climate change.

The picture gets worse and worse the more you examine it. In a country with the most vertiginous chasm between rich and poor in the developed world, George Bush has acted to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer. He has proposed repealing all capital gains tax, which would benefit the top 0.5 per cent of US taxpayers – the multi-millionaires and billionaires – with a $600bn tax cut. The tax cut he has already put in place handed vast sums of money to the rich, at a time when the poorest Americans pay a higher proportion of their income to the government than the people at the opposite end of the scale.

In a country where 40 million poor people – equivalent to the entire population of Spain – have no health-care insurance at all, Mr Bush thinks it is a priority to redistribute more money to the US aristocracy. The number of deaths caused by this situation is uncounted – that is how much Bush cares about even the American poor – but it will exceed even the number he had executed.

He is also – most crucially – a liability as Commander-in-Chief. His cack-handed diplomacy meant that this war is being fought with a narrower coalition and more dispirited troops than if, say, Bill Clinton were still in power. Bush badly miscalculated on his strategy for wooing world opinion. As Yassir al-Askaly, an Iraqi exile friend of mine, told me yesterday: "The great mistake Bush made was to play to people`s fears and not their hearts. It should not have been about terrifying Americans into supporting the war. It should have been about freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam. Thank God it will all have the same result in the end."

But these errors are the least of our worries. George Bush is a dry alcoholic: that is, he simply quit one day, without going through Alcoholics Anonymous or any similar group. All the evidence shows that dry alcoholics are at far greater risk of falling off the wagon, especially at times of stress. Anybody who has known a dry alcoholic will recognise the symptoms in George Bush: the aggression, the tetchiness, the transference of the addiction to other behaviours, such as fanatical exercise and obsessively acquiring more and more personal power.

The thought of the President losing the plot suddenly and drastically is frightening – and not implausible. Speculation that he may be dealing with the stress by using Xanax, a popular valium-like drug, is common in the US; Maureen Dowd of The New York Times has even dubbed him "the Xanax cowboy".

So why do I trust George Bush on Iraq? The simple answer is: I don`t. I trust the Iraqi people to build democracy in their country; and they cannot do that until Saddam Hussein is removed. Even if President Bush fights a war that is more vicious than necessary, and fails in the reconstruction to build a more egalitarian society, the Iraqi people will benefit from the removal of their psychopathic dictator. So will the millions of exiles now planning to return home. And at least President Bush believes loosely in democracy (he lost the vote in Congress and, unlike Saddam, he isn`t going to gun them all down). If he listens to the people around him pressing for Iraqi democracy, not least our own Prime Minister, then even those of us who detest him will toast him (with a non-alcoholic beverage, of course).

[e-mail]

[Joerver]

Es wird zu viel. Für alle die noch mehr lesen wollen, eine Sammlung kritischer Stimmen:



http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

.

[Joerver]

Racing into Iraq -- Rage in S.F. streets
PROTESTS: 1,400 arrested in 16 hours
Nanette Asimov, Michael Cabanatuan, Chuck Squatriglia, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archiv…



San Francisco -- Sirens wailed through downtown San Francisco and helicopters whirred above it all day Thursday as anti-war protesters poured into the city by the thousands and seized streets, blocked buildings and left beleaguered police and commuters fuming.

Authorities described the day`s demonstrations, which began peacefully before dawn and grew increasingly antagonistic and occasionally violent as the day wore on, as the largest seen in years.

Up to 1,400 had been arrested before the protests finally began to wind down after 11 p.m., and about 1,000 remained in custody. Most face citations for blocking traffic and failing to follow police orders, but at least 18 face felony charges.

"This is the largest number of arrests we`ve made in one day and the largest demonstration in terms of disruption that I`ve seen," said Assistant Police Chief Alex Fagan Sr., a 30-year department veteran.

The vast majority of demonstrators were peaceful as they denounced the U.S. war with Iraq and shut down more than 40 intersections beginning at 7 a.m. But small bands of protesters clashed with police, accosted motorists and vandalized a wide swath of the Financial District.

"Today we saw a ratcheting-up from legal protest to absolute anarchy," Fagan said. "These people were bent on shutting the city down, and we`re not going to allow that."

It was a long day for protesters and police alike. Officers in riot gear hustled to keep up with roving bands of demonstrators. Roughly 1,500 of the Police Department`s 2,300 officers were on street duty, officials said, costing the city $500,000 in police overtime.

The worst came during the evening commute.

Hundreds of demonstrators repeatedly tried to storm the Bay Bridge, paralyzing traffic for blocks around. A phalanx of California Highway Patrol officers and city police turned them back after shutting down two approaches to the span and unleashing pepper spray to disperse a crowd near Fremont and Harrison streets.

The protests started at dawn and kicked into high gear around 7 a.m. as demonstrators fanned out en masse to locations chosen in recent weeks in a well-planned campaign to shut down the city. Demonstrators promised to continue their protests for several more days.

"We had a beautiful and very successful action today," Ilyse Hogue of Direct Action yelled into a megaphone to demonstrators gathered outside the Federal Building. "We were able to unplug the war machine for a day."

Because of the fluid nature of protests, no estimates on the number of participants were available, but it was clearly in the thousands -- enough to leave police exhausted.

"After 16 hours of fighting communists and anarchists, a Red Bull can help us go another 16 hours," said Sgt. Rene Laprevotte as he bought two cans of the energy drink at a Fifth Street market. "We`re here as long as they are."

Despite the size of the demonstrations and occasional acts of violence, there were few reports of injuries. One San Francisco police officer suffered cuts to his face, and another sprained his ankle in a scuffle with a protester who tried to take his handgun, officials said.

There also were scattered reports of protesters injured by police swinging batons and, in some cases, motorists and workers frustrated by demonstrators` actions.

Some protesters were clearly prepared for violence. Sheriff Michael Hennessey said some demonstrators fired bolts from slingshots, and others slashed the tires of squad cars. Police clearing a mob from Seventh and Mission streets early in the afternoon came away with a haul of pipe wrenches, rocks and other makeshift weapons.

"These are supposedly peaceful protesters," one officer said.

The days demonstrations were marked by a sense of anger and tension unseen at peace rallies earlier this year.

The protests were centered in the Financial District, Civic Center and Mission District. Protesters shut down Market Street and many surrounding intersections and streets off and on throughout the day.


MUNI BUSES DETOURED
It left drivers fuming in traffic and the Municipal Railway scrambling to reroute buses. Cable cars and the historic F-line trolleys were shut down, and buses were wildly off-course all day.

"We don`t want to alienate people. I hope people realize that political murder merits action that inconveniences them," protester Quinn Miller said shortly after the protests got under way.

His hope went unanswered among some of the people who were late to work or unable to maneuver through downtown.

"You suck," motorist Larry Chu yelled from his car near the Transamerica Pyramid. "Why don`t you all go to North Korea and do this?"

2-HOUR STANDOFF

Hot spots cropped up all over the Civic Center and downtown through the day.

One of the hottest was Seventh and Mission streets, where scores of baton- wielding police surrounded some 200 demonstrators in a standoff that lasted about two hours during the afternoon.

Police corralled the protesters, refusing to let them pass and, witnesses said, hit many of them with their batons. At least one person escaped after breaking a window in the federal courthouse and climbing into the building.

One of those arrested was Wendy Norris, a graduate student in museum studies. "I was just here observing, and the police told me to go this way, so I did," she said. "But there was another line of police, so I couldn`t go anywhere."

Protesters also gathered by the hundreds at several points during the day outside the Federal Building on Golden Gate Avenue, where they blockaded entrances and kept employees from entering. They also congregated around Union Square, where dozens of police struggled against the advancing crowd.


S.F. MAYOR IRRITATED
Mayor Willie Brown said in no uncertain terms that, although he opposes the war, he had no patience for the demonstrators and he lamented the tremendous cost the demonstrators had inflicted on the city.

"I must express my frustration at the tactics of some protesters, who have chosen to specifically try to disrupt this city, rather than gather peacefully to voice their desire for peace, at the expense of the day-to-day lives of ordinary San Franciscans -- and at great cost to the city," he said in a statement Thursday afternoon.

The tide of anti-war sentiment also was met by counterdemonstrations, most comprising no more than a handful of people, defending the Bush administration and U.S. soldiers.

"Now, at a time of war, these people out here protesting are behaving like traitors," said Russian immigrant Alexander Gosen. He spent the morning at Franklin and Fell streets waving a sign reading "Viva Bush" on one side and "Go to hell, peaceniks" on the other. "They should all be arrested. They don`t know what it`s like to live under a tyrant."

Although police braced for the worst, they found themselves scrambling to keep up with the wide-ranging demonstrations.

By shortly after 7 a.m., protesters had flooded intersections throughout downtown, tying up traffic as they sat, arms linked, in the street as horns blared and fists waved around them.

At some spots, firefighters had to assist police by using bolt cutters and saws to separate protesters who had locked their arms together in metal sleeves.

The process went slowly, forcing motorists to wait as long as an hour for intersections to clear.


`TRYING TO LIVE OUR LIVES`
"I`m definitely anti-war, but at the same time, we`re trying to live our lives here," fumed Mark Thedis as he spent 30 minutes in his idling Range Rover in an alleyway off Folsom Street trying to get to work. "If they`re trying to get people on their side, it`s not working."

A few blocks away, protesters strung police tape and rainbow-colored yarn across Fifth and Mission streets, blocking the intersection for about an hour.

After a brief lull late in the afternoon, the demonstrators regrouped at 5 p.m. near Union Square and marched through the Financial District to the Bay Bridge, where many attempted to take the span.

"We tried all three ramps," said a young man who was arrested. "But nobody got anywhere near the bridge."

But 10 bicyclists rode onto the bridge after pedaling up an off-ramp at Eighth Street. They were quickly arrested.


MANY FACES OF PROTEST
The demonstrators, united in their cause, were varied in their tactics. A band calling itself "Pukers for Peace" vomited on the steps of the Federal Building. The "Crafty Bitches, Knitting for Peace," knitted at Fourth and Market streets. Down the street a bit, a lone trumpeter performed a solemn rendition of "We Shall Overcome." At First and Market streets, a handful of women did yoga -- earning them some sexually suggestive comments from passers- by.

Brad Kelly, a tourist visiting from Phoenix with his wife and three children, watched the protests from Chinatown.

"This is a great education for our kids," he said as he explained the protests to his 9-year-old son, Brandon. "It`s like we`re watching the news as it happens. There`s nothing like this in Phoenix."

Brandon wasn`t impressed.

Contributing to this report were Chronicle staff writers Ray Delgado, Bob Egelko, Kevin Fagan, Joe Garofoli, Rachel Gordon, Julian Guthrie, Anastasia Hendrix, Henry K. Lee, Ilene Lelchuk, Steve Rubenstein, Katherine Seligman, Kathleen Sullivan, Jaxon Van Derbeken and Jim Herron Zamora.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
By Whose Authority?


By Michael Kinsley

Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A37


Until this week, the president`s personal authority to use America`s military might was subject to two opposite historical trends. On the one hand, there is the biggest scandal in constitutional law: the gradual disappearance of the congressional declaration of war. Has there ever been a war more suited to a formal declaration -- started more deliberately, more publicly, with less urgency and at more leisure -- than the American war on Iraq? Right or wrong, Gulf War II resembles the imperial forays of earlier centuries more than the nuclear standoffs and furtive terrorist hunts of the 20th and 21st. Yet George W. Bush, like all recent presidents, claims for his person the sovereign right to launch such a war. Like his predecessors, he condescends only to accept blank-check resolutions from legislators cowed by the fear of appearing disloyal to troops already dispatched.

On the other hand, since the end of World War II the United States has at least formally agreed to international constraints on the right of any nation, including itself, to start a war. These constraints were often evaded but rarely just ignored. And evasion has its limits, enforced by the sanction of embarrassment. This gave these international rules at least some real bite.

But Bush defied embarrassment and slew it with a series of Orwellian flourishes. If the United Nations wants to be "relevant," he said, it must do exactly as he says. In other words, in order to be relevant, it must become irrelevant. When that didn`t work, he said: I am ignoring the wishes of the Security Council and violating the United Nations charter, in order to enforce a U.N. Security Council resolution. No, no, don`t thank me! My pleasure!

By Monday night, though, in his 48-hour-warning speech, the references to international law and the United Nations had become vestigial. Bush`s defense of his decision to make war on Iraq was basic: "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security." He did not claim that Iraq is a present threat to America`s own national security but suggested that "in one year or five years" it could be such a threat. In the 20th century, threats from murderous dictators were foolishly ignored until it was too late. In this century, "terrorists and terrorist states" do not play the game of war by the traditional rules. They "do not reveal these threats with fair notice in formal declarations." Therefore, "responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense. It is suicide."

What is wrong with Bush`s case? Sovereign nations do have the right to act in their own self-defense, and they will use that right no matter what the U.N. charter says or how the Security Council votes. Waiting for an enemy to strike first can indeed be suicidal. So?

So, first of all, the right that Bush is asserting really has no limits, because the special circumstances he claims aren`t really special. Striking first in order to preempt an enemy that has troops massing along your border is one thing. Striking first against a nation that has never even explicitly threatened your sovereign territory, except in response to your own threats, because you believe that this nation may have weapons that could threaten you in five years, is something very different.

Bush`s suggestion that the furtive nature of war in this new century somehow changes the equation is also dubious, and it contradicts his assertion that the threat from Iraq is "clear." Even in traditional warfare, striking first has often been considered an advantage. And even before this century, nations rarely counted on receiving an enemy`s official notice of intention to attack five years in advance. Bush may be right that the threat from Iraq is real, but he is obviously wrong that it is "clear," or that other nations as interested in self-preservation as we are (and almost as self-interested in the preservation of the United States as we are) would see it as we do, which most do not.

Putting all this together, Bush is asserting the right of the United States to attack any country that may be a threat to it in five years. And the right of the United States to evaluate that risk and respond in its sole discretion. And the right of the president to make that decision on behalf of the United States in his sole discretion. In short, the president can start a war against anyone at any time, and no one has the right to stop him. And presumably other nations and future presidents have that same right. All formal constraints on war-making are officially defunct.

Well, so what? Isn`t this the way the world works anyway? Isn`t it naive and ultimately dangerous to deny that might makes right? Actually, no. Might is important, probably most important, but there are good, practical reasons for even might and right together to defer sometimes to procedure, law and the judgment of others. Uncertainty is one. If we knew which babies would turn out to be murderous dictators, we could smother them in their cribs. If we knew which babies would turn out to be wise and judicious leaders, we could crown them dictator. In terms of the power he now claims, without significant challenge, George W. Bush is now the closest thing in a long time to dictator of the world. He claims to see the future as clearly as the past. Let`s hope he`s right.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

Sun brands Chirac `Saddam`s whore`

Ciar Byrne
Friday March 21, 2003


The Sun: `Your president... has behaved like a Paris harlot`

The Sun has renewed its attack on the French, branding President Jacques Chirac "Saddam Hussein`s whore" in a special Paris edition that has once again caused fury in the highest echelons of French government.
French ministers and newspapers including the left-leaning Liberation called on the public to stand up to hostility from the British tabloid as the nation finds itself at the target of heightened Francophobia in the UK and US media.

Thousands of copies of the French Sun were distributed at metro stations in the capital, describing Mr Chirac as a "Paris harlot".

The front page featured pictures of Mr Chirac and Saddam side by side. The accompanying text read: "Cherchez la difference [spot the difference]. One is a corrupt bully who is risking the lives of our troops. He is sneering at Britain, destroying democracy and endangering world peace. The other is Saddam Hussein."

Inside a Sun cartoon depicted Mr Chirac in stilettos and a blonde wig being solicited by a sleazy Saddam driving a car, with the Moulin Rouge and Eiffel Tower in the background.

The stunt followed a similar Paris edition last month in which the Sun labelled Mr Chirac a worm.

On its back page the Sun addressed French readers: "The whole civilised world, not just Britain, is disgusted with the way France`s president and politicians have behaved over Iraq."

"Last month we accused Chirac of behaving like a worm. Today we say to the people of France: we did not go far enough. Your president is not just a worm. He has behaved like a Paris harlot."

The Sun`s taunts follow an official complaint made by France`s foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, about the strong language used in the British parliament to describe France`s stance on the conflict with Iraq.

Leftwing French newspaper Liberation has accused George Bush and Tony Blair of "stirring up latent Francophobia" in an editorial. "By pandering to the outrageous nationalism of parts of their electorate, they risk leaving the west with deep and lasting divisions. France must resist this dangerous drift," the paper warned.

Under French law it is a criminal offence to insult the president, carrying a fine of up to 45,000 euros (£30,000).

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

HOW MUCH MUST YOU SUCK TO LOSE A POPULARITY CONTEST WITH SADDAM?





Michael Moore


Dear Governor Bush,

So today is what you call "the moment of truth".

I`m glad to hear it has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 443 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn`t sure I could take much more. As it`s Truth Day, I have a few truths I`d like to share with you:

There is virtually no one in America (talk-radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho about going to war. Trust me. Try to find five people on the streets who are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. You won`t find them! Why? Because no Iraqi has even threatened to come here and kill any of us! You see, this is how we average Americans think - if a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don`t want to kill them!

THE majority of Americans - the ones who never elected you - are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives - - 2.5 million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their pensions are going to be there, fuel at $2 a gallon...

Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

HOW bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

THE Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a sin. You are an army of one on this war. Of course, you personally won`t have to fight. Just like when you went Awol while the poor were shipped to Vietnam.

OF the 535 members of Congress, only one has a son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, send your daughters to Kuwait and let them don chemical warfare suits. And let`s see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids.

FINALLY, we love France. Yes, some French people can be annoying. But we wouldn`t even have an America if it weren`t for the French. It was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us. It was France which gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet and French brothers who invented the movies. And now they`re doing what only a good friend can do - tell you the truth about yourself.

You know, you really should have travelled more (like, er, once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can`t get out of.

Still, cheer up, there is good news. The war is likely to be short because I`m guessing there aren`t a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam.

After you "win" it, you`ll enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls because everyone loves a winner - and who doesn`t like to see a good ass-whoopin` every now and then. And, just like with Afghanistan, we`ll forget about what happens to a country after we bomb it, because that`s just too complex!

So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year`s election. Of course, that`s still a long way off but, who knows, maybe you`ll find Osama bin Laden a few days before the election. See, start thinking like that! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis - they got our oil!!

Yours,

Michael Moore

[Joerver]

WASHINGTON, DC—At a Pentagon press conference Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touted the military`s upcoming Gulf War II: The Vengeance as "even better than the original."


Above: Donald Rumsfeld debriefs reporters on the upcoming Gulf War sequel, scheduled to hit Iraq March 22.
"If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel," Rumsfeld said of Gulf War II, scheduled to hit Iraqi theaters of operation March 22. "In the original, as you no doubt know, we defeat Saddam Hussein, only to let him slip away at the very end. This time, we`re going back in to take out the trash."

Rumsfeld said the soon-to-be-unleashed war will feature special effects beyond anything seen in the original.

"Gulf War I was done 11 years ago, and war-making technology has advanced tremendously since then," Rumsfeld said. "From the guns to the planes to the missile-guidance systems, what you`ll see in this one puts the original Gulf War to shame."

"The budget for Gulf War II: The Vengeance is somewhere in the neighborhood of $85 billion," Rumsfeld continued. "And every penny of it is up there on your screen."

Waged in 1991 at a cost of $61 billion, the first Gulf War was a major hit, making household names out of stars Colin Powell, Norman Schwarzkopf, and Wolf Blitzer. Asked who would star in the sequel, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was coy.

"I don`t want to give away too much, but let`s just say you`re likely to see a few familiar faces pop up," Myers said. "I will say that the son of one of the key characters in the first one, back then just a boy, is now all grown up and ready to take his rightful place at the head of the alliance."

Myers did confirm that the plot revolves around the Rebel forces` efforts to capture arch-nemesis Hussein, whom they believe is building a weapon of mass destruction somewhere deep within the mysterious and forbidding No-Fly Zone.


Above: A publicity still from Gulf War II.
"Obviously, Saddam will be back," Myers said. "He`s the perfect villain: ruthless, efficient, and sinister. It would be an affront to all the fans not to include him. Beyond that, what`s going to happen is anybody`s guess. One thing, though, is guaranteed: We`re going to have more action, more danger, and definitely more kill power than the first time around."

"We`ve already started preliminary shooting," Myers said, "and so far, what we`ve got is unbelievable."

In addition to a major PR push, Gulf War II will be accompanied by a major merchandising campaign. Pentagon has secured the commitment of Topps for a series of cards supporting the effort. It has also brokered a first-look deal with CNN, guaranteeing the network full access to the front lines, as well as first crack at interviewing the men and women behind the scenes. The Pentagon has also signed Dan Rather to a two-cry deal.

In the 11 years since the original Gulf War, few conflicts have come close to matching the level of support and press attention generated by that operation.

"We were disappointed by our numbers in Bosnia," Rumsfeld said. "That particular conflict played primarily to an art-house crowd. Your mainstream audiences didn`t connect with the complexities of the centuries-old ethnic clash you had going there. But this time, we feel we`ve got something very accessible that will play in Peoria. I mean, how can you go wrong with an `Axis of Evil`?"

Though Gulf War II does not open fire for another two weeks, it has screened for select audiences in Los Angeles. Ain`t It Cool News, the popular website run by Harry Knowles, recently leaked an advance review of the conflict.

"The battle sequences are even better than Black Hawk Down," Knowles wrote. "And Afghan leader Hamid Karzai, while only given a little action, exudes a Tarantino cool."

Pentagon officials, meanwhile, are already thinking about a third installment.

"There`s no reason this Iraq thing can`t be a franchise for us like those wars with Germany or the Communists used to be," Rumsfeld said. "The public loves it, the soldiers love it, the media love it. And even if the U.S. wins at the end of the second one, there are still plenty of possibilities for a third: Saddam could be destroyed, only to be replaced by an even greater evil. Then, of course, there`s the prequel set in the Stone Age, the era we bomb Iraq back to at the end of the third one. As far as we`re concerned, this thing is just getting started."

http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/gulf_war_2.html

[Joerver]

The Lunatic Is In His Head


http://www.internetweekly.org/iwr/parody_the_lunatic.html

[DmComeBack]

Heil Mr. Blair, Heil Mr. Bush


"Wir weinten wie zwei kleine Kinder."


Schilderung des Bombenkriegs gegen Dresden

Binnen Minuten setzten in der Nacht vom 13. auf den 14. Februar 1945 britische Bomber ganz Dresden in Brand und entfachten einen verheerenden Feuersturm. Tagsüber bombardierten US-Flugzeuge die brennende Stadt.


· Eine Dresdnerin erlebt die Bombennacht
· Flucht aus dem Feuermeer
· Stumm sahen sie dem zweiten Angriff zu
· Nach der Bombennacht
· Erinnern und Gedenken 2003

Eine Dresdnerin erlebt die Bombennacht

Am Abend des 13. Februar 1945 war Hildegard de Parade allein zu Hause. Ihre Mutter brachte gerade die Großeltern, die aus Schlesien hierher geflohen waren, zu Verwandten. Gegen 21:45 Uhr schaltet Hildegard das Radio ein: "Anglo-amerikanische Bomberverbände fliegen die Stadt Dresden an!" Schrecksekunden. Dann reagierte die damals 18-Jährige genau so, wie die Dresdner es schon etliche Male in Gedanken durchgespielt hatten. Nichts wie raus aus der Wohnung, in irgend einen Keller.

Plötzlich taucht ihre Mutter in der Tür auf: "Hildchen, die Taschen!" Im dortigen Gewölbekeller eines Gerichtsgebäudes seien sie sicherer, dachte die Mutter. Am Himmel sahen die beiden Frauen die berüchtigten "Christbäume": Die Markierungsbomber der Royal Air Force hatten mit ihrer todbringenden Präzisionsarbeit begonnen.

Still und wehrlos lag Dresden in der Nacht, während in der Höhe die heulenden Flugzeugmotoren den unerbittlichen Schlag ankündigeten. Minuten trennten die Stadt vom ersten Bombeneinschlag. "Ein Singen in der Luft und dann Detonationen, die uns, die wir am Boden des Kellers lagen, emporrissen", erinnert sich Hildegard de Parade.

Flucht aus dem Feuermeer

Panisch flüchten die Menschen ins Freie, in Richtung Elbe. Mit Koffern und Taschen bepackt bewegte sich eine Menschenmasse zum Fluss. Die Lichter der Stadt waren gelöscht, doch jetzt erhellt der Feuerschein die Straßen. Hildegards Mutter schleppt ihre Badewanne auf dem Rücken - als Schutzschild.

Sie hasten am Terrassenufer entlang, zu einer Treppe. Das Elbufer brennt, alle paar Sekunden schlagen Bomben ein. Hildegard sieht, wie sich brennende Menschen in die Elbe stürzen. Sie verkriecht sich unter der Badewanne. Eine Frau kriecht zu ihr. "Die Frau war schwer und wurde immer schwerer." Die Frau ist tot. Die Leiche schützt Hildegard vor den Bombensplittern.

Mühsam bahnen sich Mutter und Tochter ihren Weg. Auf dem Terrassenufer sitzen Menschen. Tote. Die Detonationen haben ihre Lungen zerrissen. In der Ferne sieht Hildegard, wie die heranrasenden Sanitätswagen nacheinander in die Luft fliegen.

Stumm sahen sie dem zweiten Angriff zu

Irgendwann am Morgen erreicht sie mit ihrer Mutter das "Blaue Wunder". Bei einer Freundin der Mutter in Wachwitz finden sie Unterschlupf. "Zum ersten Mal wieder blickte ich in einen Spiegel. Ganze Bündel meines langen Haares fielen aus", erinnert sich Hildegard. Noch gelähmt von den schrecklichen Erlebnissen der Nacht nehmen sie den zweiten Agriff wahr. "Stumm sahen wir zu."

16. Februar 1945, zwei Tage danach. Hildegard steht mit ihrer Mutter auf der Marienallee. Weinend starren sie auf Dresden, eine rauchende Silhouette aus Trümmern. "Wir weinten wie zwei kleine Kinder. Wir hatten kein Zuhause mehr."

"Wir weinten wie zwei kleine Kinder. Wir wußten, wir hatten kein Zuhause mehr."

Zitate entommen aus dem Buch: Wir sollten Helden sein. Jugend in Deutschland 1939-1945, JKL-Reihe Deutschland, Band 12, ISBN 3933336112

Nach der Bombennacht

In den darauf folgenden Wochen werden Hildegard und ihre Mutter von einer Familie in der Waldschlößchenstraße aufgenommen. Sie suchen die Großeltern. Leiche um Leiche dreht Hildegard herum, blickt in schwarze, verkohlte Gesichter ohne Augen.

Die Großeltern sieht sie nie wieder. "Nur ein Köfferchen entdeckten wir mit Großvaters gutem Sonntagsanzug." Vor dem Haus in der Kaulbachstraße, wo die Großeltern untergekommen waren, errichten sie ein kleines Holzkreuz. Auf die Trümmer stellen sie brennende Kerzen.


Mindestens 35.000 Menschen sind in dem Inferno ums Leben gekommen. Dresdner und ihre Verwandten, dazu tausende Heimatlose, die von der heranrückenden Roten Armee geflohen waren. Sie suchten Schutz in den Grünanlagen der Stadt: Als die Bomben fallen, sind die Elbauen und der Große Garten überfüllt mit Flüchtlingen. Nach den Angriffen werden ihre Leichen aus Angst vor Seuchen auf dem Altmarkt verbrannt.

"Wieviel starben? Wer kennt die Zahl? An Deinen Wunden sieht man die Qual / der Namenlosen die hier verbrannt / im Höllenfeuer aus Menschenhand."
Inschrift im Ehrenhain auf dem Dresdner Heidefriedhof


Erinnern und Gedenken 2003

Kerzen aufzustellen wie Hildegard de Parade nach der Bombennacht, ist für die Dresdner zu einer Tradition geworden: Tausende Lichter brennen jedes Jahr am 13. Februar vor der Frauenkirche.

Die Gedenkveranstaltungen am 58. Jahrestag des Luftangriffs beginnen am Donnerstag mit dem Dresdner Friedenslauf: Vom Münchner Platz, vorbei an den verschiedenen Stätten der Zerstörung, geht es zum Heidefriedhof. Dort ist um 11 Uhr die zentrale Gedenkveranstaltung.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Dubya wird an der Nase herumgeführt von seinem Ölpartner, Pinoccio ist nichts dagegen, absolut empfehlendswert.


http://www.stopesso.com/funstuff/nose.html


.

[Joerver]

Das wird den Präsidenten freuen. Ein schönes Jubiläum. Davon 172 für Mr. Bush. Congratulations!

Texas Executes 300th Convict in 20 Years

Friday March 21, 2003 8:20 AM


HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) - Condemned murderer Keith Clay became a footnote in the history of capital punishment as the 300th prisoner executed since the state resumed the death penalty 20 years ago.

Clay`s execution Thursday, the 11th this year in Texas, came a week after another inmate, Delma Banks, got within 10 minutes of lethal injection before he was spared by a U.S. Supreme Court reprieve.

Clay, however, had no similar good fortune.

The high court refused to review his case a week ago, there were no last-ditch appeals filed on his behalf and the Texas parole board wouldn`t even consider his clemency request because it was filed 15 days too late.

While strapped to the death chamber gurney, Clay asked God to ``forgive me of every single solitary sin I have committed.``

He also asked for forgiveness from three members of his victim`s family, who watched through a nearby window.

``I am truly sorry, and there is not a day that I have not prayed for you,`` he said.

Turning to his mother, he said, ``Let everyone know that I love them.``

She flashed him two thumbs up just before the drugs took effect. Eight minutes later, at 6:23 p.m., he was pronounced dead.

Clay`s injection keeps Texas, which resumed the death penalty 20 years ago, on a pace to surpass the record 40 lethal injections carried out in 2000. Another is scheduled for next week and three more in April.

Texas accounts for more than one-third of the 839 executions in the United States since 1976 when the death penalty resumed under a Supreme Court ruling. Virginia is second with 87.

It took nearly 13 years for Texas to reach 100 executions, four years to get to No. 200 and now, as the appeals process has become more streamlined, just over three years to reach the 300th.

Clay`s execution failed to generate the kind of attention Banks` case received last week. Banks contended he was wrongly convicted of a 1980 slaying near Texarkana. His appeals were bolstered by the backing of three former federal judges, including former FBI director William Sessions.

On Thursday evening outside the Huntsville Unit, the prison where executions are carried out, eight death penalty protesters gathered quietly, then dispersed quickly after witnesses emerged, a signal that Clay had died.

Clay was convicted of the 1994 killing of store clerk Melathethil Tom Varughese during a $2,000 robbery of a convenience store in Baytown, just east of Houston.

Clay acknowledged being a drug dealer but he denied participating in the killing. Prosecutors also linked Clay to the fatal shootings of three people, including two children, on Christmas Eve in 1993. He denied any role in the killings and was not tried, but a companion was sent to death row for the crime.

Clay said he was outside the Baytown store where Varughese worked and in a car when the clerk was gunned down on Jan. 4, 1994. A witness, however, identified Clay as the gunman. Evidence showed his gun was one of the two used in the shooting.

[Joerver]

Wider die "Texas-Cowboy-Ölbarone"

Rüdiger Suchsland 22.03.2003
Nach Kriegsbeginn: Hollywood rüstet sich zur Oscar-Verleihung

Eklat in Sicht? Nun fallen die Bomben, das Pentagon bestätigt die ersten US-Toten, doch vorläufig herrscht bei der "Acadamy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" noch "Business as Usual". An diesem Sonntagabend werden dort die Oscars verliehen, auch noch ausgerechnet zum 75.Jubiläum, und das Rennen auf die begehrten Trophäen scheint in diesem Jahr offen, wie lange nicht.

Offen ist auch, ob es wirklich eine ganz normale Veranstaltung werden wird. Zwar hat Anke Engelke ihre Moderation der deutschen TV-Übertragung bei ProSieben kurzfristig abgesagt, war, sind Will Smith und Cate Blanchett als Präsentatoren zurückgetreten und der für einen Auslandsoscar nominierte Ari Kaurismäki kommt nicht, weil die USA ein "Verbrechen an der Menschlichkeit " verübten, aber all das wird man in Los Angeles gerade noch einmal verkraften. Schwerer wiegt die Tatsache, dass die Superstars der Filmbrache einig und lautstark wie selten gegen die Politik ihrer jetzigen Administration einstehen. Unter Liberalismus-Verdacht hatte die US-Rechte Hollywood zwar schon immer, auch wenn gerade die zurückliegende Dekade eine Menge Indizien für dafür bot, dass sich auch Hollywood - ungeachtet der lautstarken Unterstützung des Clinton-Wahlkampfs - wie die gesamten Gesellschaften des Westens zunehmend ins Fahrwasser des Unpolitischen zurückzieht.

Die neuesten Ereignisse scheinen diesen Eindruck zu widerlegen. Denn die Liste der Anti-Kriegs-Promis ist lang: Sean Penn, der in ganzseitigen Anzeigen die Politik des US-Präsidenten kritisierte und bereits im Dezember nach Bagdad reiste, und Saddam Hussein vor den Kameras der Welt die Hand schüttelte, um dann eine Woche später live auf CNN von seinen Erlebnissen zu berichten, gehört da noch zu den üblichen Verdächtigen, genauso wie "Hanoi Jane" Fonda oder das Ehepaar Susan Sarandon und Tim Robbins. Schwerer wiegen da andere: Richard Gere, Edward Norton, Kim Basinger - alle bisher nicht durch besonderen "Extremismusverdacht" aufgefallen. Oder etwa der Schauspieler Martin Sheen, der in seiner bekanntesten Rolle im Coppola-Klassiker "Apocalypse Now" den kriegstraumatisierten "psychadelic soldier" Colonel Willard verkörpert: Seit Wochen agitiert er im Fernsehen und auf Friedenskundgebungen gegen die Irak-Politik von George W. Bush. Sheen verteidigte auch die Kriegsgegner gegen Vorwürfe aus Regierungskreisen. "Egal ob Star oder ein Diplomat oder ein Taxifahrer - jeder sollte seine Meinung sagen." schrieb er in einem Beitrag für die "Los Angeles Times". Prominente seien erst recht verpflichtet ihre Meinung zu sagen.


Bei den Berliner Filmfestspielen im Februar gehörte der Protest der angereisten US-Stars fast zur Routine, der sich nur wenige so verweigerten, wie Kevin Spacey, der darauf beharrte, dass das Politische privat sei, und ein Schauspieler, bitteschön, nur zu seinem Film, und nicht zu "privaten" Ansichten befragt werden solle. Andere zierten sich da weniger. So feierte die Berliner Presse die Auftritte Dustin Hoffmans. In seiner Rede auf der Gala "Cinema for Peace" (vgl. Dustin Hoffman schickt Friedenstaube an den Falken Bush) ignorierte Hoffman die von "Zweierlei von der Wachtel auf dunklem Linsensalat" und ähnlichen Genüssen dominierte Atmosphäre und geißelte zum Verdruss der Gastgeber, die das alles etwas Bob-Geldorf-mäßiger gemeint hatten, in drastischen Worten die "Kriegsstimmung" seiner Administration und die "Paranoia der Macht" und zog eine Verbindungslinie zwischen der heutigen Kritik und dem Anti-Vietnam-Protest der Sechziger. Oliver Stone präsentierte seinen Film "Commandante" über Fidel Castro, den erklärten Erzfeind noch jeder US-Administration seit der Cuba-Krise. Mit süffisantem Lächeln erklärte Stone genüsslich der Weltpresse, Castro sei ein "großer Politiker", ein "revolutionärer Held", das seit Jahrzehnten bestehende US-Embargo sei eine Schande und sein Film ein Protest gegen die US-Politik.

Auch George Clooney ließ sich nicht lumpen, und warnte seine Landsleute davor, "etwas Falsches zu tun". Auch äußerte er seine Sorgen über die "manipulative Berichterstattung des US-Fernsehens, wo Nachrichten zur Unterhaltung verkommen" seien (vgl. Wo soll ich mich in Reih und Glied stellen?). Clooney immerhin war intelligent genug, zu bemerken, es sei "gefährlich, wenn Schauspieler über manche Dinge reden, bevor sie sich wirklich gut informiert haben - sonst ist der Schaden größer, als der Nutzen." Tatsächlich schützt die gute Gesinnung noch lange nicht vor Dummheit und Irrtum. Und im Gegenteil stützen ja viele Erfahrungen die These, dass Schauspieler - gerade Superstars, die manchmal schon mit 20 die Welt nur noch von einem Goldenen Käfig aus wahrnehmen - nicht gerade zu perfekten Kennern des Völkerrechts oder Analytikern Internationaler Beziehungen taugen. Um so bemerkenswerter ist deshalb die Sachlichkeit und relative Zurückhaltung der jetzigen Kritik.


Zumeist bezog sie sich bisher, ähnlich wie die der Regierungen in Frankreich und Deutschland darauf, dass die friedlichen Möglichkeiten zur Abrüstung des Irak längst nicht ausgeschöpft seien. Nur der Schauspieler Danny Glover ging einige Schritte weiter und übte direkte Kritik an Bush, indem er dessen Intentionen in Frage stellte, und die Regierung des "Expansionismus" anklagte: "Wer soll der Herr des Planeten sein, wer bestimmt, was andere tun und lassen. Was mit dem Irak beginnt, wird weitergehen. Wir müssen hier eine Ende machen." sagte er. Droht jetzt auch eine neue Hexenjagd im Stil jener antikommunistischen Hatz der McCarthy-Ära der 50er? Sean Penn zumindest hat jetzt den Filmproduzenten Steve Bing auf 10 Millionen Dollar Schadensersatz verklagt, nachdem dieser ihm die bereits zugesagte Rolle in dem Projekt "Why Men Should`t Marry" wieder weggenommen hatte - mit Hinweis auf dessen Protest gegen die Kriegspläne(vgl. Schändliches Vermächtnis).

Trotz solcher Vorgänge übergaben Anfang der Woche Jessica Lange, Ethan Hawke und Steve Buscemi vor dem Sitz der UNO in New York eine neue Antikriegs-Petition, die außer von vielen Stars auch innerhalb von fünf Tagen von einer Million Menschen unterzeichnet worden war. "Die Amerikaner sind ein moralisches Volk", meinte Lange, "daraus folgt, dass wir uns nicht von unserer Regierung belügen lassen dürfen." So zeigt sich auch nach Kriegsbeginn ein Bild, dass so heterogen ist, wie die ganze Antikriegsbewegung. Nur wenige allerdings werden so deutlich wie Spike Lee, der schon im vergangenen Jahr in seinem Beitrag "We was robbed" für den Episodenfilm "Ten Minutes After (The Trumpet)" Wahlkampfberater von Bush und seinem Konkurrenten Al Gore interviewt und die Minuten verfilmt hatte, in denen Bush die US-Präsidentschaft "usurpiert" hatte:

Die waren einfach dreist und tough, noch nicht mal clever. Sie haben am offenen Tag die Präsidentschaft gestohlen. Es gab nach der gefälschten Wahl deswegen keine Proteste, weil die Leute die Wirklichkeit mit den schwachsinnigen Reality Shows verwechseln. Die sind zugedröhnt von den narkotisierenden Medien.

Lee warf Bush und Blair vor, sich als "moralische Autorität" aufzuspielen, "die anderen ihre Außenpolitik diktieren will.

Es geht ja nicht um Entwaffnung. Seien wir ehrlich: Die Bushs waren bevor sie Präsidenten wurde Texas-Cowboy-Ölbarone. Darum geht es."

Am interessantesten dürfte es am Sonntag werden, falls ein Brite den Oscar gewinnt. Michael Caine, gerade 70 geworden, ist zumindest als "Bester Schauspieler" nominiert, und zwar für seine Rolle in dem Film "The Quiet American". In der Verfilmung der Graham-Greene-Story spielt Caine einen Briten der den Beginn des US-Engagements in Vietnam beobachtet, und schildert, wie die CIA in Fernost Terrorakte verübt. Obwohl (oder weil?) "The Quiet American" vom Branchenriesen Miramax verliehen wird, passte der Film nach dem 11.9.2001 nicht mehr ganz so prächtig in die politische Landschaft und kam bislang nur in New York in wenige Kinos - aus formalen Gründen, um bei der Oscar-Verleihung dabei sein zu können. Wer den Film gesehen hat, berichtet, er sei allein schon durch seine Differenziertheit ein Schlag ins Gesicht der öffentlichen Darstellung der US-Außenpolitik, auch der aktuellen. Ob das die Oscar-Chancen des Films verbessern dürfte? (Vielleicht ja zumindest seinen Erfolg an europäischen Kinokassen).

Aber würde sich eigentlich etwas ändern, sollte es tatsächlich zu Anti-Kriegs-Statements während der Verleihung kommen? Aus der Sicht der Bush-Regierung ist Hollywood bereits längst zum Feind übergelaufen.

[Joerver]

Das US-Department of Laughs

Michaela Simon 22.03.2003
"Sei auf der Hut vor Terroristen mit Bindehautentzündung und Lepra"

"Der Terrorismus zwingt uns, eine Wahl zu treffen. Habe keine Angst. Sei bereit. Mach einen Notfallkoffer. Mach einen Plan. Sei informiert." Das ist vom Department of Homeland Security, dessen Webseite ungewollt komische Züge trägt (vgl. "We will not be afraid and we will be ready", Are you ready?).

Den Terrorismus können wir nicht stoppen. Aber sage nicht, wir hätten dich nicht gewarnt.



Habe Angst Terroristen sind überall. Plane dein Ende. Erfahre etwas über die vielen verschiedenen Tode, die du sterben kannst. Du kannst in einem Auto verbrennen. Du kannst in deinem Haus verbrennen. Du kannst verbrennen, während du von deinem Auto oder Haus wegläufst. Du kannst bei einer Explosion in viele einzelne Stücke gerissen werden.



Du kannst sehen, wie deine Angehörigen sterben, weil ihr nicht genügend Gasmasken habt. Was mit Duct Tape und Plastikfolie zu tun ist: Wenn einer deiner Angehörigen bei einem Terroranschlag stirbt und die Behörden zu beschäftig sind, die Leiche abzuholen: Rolle deinen toten Angehörigen in die von der Regierung empfohlene Plastikfolie ein und versiegele das Paket mit dem von der Regierung empfohlenen Klebeband.



Lagere die toten Angehörigen im Keller, bis jemand von den Behörden kommt.

Dieser Text ist eine freundliche Mahnung des Department of Homeland Panic, eine Webseite, die unschwer als Satire zu erkennen ist.

http://www.terrorready.net/index.asp

Der Terrorismus zwingt uns, eine Wahl zu treffen. Wem soll man in diesen Zeiten Vertrauen schenken, dem US-Department of Homeland Security,
http://www.uspoliticsforum.com/emergency/

dessen Webseite alle folgenden Bilder entnommen sind, oder dem US-Department of Laughs, das einige der Bilder mit neuen Bildunterschriften versehen hat? Und wer ist wer?



Wenn du Terrosrismus witterst, pfeife deinen Anti-Terrorismus Pfiff. Wenn du Vin Diesel bist, schreie ganz laut.



Wasche deine Hände wenn möglich, aber reibe die Chemikalien nicht in die Haut.



Sei auf der Hut vor Terroristen mit Bindehautentzündung und Lepra. Terroristen neigen außerdem dazu, manisch ihre Hände aneinander zu reiben.



Suche sofort Schutz, wenn möglich unter der Erde, aber jeder Schild oder Schutz wird helfen, dich vor den sofortigen Auswirkungen der Druckwelle und der Explosion zu schützen.



Vermeide unnötige Bewegungen, damit du keinen Staub aufwirbelst.



Der richtige Weg, Pockenviren zu eliminieren, ist sich mit Wasser, Seife und mindestens einer armlosen Hand zu waschen.



Nachdem du Strahlung ausgesetzt warst, ist es wichtig, dass du bedenkst, dass du zu gigantischer Größe mutiert haben könntest. Pass auf deinen Kopf auf!



Viele kranke oder tote Vögel, Fische oder Kleintiere sind ein Grund, Verdacht zu schöpfen.



Wenn du ein verstrahlter Mutant mit einer deformierten Hand geworden bist: Denke daran, das Fenster zu schließen. Niemand will so einen Scheiß sehen.



Wenn das Gebäude einstürzt, verpass dir selbst einen Blow Job, während du auf deine Rettung wartest.

http://www.ready.gov/

http://www.terrorready.net/index.asp

.

[Joerver]

Military mind games
The shock spin that kicked off the mother of all propaganda wars

Mark Lawson
Saturday March 22, 2003
The Guardian

Is there a theatrical costumier in Baghdad? The matter arises because of a bizarre paragraph which appeared in some western publications this week. "Allied military chiefs" are apparently worried about a possible "black propaganda tactic" of Saddam Hussein. They reportedly fear that he may dress up his own troops in British and American uniforms and encourage them to carry out a massacre of civilians, thus engendering resistance against troops who later turn up in the same fatigues claiming to be liberators.

Decent human cynicism requires us to consider the possibility that this rumour was started on this side of the lines to further Saddam`s reputation for duplicity. If that is the story`s source, then we have a prize exhibit in the traditional battle between journalists and the military during wartime: black propaganda from one side which accuses the other of black propaganda.

And here`s a second test-case: last weekend, every major media outlet in Britain and America printed or screened lavish maps-with-arrows explaining the Pentagon`s initial battle plan: the so-called "shock and awe" strategy of emptying 12 year`s output from American munitions factories on to Iraq in one go. But, notoriously, none of that happened at first, the war starting instead with a short game of cat-and-mouse centered on Saddam`s last known address.

The official White House gloss on why acres of newsprint previews were made to look stupid is that the CIA suddenly got a fix on the Iraqi figurehead and tried to take him out: "target of opportunity" replacing "shock and awe" as the Pentagon catchphrase of choice. That explanation has been accepted by the press as meekly as they bought the supposed war plans. But healthy distrust demands examination of another possibility. Did the US military - playing on the media`s desperation to publish conflict strategies in advance as if they were sporting fixtures - sell them a false yarn about the action`s likely shape?

Certainly, 12 years ago, during Gulf war I, Norman Schwarzkopf laid such trails in order to confuse the Iraqis about whether he was coming by land or sea. He even had the nerve to thank journalists at his victory press conference. So has Schwarzkopf`s successor, General Tommy Franks, used a similar false frankness about battle plans? The aim this time would be not to confuse opposition generals but to make almost anything the Americans initially did in the conflict look sensitive and humane because it wasn`t the promised shock and awe. This would be a military version of the trick in which politicians float huge tax rises in the papers, so that those eventually imposed are greeted with relief.

But these two stories - Saddam`s phoney allied soldiers and the delayed show of shock and awe - remind us that this is likely to be the mother of all propaganda wars. On one side, unprecedented levels of reporting: the main British news networks on TV have extended their budgets by a combined £22m. On the other, the fact that not since Vietnam has a conflict been conducted against such widespread public dissent. The early days suggest that the British and American operations hope to address this stand-off between aggressive journalists and defensive politicians through an illusion of access. There are far more live pictures from the front than has been the case in any previous war: sometimes, the screen splits to take in feeds from Baghdad, Kuwait, northern Iraq and an aircraft carrier simultaneously.

Yet when asked to explain what is actually happening in these violently pretty pictures, politicians contemptously refuse to give "a running commentary", while press secretaries hide behind the sandbags of "classified" information. This trick of appearing open while being closed is also seen in the military tactic of attaching reporters to army units. It looks fantastically democratic but even the most skilled journalists risk becoming, in the jargon, "clientised": coming to share the fear, excitement and eventually triumphalism of the troops beside them. And if heaps of charred bodies should occur on either side, these "embedded" journalists will be kept well away from them.

While the battle between media and military is a familiar one, this is the first major conflict with a third source of propaganda: the civilian disinformation of the internet. British and American politicians were appalled, after 9/11, by just how many of their constituents took seriously such web-spread rubbish as Jewish employees being warned to avoid the twin towers that day. Imagine what those malicious fingers might be tapping about Bush, Blair and Saddam. Perhaps that`s where the rumour of Saddam`s fancy-dress massacre first surfaced? We don`t know. And, despite the most intensive and extensive media coverage in military history, those three words are going to remain our answer to most of the short-term questions in this conflict.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers

[Joerver]

Er war fast noch ein Kind nach dem Bild zu urteilen.

Baltimore Marine Dies In Chopper Crash
Victim`s Father Has Strong Words For Bush

POSTED: 4:14 p.m. EST March 21, 2003
UPDATED: 11:48 p.m. EST March 21, 2003

BALTIMORE -- One of the first American casualties in the war against Iraq is a Baltimore man, and his family shared their feelings about the war Friday.

WBAL-TV 11 NEWS first broke the news Friday afternoon that a Baltimore man is among a group of Marines killed in a helicopter crash inside Kuwait that happened late Thursday night.

He is identified as Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Waters-Bey, 29, (pictured, right), of northeast Baltimore, WBAL-TV 11 NEWS reported. He is based out of Camp Pendleton in California and leaves behind four younger sisters and a 10-year-old son who lives in Baltimore.


"It`s sad that this war is going on and that we have to lose so many people over nothing. I can`t bring my brother back, but I really miss him," one of the soldier`s sisters said.

WBAL-TV 11 NEWS reporter Noel Tucker spoke with the Marine`s father who lives in northeast Baltimore where friends and neighbors were seen sobbing in the streets, sharing their grief with the family.

The family spoke with WBAL-TV 11 NEWS Friday afternoon and shared their feelings against the war.
As he held a picture of his son, Waters-Bey`s father, Michael, (pictured, left), said: "I want President Bush to get a good look at this, really good look here. This is the only son I had, only son." He then walked away in tears, with his family behind him. Kenneth, the Marine`s only son, was with the family, (pictured, below right).

A military spokesperson visited the family Friday morning to confirm that Waters-Bey had died in the crash. But the family had a feeling since Thursday night that he had died in the helicopter, Tucker reported.

Waters-Bey`s wife saw television footage of the helicopter crash and recognized the identification numbers. The family came to the conclusion that their son, brother and husband was on helicopter.

And, before he left, Waters-Bey told his mother that he didn`t think he would be coming home after his deployment, Tucker reported.

Waters-Bey moved to California with his wife but has been in constant contact with his son and the boy`s mother, Tucker reported. Waters-Bey, who played football at Northern High School in Baltimore, was last seen by his son, (pictured, right), a couple of months ago.

According to the family, Waters-Bey didn`t talk much about the war, but he said it was just something he had to do.



Baltimore Marine Dies In Chopper Crash


"My brother was the type of person that was loving, caring, and outgoing ... [he was a] joking type of guy, having you laugh ... It`s a loss for us," Shernell Waters-Bey, the soldier`s sister, said.

Baltimore City police officers visited the family to convey the condolences of Mayor Martin O`Malley to the family. The mayor ordered all city flags to be flown at half-staff late Friday evening, Tucker reported.

And Gov. Bob Ehrlich issued a statement in response, saying that Waters-Bey`s death was "a heroic effort to make the world a safer place."

At around 6 p.m., the Marines spoke about the deaths of those who perished in the helicopter crash.

"To all those who have lost someone in this conflict, our hearts are with you. We are grateful to your sacrifice and the sacrifice your loved ones have made," Camp Pendleton Maj. Curtis Hill said.

The three other Marines who died in the CH-46E helicopter crash were identified as Maj. Jay Thomas Aubin, 36, of Waterville, Maine, Capt. Ryan Anthony Beaupre, 30, of Bloomington, Ill., and Cpl. Brian Matthew Kennedy, 25, of Houston, Texas.

http://www.thewbalchannel.com/news/2056537/detail.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

2 Zeloten

[Joerver]

Ich habe es schon mal eingestellt but reposted

Endgame

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

It`s the endgame of a mad, politically calculated war. From the beginning, everyone`s agreed that Saddam Hussein is a bad man, almost a prototype for a villain in a James Bond Film.

But that`s where the agreement stopped. The Bush Cartel, for a variety of politically and financially calculated reasons, decided that a war that could cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars was of strategic importance to its world domination game plan -- and to a second term for George W. Bush.

The corporate media -- for reasons of financial interest combined with sheer ineptitude -- enabled and facilitated a rush to war that was transparently self-serving for the Chickenhawks in the White House. The Democrats, as usual, allowed the Grand Hypocrisy Party (GHP) to define the issue in such a way that it marginalized any dissent. This despite the fact that the Bush Cartel brazenly used lies and shifting justifications to mask the real reasons for the war.

In the end, Bush is going to war for two reasons. First of all, the Iraq war offers him and his Vietnam service evading administration many political positives from their perspective, including (but not limited to):

1. The permanent war public relations strategy is, in large part, aimed at keeping any of the numerous Bush domestic disasters off of the political table. War supersedes even an economy down the tubes.

2. Keeping the threat of terror simmering on the burner through ginned up and meaningless terror alerts scares Americans into supporting Bush, because they seemingly have no option, since they believe they are under a constant terrorist threat. This leads to a sort of "Stockholm Syndrome" for the nation as a whole. Most Americans look to their psychological tormentor for protection from an outside threat perceived as the more serious of two evils.

3. A war in Iraq offers almost bottomless billion-dollar profiteering opportunities for Bush Cartel campaign contributors and Bush administration officials. Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, etc. are all set to reap big financial benefits from the destruction of the Iraq infrastructure. Blow the country up with bombs paid for by taxpayers -- and then use taxpayer dollars to pay campaign contributors and companies with connections to administration officials to rebuild it. A nice scam if you got a railroad car on the gravy train.

4. By using a brutal, thuggish "diplomacy" -- including threats, bribes and intimidation -- the Bush Cartel has alienated the populations of almost every nation in the world. It has managed to lure a few "leaders" into the alliance of the unwilling with a combination of inducements worthy of a crime family, but created a hostile reaction in almost every country. Why does the seemingly disastrous result actually benefit the Bush Cartel? Because they want to see the United Nations sink into the East River. They don`t want anybody but the Bush Cartel Chickenhawks calling the international shots. Sayonara, U.N., and good riddance. That`s what the Bush administration fanatics want -- and they are on the verge of achieving their goal.

5. Through the financial "inducements" the Bush administration has offered some nations to support the war, they have found an ingenious way to pay back campaign contributors. Take Poland, for instance. The Bush administration gives Poland six billion dollars in taxpayer money (which would be okay if it were for improving the lot of Polish citizens). What will Poland use the money for, according to a New York Times article? Why, to buy six billion dollars worth of fighter jets from Lockheed-Martin.

6. The assertion of raw, brute, power -- in the form of sophisticated killing war technology -- is meant to intimidate all of the nations of the world, not just our enemies. It is also meant to bully dissenters at home into submission. Since Democratic leaders usually cower when the Bush Cartel barks, it is, additionally, meant to scare them into "dazed and confused" passivity.

7. The conquest of Iraq will shore up a Middle East alliance with the Sharon government, with whom the Bush Cartel shares a common worldview. (The Sharon right wing government is, in this case, to be viewed as a distinct political entity. It is clear that Bush would not have cared a hoot about Israel if the Labor government were in power. Remember that the right wing in Israel killed Yitzhak Rabin, a man of peace. Sharon and Bush are two peas in a pod for whom war is peace.)

8. An attack on Iraq will almost surely be the catalyst for renewed terrorist attacks. After the next terrorist attack, the Bush Cartel will further dismantle the Constitution and move toward a Stalinist "KGB police powers" state of emergency with the likely passage of "Patriot II". It is the Bush Cartel`s goal to incrementally seize power until it one day, unnoticed, crosses the line into a dictatorship rather than a democracy. (If you think this is some fringe conspiracy theory, think about the theft of election 2000, think about the 6 year attempt to find a way to impeach Bill Clinton. This is a clique that thinks God has chosen it to run America.)

9. A permanent war will pave the way for even larger Republican majorities in Congress. This will further consolidate a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich. It will also mean an accelerated dismantling of government services and the removal of any separation between church and state.

10. The media will be even more in the pocket of the Bush Cartel, because war has become a form of media news entertainment. War increases print readership and television news viewership. War is "exciting." War is profitable for the news media.

11. The war will increase oil prices and give the second largest oil reserves to American and British oil companies, who financially support the Republican Party.

12. A permanent war will ensure that no one digs up the truth about the Bush administration`s catastrophic failure to prevent 9/11, including an August 2001 briefing that warned Bush about terrorist hijackings. Bush did nothing in response to that briefing.

13. The religious right and Neo-Confederacy warrior culture will be energized to contribute more to the 2004 Bush election effort, as well as turn out at the polls.

14. There is nothing like a war to try out the latest mega-bombs and hi tech weapons. It`s hard to find a place to target practice nowadays, let alone a whole country with real live people in it -- alive for the moment, anyway. And, of course, when bombs are blown up, more bombs are needed. They just happen to be manufactured by companies that contribute to the Bush Cartel election fund. And when more taxpayer money goes toward bombs and new military equipment, there is even less money for government services. Ah, yes, the perfect war for the extremist right wingers running our nation.

But what is the number one reason that the Bush Cartel will send our sons and daughters into War?

The number one reason is that it has no Plan "B."

As BuzzFlash noted in an earlier editorial entitled "Muscle Beach Party":

In the end the Bush Cartel is banking on making the kind of impression on the world that a thug makes with a baseball bat on a car.

It`s all about image and firepower. It`s how the playground bully establishes himself. Pick the weakest guy in the school -- the one nobody likes much anyway -- and beat the living daylights out of him. Keep all the kids nervous and on edge. Let them think that you are a little bit mad and might just beat up on them for the fun of it. Tell them that you will protect them from the gang that lives in the next neighborhood in return for their loyalty. Make an example of anyone who challenges your leadership by denouncing them and bloodying them up. Establish a system of stool pigeons. Rummage through lockers, at your will, for any signs of betrayal. Issue warnings from time-to-time about how you have information that the other gang has plans to rape your mothers and sisters, and lay waste to your homes -- and that is why you need to trust in the playground bully from your school, because he will protect your mothers and sisters from the gang that few have ever actually encountered.

It`s governance by brazen muscle power, by unfailing commitment to picking a target to destroy as an example of your ruthlessness, and your will to use any means necessary to establish and preserve your leadership. And if your attack is successful, you will enjoy the spoils of war -- the second largest oil reserves in the world. This is all the better, because you double up your goal of displaying raw, harsh military power, by combining it with additional natural resources that reinforce your dominance. You will be sitting on top of the world, masters of the universe, controlling almost everything on the Monopoly board.

And to accomplish this goal, you never blink, you never apologize, you never let facts get in the way of your mission. You remain steadfast and focused. Getting distracted by truth and ethics is a sign of weakness. And weakness is something you can smell and feel in a man.

(See: http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/01/23.html)

In a just-published book about Karl Rove, "Bush`s Brain," a Democratic political consultant is quoted as saying about the Bush Cartel: "They just picked a war they could win....It has to be the most evil political calculation in American history."

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Texanische Chatshow

[/IMG]

[Joerver]

We are in a Nation Ruled by Madmen Who Will Bury the U.N.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Before announcing a state of war Bush pumps his fist and boasts, "Feels good."

Donald Rumsfeld walks around quoting Al Capone.

Richard Perle calls an internationally respected journalist a terrorist for disclosing how Perle would profit from an Iraq war.

And then Richard Perle celebrates the death of the U.N.

Like it`s yet unleashed Guernica-bombing campaign, touted as "Shock and Awe," the brazen, thuggish extremism of the Bush administration is meant to numb the American public into submission.

And, for the most part, the strategy has succeeded.

From the beginning, after September 11th, America was united in the battle against terrorism. No one we know of spoke out on behalf of terrorism. The nascent debate, such as there was one, focused on HOW to fight terrorism, not on whether or not to fight it.

But the propaganda strategists of the Bush Cartel, led by Karl Rove, quickly marginalized any dissent against the White House`s Dr. Strangelovian, doomsday world view by spreading the word that protests AIDED AND ABETTED terrorism. The Democratic leadership in Congress was never able to crawl out from under charges that any criticism of the Bush Cartel was treason and hindered Bush`s "war on terrorism."

All the Democrats had to do was say, "Look here, we are all against terrorism. That`s just common sense. But your strategy will spawn more terrorists and actually make us less safe here at home. On behalf of American families, I object to a reckless unilateral approach that puts us all more at risk for terrorism, not less."

But the Democrats remained dazed and confused by the brilliant propaganda battle plan -- relying mostly on lies on deception -- implemented by Rove and Rumsfeld.

As a result, a broad spectrum of American people, who saw through the Bush Cartel`s fog and mirrors (and its incompetence), felt compelled to exercise their right to freely protest. They succeeded in drawing huge crowds, even though the anti-Iraq war rallies were often hindered by uncooperative police, restrictive permits and a dismissive, disdainful press.

But democracy is a powerful energizer and the protests grew, here and abroad. As a result, most of the nations of the world were able to withstand an unprecedented Mafia-like campaign of bribery, intimidation and financial threats by the Bush mob family. Small and large nations alike, including our two neighbors on the North American continent -- Mexico and Canada -- took a stand for the international rule of law and defied the incompetent Fredo, his consiglieri (Donald Rumsfeld), and his truly deranged enforcer Richard Perle.

While democracy in America has been hijacked by a right wing cabal of madmen bent on destroying our Constitution and peace among nations, democracy triumphed among the nations of the world. Most Americans are fed a daily diet of lies, phony documents and shifting rationales by this rogue administration, with the full consent of a fawning media. Karl Rove, a cross between Machiavelli and Goebbels, has helped shape a "frame" for the war in which criticism of Bush Cartel tactics is perceived as an attack on our troops.

But the nations of the world, for the most part, saw through the Soviet-inspired propaganda and stood up to an onslaught of brutish pressure.

It was a shining moment for the U.N.

But BuzzFlash predicted that such a triumph of the international rule of law would be used by the Bush Cartel to justify burying the U.N.

In our editorial of March 4, "The U.N. `Win-Win` for the Bush Cartel: Security Council Supports Iraq War Or U.N. Disbands," we commented:

The Bush Cartel doesn`t really view the U.N. as a decision making body that has any authority.

From the perspective of the resurrected-from-the-dead John Birch Society members in the White House, the U.N. is a useless vestige of a cold war Communist plot to undermine the United States.

Make no mistake about it, Bush and his crew are going through the motions of trying to obtain Security Council approval for the Iraq War only as a concession to Poppy Bush and Colin Powell. As far as the Bush Cartel is concerned, they have as much use for the U.N. as an athlete has for a cancerous leg.

You don`t believe BuzzFlash?

Here is what King George reportedly said in an off-the-record talk with members of the Republican National Committee in an East Room White House meeting last month. (The comments were written down by one of the attendees who forwarded them, admiringly we might add, to an Alabama newspaper columnist):

"I don`t know what they`re going to do," he [Bush] said. "But I can tell you this: I know what I`m going to do, and Saddam Hussein is going to be disarmed. I told them they could be the League of Nations or the United Nations. That`s up to them and the history books. But I know what my duty is. ... Believe me, there is a day coming far worse than Sept. 11, if we don`t do what we have to do, and faced with what I know, I simply have no choice."

After all, the Bush Cartel hasn`t spent two years ripping up international treaties left and right for the fun of it. Just like it wants "show" democracies in the Middle East that are really puppet U.S. governments, the Bush Cartel wants a U.N. that is really a rubber stamp for whatever the White House tells it to do. Otherwise, the Bush Cartel has about as much need for the U.N. as they had for a vote recount in Florida.

Remember, Bush may be a bit light in the loafers, walking around thinking he`s a reincarnation of Jesus, but Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are sharp cookies. They had this one figured out from the beginning as a "win-win" situation.

"If the Security Council votes with us, we`ve got them by the balls -- and we get the international legitimacy for our conquering of the Middle East (and seizure of the second largest oil fields as booty). If the Security Council doesn`t vote with us, it`s "Sayonara" Kofi Annan. Pack your bags, take your delegates and have fun in France setting up your little play school for diplomats in Gay Paris, because we need your U.N. building in New York for our new U.S. Department of War. So get lost, Now!"

Trust us. They mean it.

(See: http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/04.html)

It is no surprise to see Richard Perle confirm our editorial in his obituary for the U.N. as excerpted in the March 21st edition of the Guardian. It is candidly entitled, "Thank God for the death of the UN," with the subtitle, "Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order." Here are some "Perles" of Richard`s deranged "wisdom":

Saddam Hussein`s reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order. As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.

The chronic failure of the Security Council to enforce its own resolutions is unmistakable: it is simply not up to the task. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognize that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the UN.

(See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,918812,00.html)

Forget for the moment that the cynically named "coalition of the willing" is primarily composed of third-tier countries blackmailed or bribed into putting their names on a list (almost none of them, except for Britain, are involved in any of the fighting or in any other way with the Iraq war. See: http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/)… Forget that Perle and the entire fanatical right wing war cabinet were Chickenhawks during the Vietnam War (with the exception of Powell; See: http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html). Forget that Perle advocates attacking nations thousands of miles away, but doesn`t even know that the U.N. is on the East River and not the Hudson River (see above).

Just remember these comments from an article in the International Herald Tribune:

What`s driving this war is President George W. Bush`s Manichaean view of the world and messianic vision of himself, the dangerously grandiose perception of American power held by his saber-rattling advisers, and the irresistible lure of Iraq`s enormous oil reserves.

Polls show that the public is terribly confused about what`s going on, so much so that some 40 percent believe Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.

That`s really scary.

Rather than correct this misconception, the administration has gone out of its way to reinforce it.

I think the men and women moving militarily against Saddam are among the few truly brave and even noble individuals left in U.S. society.

They have volunteered for the dangerous duty of defending the rest of the American people. But I also believe they are being put unnecessarily in harm`s way.

(See: http://www.iht.com/articles/90501.html)

America`s finest resource -- its brave young men and women -- have already begun to die in a war conceived of by radical madmen years ago. They waited to seize our precious democracy -- and after they did, they waited for the moment to launch their hellish plan of world domination.

In December of 2001, Perle wrote:

An alliance today is really not essential, in my opinion. We don`t need the bases, or at least we don`t need much in the way of bases. And those bases that we do need are in places Where individual arrangements can be made -- with Uzbeks, who are interested in what we can do for Uzbekistan and there`s a lot we can do and it isn`t really very expensive. The term "alliance" confuses the phenomenon that`s taking place there. It`s good to have the Europeans supporting us to the degree they do, and the British have certainly been enthusiastic in our support, but the enthusiasm drops off substantially when you cross the channel and the price you end up paying for an alliance is collective judgment, collective decision-making.

Long ago the fanatics who have hijacked the American government began digging the grave of the U.N.

Now, in the Al Capone style so revered by Rumsfeld, they are going to shoot it and kick it into its grave.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

[Joerver]

Now, I Am the Terrorist
By William Rivers Pitt
T r u t h o u t | Perspective

Friday 21 March 2003

The city of Baghdad, founded in 762 A.D. under the name Madinat as-Salam – `City of Peace` – is this day a lake of fire. The opening stage of the Bush administration`s "Shock and Awe" attack plan began as night fell on Iraq, and lived terribly up to its terrible name. CBS news is reporting that great swaths of residential neighborhoods within Baghdad have been engulfed in flames. One can trust, perhaps, the ability of a cruise missile to hit a bullseye from many miles away. One cannot be so precise in predicting which way the resulting fires will blow.

In the great earthquake in San Francisco in 1906, people were not killed so much by the shaking. They were killed by the firestorm that sucked the air from their lungs and reduced them to ash before they could flee. So it seems to be today in Baghdad.

Baghdad is a city of 5 million people, half of whom are under the age of fifteen, most of whom are too poor to flee. Now, a great many of those people are dead, burned in their homes and on their streets.

The American television media provided all of us with a Dresden-eye view of the attack. Huge mushroom clouds bloomed from the streets as buildings blazed and fell. The thunder of the explosions was so loud that television speakers became distorted with the sound of the concussion. The sky lit up as though the sun was rising. It was a fitting image, for a new day in world history has dawned.

Much has been made of the precision of our vaunted arsenal of bombs and missiles, as if they can go into a building and find the second door on the left before they explode. The truth is far more dire. When a B-2 bomber drops a 2,000 lb. JDAM munition, everyone and everything within a 120 meter radius is instantly killed. Anyone within a 365 meter radius risks severe shrapnel wounds. To be totally safe, one must be 1,000 meters away from the epicenter of the explosion. Imagine how many homes can fit into 1,000 meters, and never mind the firestorm.

American Marines have died securing petroleum facilities, and in a helicopter crash. If Iraqi forces do not surrender soon, American forces will attack Baghdad from the ground. The loss of life among our people will grow exponentially if a Stalingrad-style fight unfolds in Baghdad and Tikrit. On Tom Brokaw`s CBS News broadcast, the father of one of the soldiers killed in the helicopter crash held a picture of his son to the camera and shouted, "Take a look, Bush. You killed my only son."

Those who stand against this attack are dunned as "Not supporting the troops." One might suggest the best way to support troops is to see them brought home safely. One might also suggest that support continues after the shooting stops. This does not appear to be on the agenda for the Republican Party. A vote along party lines today in the House Budget Committee slashed $9.7 billion from veterans disability compensation programs, as well as from other programs. These cuts, pushed through the committee by the majority-holding Republicans, are part of the plan to see Bush`s new $1.57 trillion tax cut through. Wave that flag, George.

Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, when asked by a reporter whether the Iraqi people would cheer Americans after this attack, stated that Baghdad`s civilians would welcome us. This defies known history in Japan and Germany and Vietnam; those populations, after absorbing saturation bombing, hardened their resistance. American television purported to show Iraqi civilians cheering a soldier who tore down a picture of Hussein, but a Sky News reporter walking Baghdad`s streets reported that, to a man, everyone he spoke with spat hatred and derision for this American attack.

On September 11th, I sat in numb horror as the images of carnage unfolded before me on the television. On that day, I was the victim of terrorism, along with every other American. Today, I sit in numbed horror as more carnage unfolds. Hundreds of massive missiles have rained down on a city far away, killing indiscriminately among the young, the infirm, the old and the innocent. My government did this. My nation did this. My leaders did this. Today, I am the terrorist.

So are you.

There is no justification for this attack. Saddam Hussein and his forces had been effectively disarmed by the first Gulf War, by the UNSCOM inspections, and by the more recent UNMOVIC inspections. According to Hussein Kamel, son-in-law to Saddam Hussein whose comments to the UN in 1991 were recently reported in a buried Newsweek story, Iraq was pretty much disarmed of mass destruction weapons even before the first war. The Bush administration, in pushing for this war, has foisted lie after lie after lie upon the American people and the world. The world didn`t buy it, but they weren`t dependent upon lapdog media sources like ours for their data.

We are the terrorists now, stupid underinformed terrorists who dance to the tune of a corporate media machine that will profit wildly from this attack. NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are owned by General Electric, one of the largest defense contractors on earth. They will be paid handsomely in military contracts because of this, as they always have been. Yet GE gives us the news we need to understand what is happening.

Americans are not often afforded the opportunity to witness a war crime live on television. Today`s actions bring to mind a war crime from a generation ago: The shooting of a prisoner by Vietnamese General and American ally Nguyen Ngoc Loan. General Loan put a pistol to the head of this bound prisoner and blew his brains into the street, an image that millions of Americans saw after it had taken place. We are here again today. The poverty of the Iraqi people leaves them bound, unable to escape the wave of steel. We have blown their brains out. We have incinerated them in place. We will continue to do so, and you can watch it from your couch. Today, you are the terrorist.

So am I.



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


William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times bestselling author of two books - "War On Iraq" (with Scott Ritter) available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available in May 2003 from Pluto Press. He teaches high school in Boston, MA.

Scott Lowery contributed research to this report.

[Joerver]

Murdock hat gewonnen

Fox News Channel overtakes CNN in ratings for war story

Friday, March 21, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/20…


(03-21) 15:59 PST NEW YORK (AP) --

Fox News Channel scored a key ratings victory over its chief rival, CNN, during the first full day of war coverage, Nielsen Media Research said Friday.

Fox averaged 4.1 million viewers for the full day Thursday, CNN had 3.7 million and MSNBC had 1.6 million, Nielsen said.

Industry observers are closely watching the two lead cable networks to see if first-place Fox`s ratings lead hold up during a major story. So far, it has.

For many viewers, CNN made its reputation during the first Gulf War.

Nielsen also released estimates of viewership on Wednesday night, when the war began.

It was a clear victory for NBC, which was first among broadcasters reporting the airstrikes, drawing 18.2 million people between 9:30 p.m. and 11 p.m. EST. CBS was second with 13.2 million.

ABC, criticized because Jennings was a half-hour later than Brokaw and CBS` Dan Rather getting on the air, had 10.9 million viewers, Nielsen said. The Fox network had 7.8 million.

©2003 Associated Press

[Joerver]

Texas` Death Row

Killing The Innocent
Emil Guillermo, Special to SF Gate
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
©2003 SF Gate

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/a/2003/03/…



As George Bush girds himself and the country for war and the inevitable deaths of Iraqis and Americans, we`re likely to get a glimpse this week of where Bush first developed his taste to kill in the public`s name -- Texas` death row.

After restoring the death penalty in 1982, Texas justice has moved along like a buzz saw, and its tally could hit 300 executions by Wednesday.

During Bush`s Texas reign of terror, as governor of that state, he was responsible for sending more than half that number to die -- 152 in six years.

Now, that`s what I call real Hall of Fame blood lust -- justice system as well-oiled killing machine.

But now, Bush has, as they say, bigger fish to fry. So the fate of No. 300 is up to his successor, Gov. Rick Perry.

It`s likely to be Delma Banks, a 44-year-old African-American man convicted in 1980 of murdering a 16-year-old boy near Texarkana.

Too bad Banks might be innocent.

The Father Of Wrongful Convictions

If you don`t believe there are innocent people on our death rows, you need to talk to Rob Warden.

He`s the former investigative journalist with a name that goes with the criminal-justice system, only he doesn`t lock people up. He sets them free. He`s the guy behind the Center on Wrongful Convictions at the Northwestern School of Law in Chicago.

Warden estimates the judicial system`s error rate on death row in his home state of Illinois at 5.6 percent. That`s a scary margin of error for something so absolute as the death penalty. Worse even than a Florida exit poll.

That figure means that for every 20 folks on death row, there`s one person who`s innocent and has his or her case reversed.

"And that`s in Illinois, which has the best public-defender system in the country," Warden told me last week before a speaking engagement at St. Mary`s College in Moraga. Warden says that if comparable pro bono efforts were made in states such as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida and Texas, error rates there would be revealed to be higher than they appear.

That`s the problem with the death penalty. It`s final. You can`t say, "Oops." You can`t make a boo-boo and then just quickly correct it. Not after you`ve put an innocent man to death.

Five years ago, when Warden started his center, no one really paid attention to him or his colleague, David Protess, not even when their work set some people free.

Proving people on death row were innocent sounded more noble than anything else. But then came DNA.

"It has left no doubt that people are actually innocent," Warden said. "If the DNA doesn`t match, then that`s end of story."

Warden said DNA can powerfully debunk the junk science often introduced in cases. Yet, while DNA may trump all, it isn`t relevant in most cases, or it can`t be found.

"Most DNA evidence ends up being destroyed," he told me. "It figures in about 15 percent of the cases."

So, what are the leading causes of wrongful convictions?

"False confessions," Warden said. "People talk, and something matches what police think happened. Or the confession doesn`t match the actual facts of the case. But police and prosecutors just plow ahead."

Don`t think it happens only on the TV cop shows.

Warden has suggested audiotaping and videotaping confessions in order to counter coercive police-interrogation techniques.

The other common factor in wrongful convictions is false eyewitness testimony. In other words, plain old lying.

Warden said police or prosecutors often offer incentives to jailhouse snitches or people on the outside to talk. The consideration could be time off, or even cash.

"It`s something of value," said Warden. "If we made that kind of offer, it would be called a bribe."

But Warden added that the technique is used often to get damning testimony from people who take the stand and place a defendant at or in the proximity of a crime scene, even though they never saw the accused there.

The Delma Banks case appears to be a classic example. An Austin American Statesman report said no physical evidence had been collected against Banks. What convicted him were the statements of two witnesses. Investigators tracked them down later, however, and both witnesses recanted their testimony. One witness in California, Robert Farr, signed an affidavit claiming police paid him to lie during the trial.

Farr has since died of cancer.

Banks may die at the hands of the state this week.

Clearing The Decks

Having the evidence to carry out an execution is one thing. Politics is another story. Politicians like to ride the death penalty to victory.

But that`s not always the case. All Warden needs to do is mention former Illinois Gov. George Ryan.

In January of this year, before he left office, Ryan -- a Republican -- granted blanket commutations to 156 Illinois death-row inmates. Commutation means Ryan was convinced of their innocence that he reduced their sentences to life without possibility of parole. He even pardoned a number of them. It was the kind of move that could make your mouth drop.

Warden, along with other activists in death-penalty reform, was in the forefront. "We had to win [Ryan`s] heart," Warden told the media at the time.

They did.

Warden said Ryan was especially touched when one convict, Andrew Porter, came within 48 hours of execution before a flaw in his case saved his life.

"George Ryan knew he would have signed off on the execution," said Warden. "And then he knew [the death penalty] wasn`t about politics. It was about killing people. And that was a profound thing."

Of course, Ryan`s career was already in the toilet amid a huge public scandal. He had nothing to lose. Perhaps it was his penance for the corruption that sank his administration.

If Ryan could be so magnanimous as his career was fading, maybe there`s hope for Gray Davis. To save others` lives, if not his own.

Could Gov. Davis Do A Gov. Ryan?

The latest poll numbers show Davis` job-approval rating at its lowest ever -- 27 percent.

In the past, Davis has used the death penalty as any other politician would: to keep his tough-on-crime image strong and bolster his political standing.

Executions have certainly given him a goose in the past. Though he`s not in Bush`s league, Davis does have more than 600 people on death row. And since the death penalty was restored in California, six of the 11 put to death have come on Davis` watch.

But Davis doesn`t look like he`s ready to pull a Ryan yet.

Last month, he looked like he was campaigning for a new facility at San Quentin, opening up the crowded death-row facilities to television cameras in order to lobby the public.

The place is so old, so antiquated, so downright Victorian. Ergo, shouldn`t we build a new $220 million, state-of-the-art killing palace? Especially now, when the state, facing a multibillion-dollar shortfall, is cutting education spending?

I don`t think he gets it yet.

Maybe like Ryan, Davis just needs a case that speaks to his soul. Or to whatever`s left of it.

There is no shortage of cases in California.

"I have no doubt in my mind that there are innocent people on death rows all over this country," Warden told me without reservation. "An amazing number of them."

Emil Guillermo is a radio and TV commentator and the author of "Amok: Essays From an Asian American Perspective," winner of an American Book Award. E-mail: [e-mail]

©2003 SF Gate

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Shock and Awe: Guernica Revisited
Gar Smith, AlterNet
January 27, 2003
Viewed on March 22, 2003

Forget Osama. Forget Saddam. The Pentagon`s newest target is the city of Baghdad.


U.S. military strategists have announced a plan to pummel Iraq with as many as 800 cruise missiles in the space of two days. Many of these missiles would rain down on Baghdad, a city of five million people. If George W. Bush gets the war he wants, Baghdad could become the 21st century`s Guernica.


On April 26, 1937, 25 Nazi bombers dropped 100,000 pounds of bombs and incendiaries on the peaceful Basque village. Seventy percent of the town was destroyed and 1,500 people, a third of the population, were killed.


The Pentagon now predicts that the Iraq blitzkrieg could approximate the devastation of a nuclear explosion. "The sheer size of this has never been ... contemplated before," one Pentagon strategist boasted to CBS News. "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad."


The Pentagon dubbed its cold-blooded attack plan "Shock and Awe," a bizarre conjunction of trauma and admiration.


The concept of Shock and Awe was first developed by the Pentagon`s National Defense University (NDU) in 1996 as part of the "Rapid Dominance" strategy. The strategy was first used in Afghanistan. In their 1996 NDU book, "Shock and Awe," authors Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade wrote of the need to mount an assault with "sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will."


With an unsettling air of appreciation, Ullman and Wade invoked the haunting images from "old photographs and movie or television screens [depicting] the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I. Those images and expressions of shock transcend race, culture and history."


Shock and awe also were the emotions that Americans experienced on Sept. 11, 2001. Now, like the 9/11 terrorists, Bush and Co. are planning a similar act of almost unparalleled ferocity -- a devastating premeditated attack on a civilian urban population.


Bush seems determined to follow in the footsteps of Hulagu Khan and Tamerlane, the Mongol warlords who laid bloody waste to Baghdad in 1258 and 1401.


But destroying Baghdad will not uncover hidden chemical, biological or nuclear weapons (if, in fact, any exist). Destroying Baghdad will not capture, topple or kill Saddam Hussein. Shock and Awe`s expressed goal is simple: in the words of Harlan Ullman, to destroy the Iraqi people "physically, emotionally and psychologically."


Ironically, this was also the goal of the Nazi strategists who destroyed Guernica. The town had no strategic value as a military target, but, like Baghdad, it was a cultural and religious center. Guernica was devastated to terrorize the population and break the spirit of the Basque resistance.


Surely cruise missiles have been programmed to demolish the Baath Party Headquarters, presidential palaces and Republican Guard compounds. But have missiles also been preset to obliterate the al-Qadiriya Shrine, the Tomb of Imam al-A`dham and the Mosque of Sheik Abdul Qadir al-Ghailani?


We now know that there was no military need to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaski. The detonations were intended to demonstrate to the world -- and to the Soviet Union, especially -- that the U.S. had a functioning superweapon. Having sole possession of "The Bomb" gave Washington the power to dominate post-war world politics.


Similarly, the destruction of Baghdad seems designed to underscore Bush`s belligerent warning to the rest of the world: "You`re either with us or you`re against us."


Washington`s new National Security Strategy describes an America dominating the world militarily, politically and economically.


In a report published a month before the U.S. presidential elections, the conservative Project for the New American Century insisted on instituting a "global U.S. pre-eminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests."


This ringing endorsement of hyper-imperialism was co-authored by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby and Jeb Bush, none of whom (with the one exception of Rumsfeld) ever volunteered for military service.


Today, thousands of citizen volunteers from around the world are converging in Iraq to stand as nonviolent "human shields" in hopes of forestalling a U.S. assault. The brave men and women in this international "Peace Army" include anti-war activists, religious witnesses, retirees, U.S. military veterans and members of families who lost loved ones in the September 11 attack.


Mr. Bush repeatedly complains that Saddam Hussein deserves to be removed from office because "he killed his own people." If Mr. Bush fails to promptly courtmartial the officials who came up with the Shock and Awe atrocity, he may soon find himself standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Mr. Hussein and facing history`s judgment as another ruthless leader who "killed his own people" in a mad bid for power.


Gar Smith, former editor of the Earth Island Journal, now produces The-Edge, a weekly online environmental newsmagazine.




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

© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

« Go Back

[Joerver]

business as usual

Despite pressures of wartime presidency, Bush`s routine changes little
JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
Saturday, March 22, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/0…


(03-22) 09:44 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

War has brought little change to the regulated, by-the-numbers life of President Bush.

He is not worried or plagued by doubts, aides say, and is hewing closely to his usual routines and habits even as American bombs pelt Baghdad and allied tanks dash across the Iraqi desert.

"The president is following his normal routine," Bush`s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said before the president left to spend the weekend, as he has often throughout his term, at the secluded Camp David presidential retreat in the silence of Maryland`s Catoctin Mountains.

He has been working out almost every day, and a longtime Bush aide said he also seems to be sleeping well, is sticking to his diet and even giving up desserts as he tries to shave seconds off his running time.

Aides portray a war leader who prefers to make big decisions, then let them be implemented by the experts with little meddling from the commander in chief.

Since the air war`s opening runs Wednesday night, Bush has been formally briefed on military operations several times a day and informed of crucial developments as they occur. But he doesn`t seek out details in the Situation Room and, never a big TV watcher, isn`t following television news accounts closely as the dramatic events unfold.

Through the incessant tension, Bush apparently has not lost his sense of humor. He was overheard laughing heartily during a meeting with his Cabinet. And although White House aides were angry that a live feed was broadcast abroad of Bush being coifed and made up before his Wednesday night speech to the nation, the president himself joked later about whether he had looked OK, the official said.

One element of the presidential routine has changed slightly: White House chief of staff Andrew Card is said to be guarding the president`s time even more jealously from those who don`t absolutely need to see him.

The president has been less visible. He has addressed the American people twice and had a few photo opportunities with congressional leaders, his Cabinet and others, but he has taken no questions from reporters since his joint news conference in the Azores last Sunday with Prime Ministers Tony Blair of Britain, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Jose Durao Barroso of Portugal.

He also has been even more housebound than usual. Aside from last weekend`s one-day sprint to the Azores for his summit with Blair and Aznar, his two main allies in the war, and a few weekends at Camp David, Bush hasn`t been outside Washington since a Feb. 20-23 trip took him through Atlanta on the way to a weekend stay at his Texas ranch.

In Washington, Bush is mostly a stay-at-home president, never leaving the White House much. In the last five weeks, he has left the executive mansion`s protective gates only to give speeches at the American Enterprise Institute and before the American Medical Association and for social forays to a Ford`s Theater gala, supper at a top aide`s home and the annual Gridiron Club dinner.

Daily since the start of the assault in Iraq, reporters have asked about Bush`s wartime mood, schedule and activities.

"The president`s state of mind is very much focused on the missions and the country," Fleischer said Wednesday night, shortly after Bush had ordered the first airstrikes. "He`s comfortable with this."

Asked if the responsibility of war, particularly the likelihood that innocent Iraqis will die, weighs on him, Fleischer said: "There`s no question about that."

But, he added, the president believes the blame for that suffering will fall on Saddam Hussein, Iraq`s president, for putting "innocents in a place where their lives will be lost."

Bush, Fleischer said, also is determined he is taking the right path, despite the near-constant presence of protesters in front of his house and around the world, in large part because he believes it will prevent the deaths of American innocents like those lost on Sept. 11, 2001.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Net: White House: www.whitehouse.gov/
©2003 Associated Press

[Joerver]

All That Jazz
Movies reflect reality better than Bush`s war on terrorism
Marcia Pally
Sunday, March 16, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archiv…


Watching Catherine Zeta-Jones wind her thighs `round the back of a chair in the opening dance number of "Chicago," I thought of George W. Bush`s national security strategy; how far the invention of one is from the invention of the other. Released in Sept., 2002, the security strategy announced Bush`s intent to use pre-emptive military action against countries he perceives to be hostile and to stop nations from challenging U.S. military supremacy.

I liked "Chicago" on Broadway, and liked it better on film, where Rob Marshall adapts the leggy choreography (by Bob Fosse) to the screen and knows where to put the camera to catch it. I liked the film because its ideas are clearer -- oh yes, the musical with more garter belts than "Cabaret" has ideas.

Watching Eminem shuffle nervously back and forth in "8 Mile," revving himself up to grunt his nasty poems, I tried -- and failed -- to make one picture of his America and that of the Bush-Ashcroft-Rumsfeld axis-of-praxis --

their detention since Sept. 11 of non-nationals and U.S. citizens without providing access to lawyers or notification to families, a practice ruled constitutional on Jan. 8, 2003.

I thought of the increased powers of the FBI and CIA and new powers of the Homeland Security Department aided by the Orwellian-sounding Total Information Awareness computer system which, linking medical, financial and commercial databases, can tell intelligence agencies and the cops when you last ordered from Amazon.com or had your colon checked -- information it may now retrieve without a court warrant or evidence, like Santa has, of whether you`ve been bad.

Eminem got rid of the misogyny and homophobia for the big screen and left his sex-and-race charged rhymes. In the film, Eminem and his buddies drive their jalopy across parts of Detroit that rival 1945 Dresden.

I watched Eminem shuffle and Renee Zellweger promise her best pout as she tries to steal the show from Zeta-Jones` glittery kicks, and I thought of the strange mis-identification between the American government and people. We elect it, but it is not us. Any cogent anti-Americanism that looks at the U.S. unilateralism and military build-up will have to look also at this. "Chicago," "8 Mile," Spielberg`s "Catch Me if You Can," and Scorsese`s "Gangs of New York" are us.

The misidentification is the result of the size and diversity of the nation such that no government could possibly represent us all. The government, or parts of Congress, may represent parts of us, but Americans do not identify with it. It is not the source of the myths, plans and scams that scream on the streets.

Whatever you may think of them, "American Beauty" and "Do the Right Thing" are us. Bruce Willis, Charlton Heston and Susan Sarandon are us. "In the Company of Men" and "Pretty Woman" are us. "Apocalypse Now" and "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" are us. "Arlington Road", about the mania of the far-right, and "Bulworth", about the mania at the center are us. "Dumb and Dumber" and "Bowling for Columbine" both are us.

These come from many "us"s that butt against each other, vying for space and a piece of the pie -- the blues singers, bowlers, Rotary Clubs, rappers, soccer moms, Christian Identity and the devotees of telenovellas. The engine on the ground doesn`t come from the top. There are no government subsidies that shelter this clutter, and even when there are -- crop supports, corporate write-offs, and the steel tariffs that so angered the EU last year -- the beneficiaries are as leery of government as were Jesse James and Billy the Kid.

Americans watch the French rely on the government to put quotas on American movies, to shield the products of its people, and we are dumbstruck. Bush shielding Eminem or Zeta-Jones` thighs?

American people will march to the military drum, except when they are isolationist, or far-right anti-government militia, or Mothers Against Drunk Driving who don`t want their boys dead from swerving missiles, or when they are more worried about their retirement portfolios. Or when, after 10-hour days working on insurance auditing, they spend their evening hours at the local peace movement.

The misidentification does not mean that the U.S. government had no part in churning the growth of the country. It did, in land deals, annihilation of the Native Americans, cheap loans, canals, railroads, territorial wars, the public schools, subsidies to industry and agribusiness, and manipulation of interest rates, taxes and tariffs. But perhaps by accident of immigration and the trek West, America pushed out through what Tocqueville called "local independence." The government pulled itself together to build an infrastructure to manage the mess on the ground. More new territory was occupied in the generation after Independence than in the 150 years of the colonial era. By 1800, sale of Western land increased to half a million acres, up from 100,000 just a decade earlier, and by 1820 the trans-Appalachian population had grown to over 2 million, up from one-third of a million.

The American people did not accomplish this without the government, but often they led rather than followed. Americans believe the government did, and they have been as distrustful of it as much as they constitute it.

The Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh is well within American traditions.

Americans -- immigrants or recent immigrants -- have believed they invented it all, and when whatever they had didn`t suit, they re-invented it and moved on, to another chance, another scheme, another kind of music and self.

This essential movement of America, volatile and creative, makes its way around the government, in spite of it, or in disregard. Even American nostalgia for "the good ol` days" is a longing for adventure, frontiers and "rugged individualism," or for new towns with that fresh-paint smell of possibility, and more "personal responsibility," youth working its way up and "boot-strap" business, and the wildcat inventions of the dot-com boom. It is a nostalgia for the new.

Martin Scorsese knew that folks from Poughkeepsie to Laguna del Mar would thrum at the "Gangs of New York" ad line: America was born in the streets! Yes!

We, one scruffy group after the next, scuffed it up by ourselves, and made somethin` outta` the dust.

Germany was born in Bismarck`s battles, a consolidation of the "homelands" that for centuries had been filled with traditions, people and seats of power. Much of the rest of Europe consolidated under the kings` absolute control. Even England, country of constrained kings, was born by an accident of tax law that kept the monarch dependent on Parliament for money and then for everything else.

"Gangs of New York" is as good a case as any of the mind-set on the ground: Get yourself a vision -- and every Pashtun cabbie has one -- and then work, fight, and gamble, gamble, gamble your way into your own invention.

Want to know why America is rich -- and it is rich: average annual income is $42,000 and nearly $75,000 for college grads, making the latter group richer than 95 percent of the planet and richer than 99.9 percent of the people who ever lived. It`s rich because, as David Brooks wrote in The New York Times, " [Americans] perpetually, and not always unrealistically, sense the imminence of great wealth. In the land of abundance, there are all these wonderful spots just over the next hill or with the next spouse, or with the next job opportunity, after the next deck renovation or lottery ticket, where all the dreams come true."

In 2000, 19 percent of Americans told a Time magazine survey that they were in the top 1 percent of earners and another 20 percent expected to reach it. In America, people are, as Brooks wrote, "pre-rich."

"Gangs" is not a good film. The sets, apparently filched from the Cincinnati run of "Turandot," are overlaid with hyper-realist violence until it turns into "Braveheart" with a touch of "Hamlet" angst, line writing from "Buffie: Queen of the Bodice Rippers" and "Pretty Baby" breasts for the cherry on top. But it sprays more myth on the screen than blood.

The Irish came and lived in filth; their children floated paper boats in the butcher`s ooze in the streets. They were beaten to a pulp, bribed their way into city government and became it. Much of the "big" money in New York is still "Irish." About mid-way through "Gangs," a "Negro" taps a dance that looks like a Holy Roller imitating Fred Astaire and the boys at the bar spit tobacco juice. "Take the rhythm of the dark continent," one says, "and the Irish jig, ya` mix it all up and that makes America."

The government didn`t do the mixing. Leon Wynter in "American Skin" writes that the markets and culture -- not government policies -- have been where the 140 languages and traditions here have mixed it up.

On one hand, in the weeks after 9/11, Americans attacked Arabs and Sikhs (mistaking their traditional turban for Islamic garb) in vigilante retaliations.

On the other, America is home to Arabic rap and a new play about four lesbians in an Islamic cafe. If the "mix" is a myth, Americans have nonetheless pushed themselves into being what they think they already are, even as we critique the process.

The critique is another re-invention of the self. Now we are not only scruffy fighters on the frontiers of "pre-rich" and cultural re-mixes, we are self-aware. We are savvy, clearer about the myths that blind us and allow us to improbably succeed -- or to believe, like that hopeful 39 percent, that we will. We sell ourselves on ourselves even as we deconstruct the process in post-structuralist journals and made-for-mall movies, which are now at once myth and exegesis.

In America, exposes have never stopped the business of re-packaging and sales.

"Chicago" is a critique and sister film to "Wag the Dog." In Barry Levinson`s 1997 film, the president`s political fixer recruits a Hollywood director to shoot a non-existent war to distract the public from the president`s less laudable affairs. The director succeeds not because Hollywood specifically can sell anything but because America generally has always been about re-packaging, what you are and what you peddle, for good and evil.

What did the Irish do if not re-package and find themselves a power niche? The rest of the European immigration followed, doing what the Bengalis and Ecuadorans do today. The re-invention that grew the country from the 1803 Louisiana Purchase to Silicon Valley re-packaged snake oil "cures" and junk bonds, the shady scam of the `80s now called "high-yield instruments."

"Chicago" is about selling not a war but justice. Two dames in Prohibition Chicago are on Death Row for killing their fellas and the best lawyer in town is the best because he remakes each gal into the public`s sweetheart, and sells the jury on her innocence. Blooming from vicious killer to wide-eyed maid misled by booze and jazz, a girl does what she`s gotta` do, as they said in "Rocky," another commentary of the engine on the American ground.

The hero of Spielberg`s "Catch Me If You Can" one-ups the stakes by re- inventing himself over and over -- into an airline pilot, doctor, lawyer -- and forging a few billion dollars in checks to support his select lifestyles. Every Gold Rush gambler with a card up his sleeve would have been proud. At the end, the kid gets caught and thrown in the slammer, until he reinvents himself as an FBI agent in the forgery division.

At the end of "Wag the Dog" when the "war" subsides, the director gets a hankering to tell the world about his best "film" and the president`s fixer has to provide him with a heart attack to shut him up. The government has real power. But it is not the power of the gamble on the ground, and this throws a tragi-comic clunk into global anti-Americanism.

Guys in Hamas imitate Robert De Niro and Will Smith, and a Jakartan anti- America demonstrator named Rahmat, vowing to defend his Muslim brothers in Afghanistan after 9/11, asked a Western reporter if he could take him back to America to see Michael Jordan. By the way, "Catch Me If You Can" is based on a true story.

Marcia Pally is the author of two books on censorship and freedom of expression, "Sex & Sensibility: Reflections on Forbidden Mirrors and the Will to Censor" and "Sense & Censorship: The Vanity of Bonfires."

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

Page D - 1

[Joerver]

Wird der Autor Recht bekommen?

Why Colin Powell should quit
William O. Beeman
Sunday, March 16, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archiv…


Colin Powell should resign -- now, with honor.

I was one of the last two people to see President Jimmy Carter`s secretary of state, Cyrus Vance, in his office before he resigned over the Carter administration`s handling of American affairs in the wake of the Iranian revolution in 1978-79. Vance was a man of principle, caught in the gears of an internal ideological struggle in the White House.

It may now be time for Secretary of State Powell to consider resigning for much the same reasons.

My companion and I, both Middle East experts, had been called to consult with Vance concerning the disastrous hostage rescue mission that had grounded American helicopters in the Iranian desert.

Vance had been on holiday when the decision to proceed was made in a meeting of the National Security Council, spearheaded by hawkish Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski. Vance asked our opinion of the mission and how it had affected American-Iranian relations, and we both agreed that it had been an ill-conceived, unmitigated disaster that would set back the release of the hostages for a very long time. In fact, they would remain 444 days in captivity.

Vance lowered his head as we talked, shook it from side to side, and said again and again, "I know! I know!"

News of his resignation reached me an hour or so later. I was sad for Vance,

but proud of his decision to stick by his convictions.

Another resignation that made me proud was that of career diplomat John Brady Kiesling from the U.S. Embassy in Athens, which was recently made public.

His resignation letter is worth quoting:

"The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America`s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."

Kiesling later asks: "Has oderint dum metuant really become our motto?"

This phrase, now quoted regularly among the most militant denizens in the White House, means, "Let them hate us so long as they fear us." It was written by Lucius Accius, the Roman poet (170 B.C.), and was said to be a favorite phrase of the emperor Caligula.

It is no secret that Powell is at odds with the group that Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and others have called the ideologues in the White House. These consist of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John R. Bolton. Bolton was reportedly forced on Powell against his will.

Espousing a pragmatic view favoring diplomacy over violence are Powell and the uniformed military, consisting of the generals and field commanders.

Powell, a military man himself who never supported "regime change" in the first Persian Gulf War, finds himself in a bureaucratic hammerlock.

His supporters are all under the command of people with whom he appears to have serious disagreements. At the same time, the hawkish Bolton sits in Powell`s office undermining his philosophy.

Ever the good soldier, Powell was compelled to squander his reputation for honesty and forthright dealing in a presentation before the United Nations fraught with questionable information and half-formulated conclusions.

His credibility was used to serve people with whom he has a basic disagreement. The joy with which his speech was greeted by militants in the White House and right-wing Republicans had as much to do with his perceived conversion to their side as it did with the content of the speech.

Having done the bidding of the White House warriors, Powell was then sidelined. He was sent to East Asia, and the public did not hear from him for several days.

He emerged on March 5 to complain in a speech at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Strategic and International Studies that the Iraqi government moves to disarm were "too-little-too-late gestures."

However, he showed that he was still not committed to war, saying, "If Iraq complies and disarms even at this late hour it is possible to avoid war."

I fear that Powell has been used as badly as Cyrus Vance was used by Brzezinski. Kiesling, the career diplomat in the Athens embassy, has shown his boss the way. It`s time for Powell to show his true mettle and leave the fray while his honor is still relatively intact.

William O. Beeman teaches anthropology at Brown University. This piece was distributed by Pacific News Service.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Bin Laden`s victory

A political system that delivers this disastrous mistake needs reform

Richard Dawkins
Saturday March 22, 2003
The Guardian

Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this. A mere 18 months after he boosted the US to a peak of worldwide sympathy unprecedented since Pearl Harbor, that international goodwill has been squandered to near zero. Bin Laden must be beside himself with glee. And the infidels are now walking right into the Iraq trap.
There was always a risk for Bin Laden that worldwide sympathy for the US might thwart his long-term aim of holy war against the Great Satan. He needn`t have worried. With the Bush junta at the helm, a camel could have foreseen the outcome. And the beauty is that it doesn`t matter what happens in the war.

Imagine how it looks from Bin Laden`s warped point of view...

If the American victory is swift, Bush will have done our work for us, removing the hated Saddam and opening the way for a decent Islamist government. Even better, in 2004 Bush may actually win an election. Who can guess what that swaggering, strutting little pouter-pigeon will then get up to, and what resentments he will arouse, when he finally has something to swagger about? We shall have so many martyrs volunteering, we shall run out of targets. And a slow and bloody American victory would be better still.

The claim that this war is about weapons of mass destruction is either dishonest or betrays a lack of foresight verging on negligence. If war is so vitally necessary now, was it not at least worth mentioning in the election campaigns of 2000 and 2001? Why didn`t Bush and Blair mention the war to their respective electorates? The only major leader who has an electoral mandate for his war policy is Gerhard Schröder - and he is against it. Why did Bush, with Blair trotting faithfully to heel, suddenly start threatening to invade Iraq when he did, and not before? The answer is embarrassingly simple, and they don`t even seem ashamed of it. Illogical, even childish, though it is, everything changed on September 11 2001.

Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam`s savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let`s go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We`re gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet.

Bush seems sincerely to see the world as a battleground between Good and Evil, St Michael`s angels against the forces of Lucifer. We`re gonna smoke out the Amalekites, send a posse after the Midianites, smite them all and let God deal with their souls. Minds doped up on this kind of cod theology have a hard time distinguishing between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Some of Bush`s faithful supporters even welcome war as the necessary prelude to the final showdown between Good and Evil: Armageddon followed by the Rapture. We must presume, or at least hope, that Bush himself is not quite of that bonkers persuasion. But he really does seem to believe he is wrestling, on God`s behalf, against some sort of spirit of Evil. Tony Blair is, of course, far more intelligent and able than Bush. But his unshakable conviction that he is right and almost everybody else wrong does have a certain theological feel. He was indignant at Paxman`s wickedly funny suggestion that he and Dubya pray together, but does he also believe in Evil?

Like sin and like terror (Bush`s favourite target before the Iraq distraction) Evil is not an entity, not a spirit, not a force to be opposed and subdued. Evil is a miscellaneous collection of nasty things that nasty people do. There are nasty people in every country, stupid people, insane people, people who should never be allowed to get anywhere near power. Just killing nasty people doesn`t help: they will be replaced. We must try to tailor our institutions, our constitutions, our electoral systems, so as to minimise the chance that such people will rise to the top. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we in the west must bear some guilt. The US, Britain and France have all, from time to time, done our bit to shore up Saddam, and even arm him. And we democracies might look to our own vaunted institutions. Are they well designed to ensure that we don`t make disastrous mistakes when we choose our own leaders? Isn`t it, indeed, just such a mistake that has led us to this terrible pass?

The population of the US is nearly 300 million, including many of the best educated, most talented, most resourceful, humane people on earth. By almost any measure of civilised attainment, from Nobel prize-counts on down, the US leads the world by miles. You would think that a country with such resources, and such a field of talent, would be able to elect a leader of the highest quality. Yet, what has happened? At the end of all the primaries and party caucuses, the speeches and the televised debates, after a year or more of non-stop electioneering bustle, who, out of that entire population of 300 million, emerges at the top of the heap? George Bush.

My American friends, you know I love your country, how have we come to this? Yes, yes, Bush isn`t quite as stupid as he sounds, and heaven knows he can`t be as stupid as he looks. I know most of you didn`t vote for him anyway, but that is my point. Forgive my presumption, but could it just be that there is something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours? Of course this particular election was unusual in being a dead heat. Elections don`t usually need a tie-breaker, something equivalent to the toss of a coin. Al Gore`s majority in the country, reinforcing his majority in the electoral college but for dead-heated Florida, would have led a just and unbiased supreme court to award him the tie-breaker. So yes, Bush came to power by a kind of coup d`état. But it was a constitutional coup d`état. The system has been asking for trouble for years.

Is it really a good idea that a single person`s vote, buried deep within the margin of error for a whole state, can by itself swing a full 25 votes in the electoral college, one way or the other? And is it really sensible that money should translate itself so directly and proportionately into electoral success, so that a winning candidate must either be very rich or prepared to sell favours to those who are?

When a company seeks a new chief executive officer, or a university a new vice-chancellor, enormous trouble is taken to find the best person. Professional headhunting firms are engaged, written references are taken up, exhaustive rounds of interviews are conducted, psychological aptitude tests are administered, confidential positive vetting undertaken. Mistakes are still made, but it is not for want of strenuous efforts to avoid them. Maybe such methods would be undemocratic for choosing the most powerful person on earth, but just think about it. Would you do business with a company that devoted an entire year to little else than the process of choosing its new CEO, from the strongest field in the world, and ended up with Bush?

Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden.

· Richard Dawkins FRS is the Charles Simonyi Professor at Oxford University. His latest book is A Devil`s Chaplain (Weidenfeld & Nicholson).

[e-mail]

[Joerver]

Blood for Oil
The Exchange Rate
By BEN TRIPPP

(A protest speech for March 20, 2003, in Los Angeles.)

I cannot condone the use of violence of any kind for any reason, unless somebody really fucks with me, for example by making an abrupt lane change in front of my motherfucking car, asshole. So even as we go marching into a sovereign country ­just in case, you never know- with our entire military might, a war machine such as this world has never seen before, I must warn my fellow protestors: don`t use violence to fight violence. That`s like throwing gasoline on a fire, and we all know gasoline is worth more than blood. Actually that`s not true. Blood plasma costs $26 per IU, which is 450 milliliters, or just under a pint, or in layman`s terms waaay more blood than you`ve ever seen come out of somebody`s neck. Gasoline is worth a little more than two bucks per gallon at the moment. A gallon contains 3,785 milliliters as any goddamn fool knows, so you can see why I`m bringing a couple quarts of unleaded premium with me to the hospital when it`s surgery time. It stings like bejeezus, but I`ll sure save a lot of dough.

So blood is worth more than gasoline. Of course the price of crude oil is plummeting at the moment, wandering in the region of $31.00 per barrel (44 gallons each, or a shitload of milliliters) so blood is worth exponentially more than crude oil, which is what this war is mostly about. If you could fill your car`s tank with crude oil instead of refined gasoline, you would save yourself at least $1.44 a gallon. But if you fill same tank with actual medical-grade blood plasma, it would set you back a solid $208.00 per gallon. So fuck it, no blood for oil, right? It doesn`t make economic sense. As I wrote this, around three dozen people in the combat zone were definitely dead- about half of them ours and half of them theirs. Your average adult human at full capacity holds around 8 pints of blood ­that`s 4.5 liters for you metric freaks, but the pint will never die as long as there`s beer in a glass somewhere in this Godless world-so each of those humans (all of whom by some startling twist happen to be adults, but this record won`t last under the circumstances) is worth an impressive $208.00 in blood alone. So that`s $7,488.00 worth of blood spilled so far, and by the time I read this that number will have skyrocketed along a Bell Curve the shape of the Grim Reaper`s scythe.

So here we are at war for oil, and it`s a pretty unpopular idea, so we`re getting all disobedient and such here on the home front. The loyal opposition in Washington folded its hands in chaste obedience at the first shot like Bush crossed a magic safety line when he started the war and now he can say "fuck you" to the Democrats and they can`t do anything about it but humbly pass whatever evil domestic policies he`s cooking up, all in the name of supporting those poor bastards who are over there in desert camouflage fighting for the pump. That leaves the American people to do something about it. And without our elected representatives to defy the unelected ones, we must take to the streets. I fully support the notion of civil disobedience. I fully support shutting down every goddamn downtown area in this country, forming a human chain down the main street of this whole country until this war is over. Anybody who doesn`t like it should probably be over there fighting. Or maybe he should examine the black smudge under his armpit where his soul ought to be.

So don`t be obedient citizens. The Founding Fathers weren`t. Martin Luther King wasn`t. Jesus H. Christ was so disobedient they nailed his ass to the tree, and look where it got him- even George W. Bush believes in him now. Back in Jesus` day they didn`t have tear gas and nylon handcuffs and pepper spray. But they have these things now. Back in Jesus` day they didn`t have bulldozers. They have them now. So be careful out there. Shut this country down, if you think that will make the difference. I do, but it would be seditious of me to say so. So instead of recommending that you all get out there and spend the rest of your days until this thing is over making sure there`s no such thing as business as usual in America, let me just say this: whatever you feel moved to do, be safe. Because your blood is worth a hell of a lot more than oil, any day of the week.

Ben Tripp is a screenwriter, satirist and cartoonist. He can be reached at: credel@earthlink

Mehr unter:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
War Talk at Darrell`s Barbershop


By Colbert I. King

Saturday, March 22, 2003; Page A17


The mood inside Darrell`s barbershop pretty much matched the feeling of residents in the surrounding inner-city neighborhood. Unlike opinion polls showing strong nationwide support for the war, people in and around Darrell`s weren`t too big on the idea of invading Iraq. But they were on the same page with the rest of the country when it came to Saddam Hussein.

Barbers and customers at Darrell`s agreed that the Iraqi dictator was a tyrant and a chump who deserved to get his butt kicked.

"I don`t know why Iraqi TV is complaining about that decapitation strike launched against Saddam [Hussein] on Wednesday night," said Fishbone, who was seated in Darrell`s chair getting a mustache trim. "It`s not as if Saddam Hussein didn`t know what was coming."

"Look at it this way," he said with a hint of exasperation in his voice. "You try to kill the man`s daddy. Then the man, who just so happens to be the president of the United States and a macho man from Texas, gives you 48 hours to get out of the country. Now, that strikes me as a fair warning. The way I figure it, `fair warning` is fair play."

Jerome, known for his trash talking, broke in. "Look, man. If a dude named George W. Bush surrounded me with troops from the 101st Airborne Division, the 3rd Infantry Division, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 1st Armored Division, the 24th and 7th Infantry Divisions, 60,000 Marines, five carrier battle groups in the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf, and at least 1,000 combat-ready fighter jets and bombers, and then went on television and announced to the world that I had two days to clear the area, I`d fire back this message by the fastest means available: `G.W., I`m already gone! Forward my mail to Bali.` "

The shop erupted in laughter.

Darrell broke in, trying to offer a reason why Saddam Hussein might have stayed around rather than move out smartly with his fingers extended and joined. "Saddam knows his country and how to get in and out of tight spots," he said. "He`s been doing it for years."

"Yeah," injected Fatmouth, who was itching to have his say. "But this time, Saddam`s fastest move may have been too slow." The shop cracked up again.

Bobby T., a barber and Vietnam veteran, had strong misgivings about war with Iraq. But he wore his Army fatigues and campaign hat to work that morning. Bobby T. made no effort to disguise his lack of respect for the Iraqi army.

He stopped clipping Lloyd the Ladies` Man`s hair and threw out the question: "Have you heard about the new Iraqi army exercise program?"

Darrell replied, "No. What is it?"

"Each morning," Bobby T. said, "you raise your hands above your head and leave them there."

"That`s pretty good," interjected Fast Frankie from his seat near the front door, "but check this out. How do you play Iraqi bingo?"

"The answer: B-1, F-16, B-52."

But if Bobby T. didn`t think much of the Iraqi military, he had almost as much disdain for the experts in Washington -- think-tank experts who, along with Bush administration officials and certain Clinton Democrats in exile, have decided that the United States not only must take out Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction but also should bear the burden of rebuilding the Iraqi economy and a new Iraqi political system.

"Those elitists know all about a world miles away but couldn`t care less about people here at home," Bobby T. snorted.

Then he repeated a joke told by Jay Leno: "Bush said if Iraq gets rid of Saddam Hussein, he will help the Iraqi people with food, medicine, housing, education -- anything that`s needed. Isn`t that amazing? He finally comes up with a domestic agenda -- and it`s for Iraq. Maybe he could bring that here if it works out."

While most in the shop chuckled, Mr. Jackson, the Washington old-timer and neighborhood historian, and probably the most well-read man in the community, didn`t find the Leno joke amusing. Mr. Jackson had been standing at the window gazing at the dilapidated school and public housing project across the street. When he turned around, there were tears in his eyes.

"When this war is over," Mr. Jackson said, "we are going to patrol and protect large Iraqi cities, keeping the citizens safe. . . . We`ve already picked out U.S. construction giants to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to build roads and bridges and schools and hospitals," he said. "I even read where we have plans to print textbooks and pay and train Iraqi teachers.

"We`re going to guide them to a democratic form of government where the rights of people are recognized and guaranteed, where people have a voice and vote in their government," Mr. Jackson said.

"And who gets to pay for it?" he asked. "We do," he thundered. "We, the people of Washington, D.C., who have no vote in Congress, no voice in the Senate and no say in whether or not we go to war, are going to help bear the cost of rebuilding Iraq and giving the people of Baghdad more rights than we enjoy in the nation`s capital. And we`re going to do all that even as we in this city -- because of budget shortfalls -- close libraries and recreation centers, shortchange schools and struggle to keep a hospital open."

You could hear a pin drop.

"I read somewhere," Mr. Jackson said, "that the reconstruction of Iraq will require billions of dollars over several years. Estimates ranged from 50 to 150 billion dollars.

"If you trust a table produced by a group calling itself the National Priorities Project, based on our portion of individual income taxes, the District of Columbia`s share of the cost of a $100 billion war and rehabilitation of Iraq comes to $225 million," he said. "Why, that`s more than Montana, North and South Dakota, Vermont or Wyoming individually contribute in taxes to the U.S. Treasury," Mr. Jackson said.

At that moment a hand shot up at the rear of the shop. It belonged to L. Rodney Bull, a local entrepreneur and consultant.

"Mr. Jackson, did I hear you say the Bush administration is about to award contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to begin remaking Iraq? Do you know if they have a minority set-aside program?"

A tear rolled down Mr. Jackson`s face.

e-mail: [e-mail]



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

March 22, 2003
Support for Bush Surges at Home, but Split Remains, Poll Shows
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER


merican support for President Bush`s policy in Iraq has surged now that the war has begun, but there are deep partisan divisions in the nation`s view of the conflict, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

The poll found that 70 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush`s handling of Iraq, an increase of 19 points in 10 days. The percentage of people who disapproved of Mr. Bush`s Iraqi policy dropped 15 points, to 27 percent, during that same period.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted on Thursday evening, one day after allied forces made their first attack on Baghdad. It was completed before yesterday`s prolonged and televised aerial bombardment of the Iraqi capital.

The increase in support for Mr. Bush`s war policies is in keeping with the rallying around a White House that typically occurs at the onset of a national crisis.

But in this case, the sentiment is tempered by a striking difference in opinion between Democrats and Republicans about both the president and the war he began on Wednesday night.

While 93 percent of Republicans said they approved of Mr. Bush`s handling of Iraq, just 50 percent of Democrats did. By contrast, President George Bush enjoyed overwhelming support, from Democrats and Republicans alike, for his Iraq policy at an equivalent point in the 1991 conflict: 94 percent of Republicans and 81 percent of Democrats said they supported that war, in which an allied coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait after Saddam Hussein`s forces invaded that country.

"We`ve taken it upon ourselves to become invaders," Barb Scripps, 49, a Democrat from Evergreen, Colo., said in a follow-up interview. "Sept. 11 happened and the world looked at us and could feel empathy for us, and now they`re just going to say, `You had it coming for what you did.` "

In contrast, Anne Alexander, 27, a Republican of Rushville, N.Y., said: "It`s quite obvious they have weapons of mass destruction. If we would have kept putting it off, we would have done a Clinton, and it would have been 10 more years before we actually invaded, and by that time we would have ended in more trouble than we needed to be."

Despite the surge in support for Mr. Bush`s Iraq policy, the president has so far not enjoyed as large a burst of approval as other presidents, including his father, experienced during war. While 67 percent of Americans now say they approve of Mr. Bush`s job performance, that is an increase of 11 points. By contrast, the job approval rating for Mr. Bush`s father jumped 22 points, to 86 percent, at this point in the Persian Gulf war.

The poll was taken of a group of 463 adults who had been interviewed for a Times/CBS News poll conducted on March 7 to March 9. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus five percentage points.

The poll was taken 24 hours after Mr. Bush announced that American forces had launched an air attack on Baghdad. Those strikes were limited and did not compare with the more dramatic attack that began the 1991 war, or what took place in in the Iraqi capital yesterday.

Even before the war had roared into the full engagement that was evident yesterday, there was evidence of growing worry among Americans that Mr. Bush`s effort to dislodge Saddam Hussein could lead to civilian deaths. The poll found that just 38 percent say the United States should attack all targets, including heavily populated areas, to get Mr. Hussein, a drop from 50 percent 10 days ago.

And 53 percent said the United States should concentrate its firepower away from civilian centers, an increase of 10 points.

This is clearly an uneasy time for the nation, with its citizens nervous about reprisals at home and trouble abroad. Fifty-four percent said they were more worried now that war has begun, compared to 34 percent who said they were relived that the waiting was over.

Nearly 60 percent said they thought the threat of terrorism against the United States had increased now that the war has begun. In a Times/CBS News poll right after bombing began in 1991 — a time, in retrospect, of relative tranquility on American shores — 85 percent said it was very or somewhat likely that there would be "a major terrorist attack in the United States in the near future."

The breakdown in support between the two parties is reminiscent of the partisan divide that marked the later years of the Vietnam War. It seems to be shaping perceptions of Mr. Bush as he leads the nation into a war whose outcome could determine his political potency as he heads into his re-election campaign.

In this latest poll, Mr. Bush`s performance is approved by 95 percent of Republicans, but just 37 percent of Democrats. At a similar point in the last Iraq war, the job approval rating for Mr. Bush`s father was 94 percent among Republicans and 83 percent among Democrats.

Even today, there are signs that the public is unsure of Mr. Bush`s motivations in launching this attack. While 50 percent said his main interest is removing Mr. Hussein, 20 percent said he is trying to halt the proliferation of weapons, and 16 percent said his first interest was protecting America`s oil supply.

A few early perceptions about the war are beginning to take shape. Americans, presumably taking a lesson from Afghanistan and 1991, are more likely to expect this war to be quick: 51 percent said it would last a few weeks, compared with 40 percent who said it would last several months. By contrast, just 34 percent said at the outset of the last war that they believed it would last for a few weeks.

The poll suggested a number of ways the nation was rallying behind Mr. Bush`s argument. For example, 74 percent approve of the United States taking military action to remove Mr. Hussein from power, up from 66 percent 10 days ago. Of those who supported military action, 60 percent said they held that position because it was "the right thing to do," compared with 13 percent who said they were doing it out of support for the president.

And 60 percent said they had confidence that Mr. Bush had made the right decision in Iraq, compared with 38 percent who said they were uneasy with his decision. In another sign of a patriotic rally, the nation`s opinion of Congress has gone over the 50 percent mark for the first time since the fall of 2001; 52 percent now approve of its performance.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20030322_poll/…
.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

The IRAQ BODY COUNT Project

This is a Human Security project to establish an independent and comprehensive public database of civilian deaths in Iraq resulting directly from military actions by the USA and its allies in 2003. Results and totals are continually updated and made immediately available on this page and on various IBC counters which may be freely displayed on any website, where they will be automatically updated without further intervention. Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports. Where these sources report differing figures, the range (a minimum and a maximum) are given. All results are independently reviewed and error-checked by at least three members of the Iraq Body Count project team before publication.


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm#db

.

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

March 23, 2003
On New York`s Streets and Across the Nation, Protesters Speak Out
By LESLIE EATON


t was a beautiful day for a demonstration — sunny, breezy and just warm enough — as more than 100,000 people took to the streets of Manhattan yesterday to protest the war in Iraq.

For four hours beginning at noon, the peaceful crowd ambled, danced and marched down Broadway from Herald Square to Waverly Place and then over to Washington Square Park. The organizers said the crowd exceeded a quarter of a million. The police gave an estimate of "in excess of 125,000.".

The crowd came in many colors and flavors, and so did its moods. Some signs were prayerful or polite ("Please stop the killing"), while others employed angry expletives. Many handmade signs referred to Friday`s bomb barrage on Baghdad, like the one that read, "New Yorkers remember our own shock and awe."

Though the march itself was peaceful, after its official permit expired at 4 p.m., groups of young demonstrators clashed with the police on the north end of Washington Square Park.

By early today, 91 people had been arrested, police officials said. Eight officers were hospitalized after being exposed to some sort of spray, according to the police. The officers were not seriously injured, the police said. Eight other officers were hurt during the clashes, although the nature of their injuries was unclear, the police said none appeared serious.

New York`s rally was the largest, but there were other demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience across the country.

In Washington, a few thousand people marched near the White House, chanting, "This is what democracy looks like." Then, gesturing toward the president`s residence, they shouted, "That is what hypocrisy looks like."

In Salt Lake City, demonstrators held a "Funeral for Democracy," carrying coffins they said represented the death of the United Nations, civil liberties, and civilians and soldiers in Iraq.

In Chicopee, Mass., a small group tried to block the road outside Westover Air Force Base, from which military equipment has been sent to Iraq. And at a busy intersection near the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix, a crowd inflated 3,000 balloons, to contrast with 3,000 bombs they estimated had fallen on Baghdad.

In many places, antiwar demonstrators were met by at least a handful of people — and sometimes many more — proclaiming support for the war. In Chicago, about 500 war protesters faced 3,000 people who gathered in Federal Plaza in support of President Bush, the war and United States troops in Iraq. Most waved American flags and all chanted "U.S.A., U.S.A." while country music blared from loudspeakers. Several dozen Harley-Davidson motorcycles circled the plaza, sending a thunderous vibration through the air.

Clear Channel Communications, the nation`s largest owner of radio stations, held a "Rally for America" in Fort Wayne, Ind.; Charleston, S.C.; and Sacramento, Calif.

At the New York march, though, it was hard to find an anti-antiwar voice, and many protesters proclaimed their patriotism. David M. Johnson, 55, carried a sign that read, "No flag is more patriotic than all this," with arrows pointing to the crowd around him. (Turns out he is a Manhattan advertising writer.)

The marchers included plenty of the sort of people who turn up at nearly all New York protests: young women with green hair, young white men with dreadlocks, self-styled anarchists carrying black flags. There were people complaining about the "corporate media," the plight of the Palestinians, capitalism, imperialism and several other isms.

There were also a number of gray-haired veteran protesters — and protesters who were veterans. Moses Fishman, 87, who was wounded during the Spanish Civil War when he was part of the American contingent that volunteered to fight, said at yesterday`s march that he had been protesting wars since Vietnam. Back then, "the first demonstrations very few people came out," he said. "If we had this many people, imagine what we could have done."

There were groups marching under banners like "Not In Our Name" or "Concerned Families of Westchester," 30-ish couples strolling hand-in-hand, mothers pushing strollers. One woman carried a white calla lily and sighed to herself.

Two housewives in Muslim head scarves came from New Jersey to join the march. "Bush no listen," said one, in broken English. "Maybe this change something. It`s difficult for the families, but you know the big people don`t listen to us."

Sometimes the crowd seemed almost festive; a man was dressed in a bunny suit and stilt walkers sported Uncle Sam hats. Several people said they were exhilarated to be part of such a large outpouring of antiwar sentiment.

Korean drums, Dixieland brass, Irish whistles and other instruments mixed with clanging pot lids and chants of "Peace Now!" and "No Blood for Oil!" A pair of teenage girls sang "Dona Nobis Pacem" — give us peace.

It was the first antiwar demonstration for Sarita Martinez, 23, who carried a homemade sign reading "Couch Potatoes 4 Peace" (one spud was reading a soap-opera magazine). Ms. Martinez said she herself was not a couch potato; she has a full-time job as an administrative assistant and is also attending Hunter College.

Why was she protesting against the war in Iraq? "My best friend is there," she said, clutching a dog tag. "This is for him."

Her friend Marleny Rubio, 22, had been to an earlier demonstration, in February, which was held as a stationary rally because the police would not issue a marching permit. Many people complained about the police`s tactics at that event, especially about the barricades that kept some people away from the protest and penned-in others, in the freezing cold. The organizers of that event, a group called United for Justice and Peace, negotiated with the police and were able to get a permit for yesterday`s march. While there were barricades along the sides of the streets in Midtown, people were permitted to move on and off Broadway, and there were few barricades south of Union Square.

The march "was obviously very successful, obviously very peaceful," said a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, David Lerner. "It vindicated our right to march."




Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 by the Chicago Tribune
Media Giant`s Rally Sponsorship Raises Questions
by Tim Jones

Some of the biggest rallies this month have endorsed President Bush`s strategy against Saddam Hussein, and the common thread linking most of them is Clear Channel Worldwide Inc., the nation`s largest owner of radio stations.

In a move that has raised eyebrows in some legal and journalistic circles, Clear Channel radio stations in Atlanta, Cleveland, San Antonio, Cincinnati and other cities have sponsored rallies attended by up to 20,000 people. The events have served as a loud rebuttal to the more numerous but generally smaller anti-war rallies.

The sponsorship of large rallies by Clear Channel stations is unique among major media companies, which have confined their activities in the war debate to reporting and occasionally commenting on the news. The San Antonio-based broadcaster owns more than 1,200 stations in 50 states and the District of Columbia.

While labor unions and special interest groups have organized and hosted rallies for decades, the involvement of a big publicly regulated broadcasting company breaks new ground in public demonstrations.

"I think this is pretty extraordinary," said former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson, who teaches law at the University of Virginia. "I can`t say that this violates any of a broadcaster`s obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news."

A spokeswoman for Clear Channel said the rallies, called "Rally for America," are the idea of Glenn Beck, a Philadelphia talk show host whose program is syndicated by Premier Radio Networks, a Clear Channel subsidiary.

`Just patriotic rallies`

A weekend rally in Atlanta drew an estimated 20,000 people, with some carrying signs reading "God Bless the USA" and other signs condemning France and the group Dixie Chicks, one of whose members recently criticized President Bush.

"They`re not intended to be pro-military. It`s more of a thank you to the troops. They`re just patriotic rallies," said Clear Channel spokeswoman Lisa Dollinger.

Rallies sponsored by Clear Channel radio stations are scheduled for this weekend in Sacramento, Charleston, S.C., and Richmond, Va. Although Clear Channel promoted two of the recent rallies on its corporate Web site, Dollinger said there is no corporate directive that stations organize rallies.

"Any rallies that our stations have been a part of have been of their own initiative and in response to the expressed desires of their listeners and communities," Dollinger said.

Clear Channel is by far the largest owner of radio stations in the nation. The company owned only 43 in 1995, but when Congress removed many of the ownership limits in 1996, Clear Channel was quickly on the highway to radio dominance. The company owns and operates 1,233 radio stations (including six in Chicago) and claims 100 million listeners. Clear Channel generated about 20 percent of the radio industry`s $16 billion in 2001 revenues.

Size sparks criticism

The media giant`s size also has generated criticism. Some recording artists have charged that Clear Channel`s dominance in radio and concert promotions is hurting the recording industry. Congress is investigating the effects of radio consolidation. And the FCC is considering ownership rule changes, among them changes that could allow Clear Channel to expand its reach.

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has introduced a bill that could halt further deregulation in the radio industry and limit each company`s audience share and percent of advertising dollars. These measures could limit Clear Channel`s meteoric growth and hinder its future profitability.

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said the company`s support of the Bush administration`s policy toward Iraq makes it "hard to escape the concern that this may in part be motivated by issues that Clear Channel has before the FCC and Congress."

Dollinger denied there is a connection between the rallies and the company`s pending regulatory matters.

Rick Morris, an associate professor of communications at Northwestern University, said these actions by Clear Channel stations are a logical extension of changes in the radio industry over the last 20 years, including the blurring of lines between journalism and entertainment.

From a business perspective, Morris said, the rallies are a natural fit for many stations, especially talk-radio stations where hosts usually espouse politically conservative views.

"Nobody should be surprised by this," Morris said.

In 1987 the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to cover controversial issues in their community and to do so by offering balancing views. With that obligation gone, Morris said, "radio can behave more like newspapers, with opinion pages and editorials."

"They`ve just begun stretching their legs, being more politically active," Morris said.

Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune

[Joerver]

This is the reality of war. We bomb. They suffer
Veteran war reporter Robert Fisk tours the Baghdad hospital to see the wounded after a devastating night of air strikes
23 March 2003
Donald Rumsfeld says the American attack on Baghdad is "as targeted an air campaign as has ever existed" but he should not try telling that to five-year-old Doha Suheil. She looked at me yesterday morning, drip feed attached to her nose, a deep frown over her small face as she tried vainly to move the left side of her body. The cruise missile that exploded close to her home in the Radwaniyeh suburb of Baghdad blasted shrapnel into her tiny legs ­ they were bound up with gauze ­ and, far more seriously, into her spine. Now she has lost all movement in her left leg.
Her mother bends over the bed and straightens her right leg which the little girl thrashes around outside the blanket. Somehow, Doha`s mother thinks that if her child`s two legs lie straight beside each other, her daughter will recover from her paralysis. She was the first of 101 patients brought to the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital after America`s blitz on the city began on Friday night. Seven other members of her family were wounded in the same cruise missile bombardment; the youngest, a one-year-old baby, was being breastfed by her mother at the time.

There is something sick, obscene about these hospital visits. We bomb. They suffer. Then we turn up and take pictures of their wounded children. The Iraqi minister of health decides to hold an insufferable press conference outside the wards to emphasise the "bestial" nature of the American attack. The Americans say that they don`t intend to hurt children. And Doha Suheil looks at me and the doctors for reassurance, as if she will awake from this nightmare and move her left leg and feel no more pain.

So let`s forget, for a moment, the cheap propaganda of the regime and the equally cheap moralising of Messrs Rumsfeld and Bush, and take a trip around the Al-Mustansaniya College Hospital. For the reality of war is ultimately not about military victory and defeat, or the lies about "coalition forces" which our "embedded" journalists are now peddling about an invasion involving only the Americans, the British and a handful of Australians. War, even when it has international legitimacy ­ which this war does not ­ is primarily about suffering.

Take 50-year-old Amel Hassan, a peasant woman with tattoos on her arms and legs but who now lies on her hospital bed with massive purple bruises on her shoulders ­ they are now twice their original size ­ who was on her way to visit her daughter when the first American missile struck Baghdad. "I was just getting out of the taxi when there was a big explosion and I fell down and found my blood everywhere," she told me. "It was on my arms, my legs, my chest." Amel Hassan still has multiple shrapnel wounds in her chest.

Her five-year-old daughter Wahed lies in the next bed, whimpering with pain. She had climbed out of the taxi first and was almost at her aunt`s front door when the explosion cut her down. Her feet are still bleeding although the blood has clotted around her toes and is staunched by the bandages on her ankles and lower legs. Two little boys are in the next room. Sade Selim is 11; his brother Omar is 14. Both have shrapnel wounds to their legs and chest.

Isra Riad is in the third room with almost identical injuries, in her case shrapnel wounds to the legs as she ran in terror from her house into her garden as the blitz began. Imam Ali is 23 and has multiple shrapnel wounds in her abdomen and lower bowel. Najla Hussein Abbas still tries to cover her head with a black scarf but she cannot hide the purple wounds to her legs. Multiple shrapnel wounds. After a while, "multiple shrapnel wounds" sounds like a natural disease which, I suppose ­ among a people who have suffered more than 20 years of war ­ it is.

And all this, I asked myself yesterday, was all this for 11 September 2001? All this was to "strike back" at our attackers, albeit that Doha Suheil, Wahed Hassan and Imam Ali have nothing ­ absolutely nothing ­ to do with those crimes against humanity, any more than has the awful Saddam? Who decided, I wonder, that these children, these young women, should suffer for 11 September?

Wars repeat themselves. Always, when "we" come to visit those we have bombed, we have the same question. In Libya in 1986, I remember how American reporters would repeatedly cross-question the wounded: had they perhaps been hit by shrapnel from their own anti-aircraft fire? Again, in 1991, "we" asked the Iraqi wounded the same question. And yesterday, a doctor found himself asked by a British radio reporter – yes, you`ve guessed it – "Do you think, doctor, that some of these people could have been hit by Iraqi anti-aircraft fire?"

Should we laugh or cry at this? Should we always blame "them" for their own wounds? Certainly we should ask why those cruise missiles exploded where they did, at least 320 in Baghdad alone, courtesy of the USS Kitty Hawk.

Isra Riad came from Sayadiyeh where there is a big military barracks. Najla Abbas`s home is in Risalleh where there are villas belonging to Saddam`s family. The two small Selim brothers live in Shirta Khamse where there is a store house for military vehicles. But that`s the whole problem. Targets are scattered across the city. The poor – and all the wounded I saw yesterday were poor – live in cheap, sometimes wooden houses that collapse under blast damage.

It is the same old story. If we make war – however much we blather on about our care for civilians – we are going to kill and maim the innocent.

Dr Habib Al-Hezai, whose FRCS was gained at Edinburgh University, counted 101 patients of the total 207 wounded in the raids in his hospital alone, of whom 85 were civilians – 20 of them women and six of them children – and 16 soldiers. A young man and a child of 12 had died under surgery. No one will say how many soldiers were killed during the actual attack.

Driving across Baghdad yesterday was an eerie experience. The targets were indeed carefully selected even though their destruction inevitably struck the innocent. There was one presidential palace I saw with 40ft high statues of the Arab warrior Salaheddin in each corner – the face of each was, of course, that of Saddam – and, neatly in between, a great black hole gouged into the façade of the building. The ministry of air weapons production was pulverised, a massive heap of pre-stressed concrete and rubble.

But outside, at the gate, there were two sandbag emplacements with smartly dressed Iraqi soldiers, rifles over the parapet, still ready to defend their ministry from the enemy which had already destroyed it.

The morning traffic built up on the roads beside the Tigris. No driver looked too hard at the Republican Palace on the other side of the river nor the smouldering ministry of armaments procurement. They burned for 12 hours after the first missile strikes. It was as if burning palaces and blazing ministries and piles of smoking rubble were a normal part of daily Baghdad life. But then again, no one under the present regime would want to spend too long looking at such things, would they?

And Iraqis have noticed what all this means. In 1991, the Americans struck the refineries, the electricity grid, the water pipes, communications. But yesterday, Baghdad could still function. The landline telephones worked; the internet operated; the electrical power was at full capacity; the bridges over the Tigris remained unbombed. Because, of course, when – "if" is still a sensitive phrase these days – the Americans get here, they will need a working communications system, electricity, transport. What has been spared is not a gift to the Iraqi people: it is for the benefit of Iraq`s supposed new masters.

The Iraq daily newspaper emerged yesterday with an edition of just four pages, a clutch of articles on the "steadfastness" of the nation – steadfastness in Arabic is soummoud, the same name as the missile that Iraq partially destroyed before Bush forced the UN inspectors to leave by going to war – and a headline which read "President: Victory will come [sic] in Iraqi hands".

Again, there has been no attempt by the US to destroy the television facilities because they presumably want to use them on arrival. During the bombing on Friday night, an Iraqi general appeared live on television to reassure the nation of victory. As he spoke, the blast waves from cruise missile explosions blew in the curtains behind him and shook the television camera.

So where does all this lead us? In the early hours of yesterday morning, I looked across the Tigris at the funeral pyre of the Republican Palace and the colonnaded ministry beside it. There were beacons of fire across Baghdad and the sky was lowering with smoke, the buttressed, rampart-like palace – sheets of flame soaring from its walls – looked like a medieval castle ablaze; Tsesiphon destroyed, Mesopotamia at the moment of its destruction as it has been seen for many times over so many thousands of years.

Xenophon struck south of here, Alexander to the north. The Mongols sacked Baghdad. The caliphs came. And then the Ottomans and then the British. All departed. Now come the Americans. It`s not about legitimacy. It`s about something much more seductive, something Saddam himself understands all too well, a special kind of power, the same power that every conqueror of Iraq wished to demonstrate as he smashed his way into the land of this ancient civilisation.

Yesterday afternoon the Iraqis lit massive fires of oil around the city of Baghdad in the hope of misleading the guidance system of the cruise missiles. Smoke against computers. The air-raid sirens began to howl again just after 3.20pm London time, followed by the utterly predictable sound of explosions.

http://www.independent.co.uk/

.

[Joerver]

Shock and Awe:
Achieving Rapid Dominance

Written By
Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade



With:

L.A. "Bud" Edney, Fred M. Franks, Charles A. Horner, Jonathan T. Howe, and Keith Brendley


NDU Press Book

December 1996

http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html

.

[Joerver]

washingtonpost.com
Battle for Basra Met by Strong Iraqi Resistance


By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, March 23, 2003; Page A19


ALONG THE BASRA HIGHWAY, Iraq, March 22 -- U.S. Marine AH-1 Cobra helicopter gunships fired repeated volleys of missiles and machine gun blasts at targets in and around Basra today, touching off blazes that sent half a dozen huge plumes of black smoke wafting over the strategic southern city.

The helicopters, attacking in pairs, swooped in low through the smoke, firing their missiles, then circling away, with two others immediately behind. Relentlessly, the helicopters bombarded Iraq`s second-largest city from two directions, making at least a dozen forays during a 30-minute period. The missile strikes were interspersed with long blasts of heavy machine gun fire from the whirring attack aircraft.

The intense attacks late this afternoon underscored the resistance mounted by Iraqi defenders around Basra despite earlier reports that the city of more than 1 million had already fallen to U.S. Marines and British Royal Marines advancing swiftly up the main road from Safwan, 25 miles to the south on the Kuwaiti border. Along the road, British and U.S. tanks and armored vehicles were seen racing toward the fighting, but there were no visible attempts by ground forces to enter the city.

The repeated helicopter passes against the blackened sky and the deafening thud of the explosives hitting the ground created a scene reminiscent of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Kuwaiti oil fields were set afire by retreating Iraqi troops. It was unclear what was burning, but the direction and the thickness of the black smoke covering the horizon suggested some oil facilities around Basra may have been set ablaze.

Another huge explosion was heard in the direction of the Kuwait-Iraq border shortly after dusk, followed by the distinct thud of artillery. A red-orange haze was visible over that horizon, to the south.

The scene along the road between Basra and Safwan, where Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf negotiated the Gulf War cease-fire 12 years ago, showed signs of sporadic battle and a hurried retreat.

Iraqi trucks with artillery pieces in tow lay in charred ruins alongside abandoned mortars, ammunition, helmets and even parts of Iraqi military uniforms. In the cab of one burned and mangled Iraqi military truck were the ashen, skeletal remains of its driver, his AK-47 assault rifle propped next to him. Iraqi looters swarmed over the truck and other vehicles looking for any salvageable parts.

The highway itself was littered with debris -- ration packs, pieces of tire, parts of vehicles and a gas mask. A pair of olive- green uniform pants and a shirt lay on the asphalt where a burned Iraqi army truck sat next to a four-foot crater.

At the turnoff to Zubair, about eight miles south of Basra, U.S. Marines from the 1st Marine Division, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, had taken over an abandoned Iraqi military post as a temporary headquarters. In the cement structure was a locker with white boxes filled with ammunition for AK-47 assault rifles, a black plastic Snapple bag filled with rifle bolts, some olive-green uniform tops and sandals.

On the floor were the tattered remnants of a 2003 calendar with a picture of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president, seated and smiling. A smaller picture of Hussein was taped to the wall.

The Marines at the post blew up some 60mm and 81mm mortars and used an AV-P7 amphibious assault vehicle -- with the name Lost Kause painted on the side -- to crush mortar tubes, AK-47s and other discarded Iraqi weaponry. Staff Sgt. James McCann, 28, sitting atop the vehicle, referred to the road as "Route Topeka."

The Marines said they destroyed the abandoned weapons to prevent Iraqi soldiers from recovering them and to prevent civilians from being injured by handling ordinance.

"There were a couple of BMPs and a tank just abandoned," said Sgt. John Bobst, 22, of Roswell, N.M., referring to a Soviet-designed armored fighting vehicle used by the Iraqi military. "Looks like the soldiers were there and as soon as they saw us, they ran away."

The Marines pulled out from the position at dusk, and a wave a looters then moved in to strip away anything that was left -- benches, scraps of metal, a blue coffee container.

Along the road were huge portraits of Hussein. Outside of a petrochemical company, a Marine stopped his Humvee to photograph a painting depicting the Iraqi president brandishing a rifle.

Iraqi civilians along the roads waved white flags at journalists` cars and some offered wide smiles and shouts of "hello!" Others crowded around journalists, demanding food, water and mobile telephones so they could make calls to relatives abroad.

"You have water?" they shouted in English, sometimes jostling reporters and photographers. "You have telephone?"

A few buses and taxis were on the highway heading north, moving alongside convoys of tanks and Humvees. Drivers and passengers used hand signs from the windows to ask journalists in four-wheel drive vehicles whether the road ahead was safe.

While there was some waving and cheering at the sight of foreigners, the celebratory atmosphere was far from widespread. Hostile stares mixed with the greetings of "hello" and the traditional Arabic greeting, "Salam Aleikum."

In a sign of the chaos that has accompanied the collapse of Iraqi rule in the south, people were seen looting vacated government buildings and military compounds. At an open field at the Zubair intersection, a stream of people dragged away refrigerators, plumbing pipes, office furniture and what appeared to be useless flotsam. A crowd of Iraqis surrounding a journalist`s car began to open the doors, reaching for water and food inside.

Down the highway, 37 Iraqi officers and soldiers who had surrendered sat under a highway overpass, under the watch of British military policemen.

Marine Lance Cpl. David Estrada, 19, of San Diego, with a military police company based at Camp Pendleton, was standing guard at a checkpoint when he was asked who was in control in Safwan and the surrounding area since the government had vacated.

"All we`re doing is controlling the highways," he said. "They do whatever they want, pretty much."




© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Der Krieg für den Blair seinen Kopf hinhält, ist ein amerikanischer Krieg. Wird Blair nur lückenhaft informiert?

In his name, but not in his hands
The conduct and course of this conflict, which is so crucial to the Prime Minister, is already largely out of his control

Andrew Rawnsley
Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer

When Tony Blair was shaken out of his sleep in the small hours of the morning to be told that the war was about to begin, it was a doubly rude awakening. This war may be conducted in the name of a deeply divided Britain, it may involve the bravery and professionalism of thousands of British servicemen and women, its prologue may have been the most traumatic episode in the career of this British Prime Minister, but he is not calling the shots. He may only get to learn which shots are being fired when an American finger has already squeezed the trigger.

Downing Street is understandably sensitive that the Prime Minister was informed of the missile strike to assasinate Saddam Hussein only after the Americans had made the decision. Had his opinion been sought, Ministers say that Mr Blair would have signed off on the attempt to `decapitate` the Iraqi dictatorship. That doesn`t mitigate the embarrassment of such an early disclosure that control over the conduct of this conflict is already largely out of his hands.

George Bush further highlighted that brutal reality when, with typically crashing insensitivity to how his words play beyond his own domestic audience, the President broadcast to America that the invasion had begun `on my orders`, as if he had either forgotten the presence in the desert of so many British troops or he was casually usurping ownership of them.

This is an American war to an American plan executed by an American four-star general. You will hear British Ministers fending off questions about exactly what is happening in Iraq on the grounds that they do not want to jeopardise the safety of the forces by providing running commentaries on the conflict. When they stonewall in this fashion, it may not be right to assume that they are being deliberately economical with the truth. Ministers may not be able to answer questions about the conflict because they themselves are hazy about what is going on. The fog of war also envelops them.

Our government may not even possess a knowledge of events that is much more up to date or precise than the war junkie consuming the conflict from rolling TV news. Geoff Hoon as good as admitted to MPs that he was getting some of his information from the television. He told Newsnight on Friday, `I am no military expert`, which was honest, if perhaps not advisable. It is bit of a handicap for a Defence Secretary not to be a military expert when dealing with those who are.

Information is always power; never is information more powerful than in a war. Generals hate giving politicians the opportunity to second guess them. Even more so do they loathe involving the politicians of another country, even when that country is their staunchest ally. The moment that Tony Blair put British forces under overall American command was the moment when he lost much of his say over how this war would be fought.

This is a corrective to any idea that the Prime Minister cleared his final Iraqi hurdle when he secured a majority in the Commons in favour of military action. It was a gamble - as it turned out, a well-judged gamble - for Tony Blair to set the precedent of seeking parliamentary sanction for war. On the eve of the vote, the Prime Minister looked to be in extremely serious trouble. Not because the vote was ever going to be lost when the bulk of Conservative MPs would support the Government. The threat to Mr Blair was the moral defeat that he might suffer at the hands of his own side.

Hysterical whips dashed around the corridors warning Labour MPs that if a majority of them voted against the war they would bring down the leader who has won them two successive landslides - which was quite possible - and even collapse the Government - which was total nonsense. This Westminster version of `shock and awe` was designed to frighten the wobblier anti-warriors into supporting the Prime Minister.

It also reflected a genuine fear within Number 10 that Mr Blair`s authority could be destroyed by his own party. To grasp just how precarious he thought his position might be, you only had to look at the relief which gasped out of the Prime Minister`s face when Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip, told him that the rebel numbers had been capped at 140. In any other context, it would be a bizarre sort of `triumph` for Mr Blair to suffer the biggest-ever backbench rebellion against a Prime Minister of modern times. But these times are not normal.

He was aided to his parliamentary victory by his own impressive speech along with the crude but effective black propaganda campaign to blame the war on the French, which also helped precipitate movement in the polls in favour of war. He also correctly read the gutlessness of much of his party. When he stared Labour MPs in the whites of their eyes, they chickened first.

The lowest point of Mr Blair`s week was when Robin Cook resigned and delivered a fairly deadly dismemberment of the Prime Minister`s arguments for this war at this time. For a few hours, Mr Blair`s fate could have dangled in the hands of Clare Short. Had the International Development Secretary also gone, it was possible that a double resignation of Cabinet Ministers would have opened the floodgates and swept the Prime Minister away.

By breaking her promise to quit, she helped to negate the effect of Robin Cook, her spectacular non-resignation making his resignation less sensational. The rebels lost heart and momentum, which is why they spit so savagely about her. Ms Short turned herself into a human shield for the Prime Minister. Literally so: when she arrived for the debate, she was told to move up the frontbench to sit beside the Prime Minis ter so that Mr Blair could display his prisoner of war for the edification of wavering MPs.

What needs to be remembered is that this victory in the parliamentary battlefield is only the beginning of Mr Blair`s war. His future remains contingent on events on the ground in Iraq, events over which he now has limited influence. Mr Blair may be able to apply his artful charm to defang difficult Cabinet Ministers. His whips could crunch bones while his wife wooed female MPs with tears and sympathy. The American generals running this war are not susceptible to any threats or blandishments at the disposal of the British Prime Minister.

Number 10 will be keen to stress that Mr Blair is being consulted at all times. We will be told that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary are paying particularly careful attention when there are issues about targets which risk a high loss of civilian life.

The truth is that the British capacity to veto the Pentagon is not great. During the war to liberate Kosovo, Mr Blair was advised that it might be considered a breach of the Geneva conventions to attack the headquarters of Serbian TV. British planes could not be involved. The Americans went ahead and did it anyway, killing an innocent make-up lady and blameless technicians.

To avoid the large civilian casualties that would undermine Mr Blair`s assertion that there is a moral basis for this conflict, he is relying on the boast of Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, that that this will be the most precise war in human history. American technology is, indeed, more precise, but it still only 90 per cent precise. When 1,500 missiles and bombs are unleashed in 24 hours, that suggests 150 of them are going to devastate something other than their intended target.

There will be times when the Government is as much in the dark about what is going on as the rest of us. When the Americans were so disastrously imprecise during the Kosovo war that they hit the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, the then British Defence Secretary, George Robertson, first learnt about it from a news bulletin on his car radio. He said to himself: `Oh, shit.`

I imagine words like that were used in Number 10 on Friday when they saw the pictures of an American soldier raising the Stars and Stripes over a captured building in Iraq. Any symbols of conquest are very harmful to Mr Blair`s case for this conflict.

For George Bush, this war is relatively simple. He wants a victory. Tony Blair requires something much more sophisticated than a victory. He needs a decent victory. The Anglo-American forces must emerge from this not as the imperialists condemned by much of the world but as the liberators they claim to be.

For Mr Blair, it is critical that this war is swift and light on casualties. On that depends the skill and judgment of the American lords of war and the resilience of Saddam`s regime. Along with the futures of so many other people, Mr Blair is in the hands of General Tommy Franks and the Special Republican Guard.

[e-mail]


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited

[Joerver]

United notions
The last thing the world needs is a return to the stalemate of two world power blocs facing each other down. The United States and the European Union must learn to work together

David Aaronovitch
Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer

Never mind shaken, the top has come off the kaleidoscope and the pieces are flying, in slow motion, all over the place. And God alone knows where they will come to rest. They are going to take some catching before we can, as Tony Blair said after 11 September, `re-order the world`.

If we are doing the best thing we can in Iraq (and I believe we are), we are doing it in almost the worst circumstances. Worse than in Kosovo when Nato was united, worse than in Afghanistan when there was some consensus among the leading nations of the world. Even the best outcome - a swift victory followed by a transition to a decent Iraqi administration - brings with it the risk that the wrong lessons will be learnt in places as diverse as Washington, Jerusalem, New Delhi and Ankara. Once the warring, demonstrating and letter-writing is over, we are going to have to discuss what we want to do next. Foreign policy can no longer be a matter that interests only strange multi-linguists gathered in the seminar rooms of obscure institutions.

The old ways no longer work. In a rather good speech in last week`s war debate, the Labour MP Clive Soley compared the problem of dealing with states like Iraq to that of intervening in domestic disputes. Not so long ago, husbands were more or less entitled to smack their wives around, and if you heard it happening, you didn`t get involved. Now we call the police or - if we have to and feel we can - stop the brute ourselves. In fact, we feel obliged to do something.

It takes an effort now to recall the Cold War, though it was the backdrop to the first 35 years of my life. Almost invariably, when recounting the litany of US crimes since 1945, the reciter makes no mention of the weird psychology of the Great Confrontation, the frozen madness of which dominated the entire world. It was a psychology which forced the two blocs to compete all over the globe, pouring money and effort into governments, parties and nations who, when the Soviet Union collapsed, were then abandoned.

In the less than 13 years since the Berlin Wall fell, globalisation has replaced the Cold War as the defining dynamic of the era. People mean different things by it - capitalist triumphalism, corporate imperialism, a benign communications revolution or the export of world music. Tony Blair`s notion of growing interdependence, however, is a useful tool here.

We travel everywhere on the globe, we can communicate with anyone, peoples displaced by faraway tyrannies or economic disasters end up in our ports and cities, fanatics animated by antique, distant disputes blow up our night-clubs. And we can see, if our eye is turned that way, the horrors of the world. We are, perhaps for the first time, morally interdependent.

It has become impossible to allow genocide, and the UN Genocide Convention now specifically permits intervention in sovereign nations to prevent it. But that is not enough. In West Africa British troops serve in Sierra Leone and French troops in the Ivory Coast. But much of the work they do is undermined by the chaos in neighbouring Liberia. Whose job is it to sort that out?

We`re not helped either by the idea of war as last resort. One conclusion that may soon be drawn from the 25-year Iraqi tragedy is that sanctions can cause far more damage to the innocent than war. It depends on what military action is taken, who takes it and with what objective in mind. Last week we saw people in the morally and logically problematic position of shrieking at the small casualties caused by Western action, where they had for years more or less acceded (along with the rest of us) to the much larger numbers of deaths caused by the Iraqi regime. I don`t mind schoolkids demonstrating - it`s better than watching MTV - but they don`t know much.

But policing the interdependent world requires a huge change in the way that big powers regard the peoples with whom they share the planet, and this may be something that children can well understand. The enemy here, when fighting terrorism or tyranny, is what might be called instrumentality. It is the use of others for your own ends and not for their own good. The Iraqi people were disposable instruments in both Western and Soviet big-power policy, with Saddam encouraged by both blocs as a counterweight to revolutionary Iran. Which itself had partly come about as a reaction against American support for the dictatorship of the Shah. And so on. What was never the issue was what the Iraqis themselves (as opposed to the gang of bandits who had hijacked their state) might have wanted. And then, to come to the gap in Soley`s metaphor, who are the police? Who are we gonna call?

This has been the big shock to me of the last few months. I know you are not allowed to say anything critical of the French these days, for fear of being accused of `demonising` them (which, considering the treatment handed out to the PM and the Americans on a routine basis these days, is a bit over-sensitive), but this crisis has made me aware of just how differently some of us look at the world.

I am not talking about opposition to the war per se. I am talking about what has emerged as France`s strategic view. Perhaps I should have known it all the time, but what the French appear to want to do is to create a Europe which provides another pole to the United States. Europe is to be a bloc, a counter-power, a mechanism (if necessary) to constrain the US. This explains the French `Whose side are you on?` reaction to the Eastern Europeans who backed the war. It partly explains the reaction to Britain.

This is just not the way that some of us, who have long been pro-Europeans, see the EU. It is not to be the other pole in a new bipolarity. It is to be an example of co-operation, shared values and pooled sovereignty, not a second, better Soviet Union. That`s why Blair is broadly right in seeing a Europe that is a substantial and respected partner for the United States, not its rival or its leash. In Chirac`s disdain for dealing with a post-war Iraqi leadership, I thought I saw traces of that old, cold instrumentality.

We are lucky that the world`s most powerful country is a democracy; it could have been otherwise. But the sight of White House adviser Richard Perle masturbating over what he hoped was the grave of the United Nations, was a reminder of where some of the kaleidoscope`s pieces are floating.

Perle exulted in the `intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions`. The only work that could be done to save the world had to be accomplished by the US, plus whoever was perceptive enough to realise that the US was inevitably right. It was `dangerously wrong` said Perle, to hand any decisions over to `the likes of Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France`. The `likes of` Syria and France! And this is a strategist!

I am not at all sure that Perle`s way is even Bush`s way, let alone the long-term American way. The US was at almost comic pains last week to stress the international nature of the effort against Saddam. This is probably because it recognises how impossible the job of policing the interdependent world will be if it is not assisted by willing partners. The nature of that partnership is what we now, urgently, have to get straight.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Joerver]

Dämlichkeit kennt keine Grenzen. Gibt es bei Aldi eigentlich auch US-Produkte?

Deutsche kauft nicht beim Amerikaner

Ernst Corinth 23.03.2003
Dann wird alles wieder gut!

Nicht nur die Amerikaner spinnen, auch die Deutschen, die Franzosen und sogar die Schweizer werden endlich aktiv. Und zwar für den Frieden, für den sie engagiert im Supermarkt und in der Kneipe kämpfen, indem sie bewusst auf US-Produkte verzichten. Eine vorbildliche Idee, die zwar George W. Bush kaum beeindrucken wird, dennoch Folgen hat. Denn wer seit dem Kriegsbeginn im Irak beispielsweise auf US-Whisky verzichtet und stattdessen literweise irischen Whiskey trinkt, der ist hinterher zwar auch blau, aber immerhin mit einem guten Gewissen.

So wird also gehandelt und boykottiert: In Hamburg marschieren vorneweg französische Wirte, die amerikanische Getränke von der Karte gestrichen haben. In Bonn hat nach einem Bericht von focus-online der Chef des traditionsreichen Bonner Wirtshaus "Zuntz Selige Witwe" ebenfalls gehandelt und schenkt keinen US-Whisky und keine Coca-Cola mehr aus. "Bei seinen Gästen", heißt es in der Meldung, "sei der Boykott sofort auf eine `ungeheure Resonanz` gestoßen. (...) Bereits an der Tür macht der Wirt seine Gäste in einem Aushang `Gegen den Krieg` auf den Boykott aufmerksam." Und selbst in der Schweiz blüht inzwischen die Bewegung "Bewusst Saufen für den Frieden".

Und es gibt noch viel zu boykottieren: "Ob Miracel Whip, reis-fit, PHILADELPHIA oder Mirácoli - fast jeder kennt die Namen dieser KRAFT-Produkte und weiß, wie gut sie schmecken." ­ Auch auf diese leckeren Dinge aus dem Hause Kraft muss jetzt also im Namen des Friedens leider verzichten werden. Und wie groß die Produktpalette allein dieses US-Unternehmens ist, lässt sich hier nachlesen. Wo er nicht mehr tanken darf, erfährt der Friedensbewegte übrigens hier. Und dass McDonald`s jetzt tabu ist, versteht sich ja wohl von selbst.

Das Leben wird also angesichts des Irak-Krieges zunehmend stressiger: Kaufentscheidungen müssen immer genauer überlegt werden. Die Wege zur politisch-korrekten Tankstelle werden länger und länger. Viele Raucher müssen sich plötzlich von der lieb gewonnenen US-Zigarettenmarke entwöhnen. Und auch sprachlich müsste eigentlich pazifistisch nachhaltig nachgebessert werden. Schließlich sind Internet, Website und Browser beliebte, aber leider angloamerikanische Wörter. Und wer im Namen des Friedens jetzt dafür verzweifelt nach deutschen Wörtern sucht, sollte mal bei den Neonazis im Web ­ Pardon! ­ Weltennetz nachschauen, die kennen sich damit nämlich aus.

Aber selbst im kleinen privaten Bereich kann jeder was tun. So haben wir kürzlich per Mail folgende Nachricht erhalten: "Um ein Zeichen gegen den Krieg zu setzen, habe ich meinen eBay-Account `president.bush` in (...) geändert." Ein fürwahr leuchtendes Zeichen, obwohl ja eigentlich der gesamte Handel bei eBay umgehend boykottiert werden müsste. Und hoffentlich werden bald auch die "Mac-users against war" aktiv. Schon vor Wochen haben sie auf ihrer Netzseite den Apple-Chef Steve Jobs aufgefordert, mit einem Friedensbanner auf der Seite seines Unternehmens gegen Bushs Kriegspläne zu demonstrieren. Und weil Jobs das unverständlicherweise einfach ignoriert hat, wird es jetzt also Zeit, dass die Initiatoren dieser Aktion Flagge zeigen und zum sofortigen Boykott von Apple-Produkten aufrufen. Kurzum: Deutsche kauft nicht beim Amerikaner, dann wird alles wieder gut.


http://www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/inhalt/glosse/14444/1.html

[Joerver]

Krieg am Golf – Irak als Präzedenzfall für die neue offensive US-Strategie?

. Das Völkerrecht bleibt auf der Strecke. Der Golfkrieg und seine Folgen für die Internationale Gemeinschaft.
Jürgen Rose

http://www.ndrinfo.de/pages/info_std/0,2235,OID83438,00.html

Manuskript Jürgen Rose:
Seit der Nacht zum Dienstag herrscht Gewißheit: Die größte Gefahr für den
Weltfrieden und die internationale Sicherheit geht fortan vom Weißen Haus in
Washington aus. Wider jedes Völkerrecht und gegen den geballten Widerstand
der Weltgemeinschaft setzt das Imperium Americanum seinen von langer Hand
geplanten Irak-Feldzug in die Tat um. Mit unerschütterlicher Selbstgewißheit
hebt US-Präsident George W. Bush die in jahrzehntelanger, mühseliger
Anstrengung etablierte internationale Ordnung aus den Angeln und entsorgt
das Völkerrecht auf dem Schuttplatz der Geschichte.
Zwar verdient die „United Nations Organisation“ unwiderstritten in vielerlei
Hinsicht Kritik. Indes stellt trotz all der Defizite, die sie aufweist, eine Welt ohne
UNO eine erheblich unsicherere Heimstatt dar als eine Welt mit ihr. Könnten
Franklin D. Roosevelt und Winston S. Churchill, die „Erfinder“ der UNO, sehen,
wie ihre Nachfolger im Amte die Welt zurück ins Mittelalter katapultieren, sie
würden sich mit Grausen wenden. Nicht der Fall der Mauer am 9. November
1989, so erweist sich jetzt, stellte den Epochenbruch dar, sondern der 18. März
2003, denn ab diesem Zeitpunkt gilt international wieder das Faustrecht des
Stärkeren.
Der amerikanisch-britische Eroberungskrieg gegen den Irak verstößt
fundamental gegen das in der Charta der Vereinten Nationen verankerte
Gewaltverbot in den internationalen Beziehungen. Zwei Gründe vornehmlich
sind es, die diesem völkerrechtswidrigen Akt eine gar nicht zu überschätzende
Bedeutung verleihen. Zum einen stellt die strikte Einhaltung des Gewaltverbots
die essentielle Bedingung dar, unter der Völkerrecht überhaupt erst wirksam
werden kann. Einfacher ausgedrückt: Völkerrechtliche Ordnung und
eigenmächtige Gewaltanwendung durch Einzelstaaten schließen sich
wechselseitig aus. Das Wesen jedweden Rechts besteht eben gerade darin,
dass Gewaltanwendung bei einer dazu ermächtigten Institution monopolisiert
ist. Und darüber hinaus darf Gewalt nur im Rahmen eng umschriebener Regeln
ausschließlich zur Durchsetzung von Recht zur Anwendung gelangen. Insofern
ist der Sicherheitsrat der Vereinten Nationen gleichfalls an das kodifizierte
Recht der Charta gebunden. Das heißt, auch er besitzt lediglich die Befugnis,
Gewalt im Rahmen und auf der Grundlage der UN-Charta anzuwenden. Und
da die Gewaltanwendung stets das äußerste Mittel zur Durchsetzung darstellt,
darf es erst eingesetzt werden, wenn alle nicht-kriegerischen Mittel erschöpft
sind. Genau dies aber ist nach Auffassung der Mehrheit im Weltsicherheitsrat
und der Völker der Welt nicht der Fall. Zudem ist keinerlei vom Irak
ausgehende akute Bedrohung identifizierbar, die eine militärische Intervention
zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt rechtfertigen würde.
Selbst wenn also der UN-Sicherheitsrat geneigt gewesen wäre, der von den
USA, Großbritannien und Spanien angestrebten Kriegsresolution zuzustimmen
– er hätte unter den gegebenen Umständen dafür keine Rechtsgrundlage in
der Charta gefunden.
Der zweite Grund, warum der vorliegende Völkerrechtsbruch derartige Brisanz
besitzt, liegt darin, dass ausgerechnet die bisherige Garantiemacht der
globalen Ordnung, nämlich die USA, ihn begeht. Wobei der Rechtsbruch
wohlgemerkt nicht erst der konkreten Ausübung militärischer Gewalt entspringt.
Auch deren unbefugte Androhung wird von der UN-Charta sanktioniert. Im
vorliegenden Falle resultiert die Illegalität der militärischen Gewaltandrohung
bereits aus der von Beginn an erklärten Bereitschaft der USA und
Großbritanniens, diese auch ohne Mandat des Sicherheitsrates in die Tat
umzusetzen. Und mehr noch: den Sicherheitsrat, sollte er sich denn keine
Kriegsresolution abpressen lassen, schon prophylaktisch für irrelevant zu
erklären.
Die Konsequenzen des von den USA gemeinsam mit einigen wenigen Vasallen
verübten Völkerrechtsbruchs sind derzeit gar nicht absehbar. Selbst wenn der
Schurke von Bagdad mit seiner Sippschaft das Ultimatum George W. Bushs
angenommen und das Weite gesucht hätte – am Befehl für die US-Streitkräfte,
den Irak zu okkupieren, hätte dies nichts geändert. Um ein Chaos zu
verhindern, wie der US-Präsident sagt.
Das erinnert fatal an die Breschnew-Doktrin vergangener Tage. Damals
marschierte die Rote Armee in die Satellitenstaaten der Sowjetunion
selbstredend aus keinem anderen Grunde ein, als in „brüderlicher“ Absicht
„internationalistische Hilfe“ zu leisten. Heutzutage lautet das Resultat analoger
Schurkerei verallgemeinert, dass das Imperium Americanum sich das Recht
anmaßt, jederzeit in beliebiger Weise über die Ein- und Absetzung von
Statthaltern in den Provinzen der Welt zu entscheiden – getreu der Maxime:
Und bist du nicht willig, so brauch‘ ich Gewalt. Diese amerikanische Politik birgt
die Gefahr, dass andere Großmächte sie sich zum Vorbild nehmen. Doch
absehbar ist: Die Idee der Zwangs-Demokratisierung mit „vorgehaltenem Colt“
wird kläglich scheitern. NATO und Europäische Union könnten schwersten
Schaden erleiden. Tyrannen und diktatorische Regime in den sogenannten
„Sorgenstaaten“ werden nur umso nachdrücklicher versuchen, sich in den
Besitz von Massenvernichtungswaffen zu bringen, um von zukünftigen
Militärinterventionen abzuschrecken. Bereits heute zeichnen sich Allianzen ab,
die darauf zielen, den Größenwahn US-amerikanischer Machtentfaltung
einzudämmen.
Angesichts dieser Entwicklung bleibt die eher resignative Feststellung, dass
der Krieg, den die USA mit destruktiver Wucht gegen den Irak und seine
Menschen führen, den Tatbestand eines Verbrechens gegen das Völkerrecht
erfüllt. Unvermeidlich werden ohne irgendeine Rechtfertigung tausendfach Tod,
Verstümmelung und Leid über unschuldige Opfer gebracht. Die Initiatoren
müssten deshalb eigentlich vor dem gerade vereidigten Internationalen
Strafgerichtshof zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden.
Für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ergeben sich aus dieser dramatischen
Entwicklung drängende Fragen. Ganz obenan die nach dem
verfassungsrechtlichen Verbot der Vorbereitung eines Angriffskrieges (und erst
recht der Beteiligung an einem selbigen): Ist dieser Tatbestand nicht erfüllt,
wenn die Bundesregierung den Streitkräften des Angreifers deutsches
Territorium für die Vorbereitung und Durchführung ihres Verbrechens zur
Verfügung stellt? Und wie steht es mit den Maßnahmen zur Abschirmung und
Deckung der Aggression, nämlich den in die Türkei und nach Israel gelieferten
Flugabwehrraketen sowie den ABC-Spürpanzern in Kuwait? Darüber hinaus:
Wird Deutschland nicht zum Mittäter, wenn Bundeswehrsoldaten die hiesigen
Liegenschaften der US-Streitkräfte schützen? Nach Auffassung der Juristen
des Bundesverteidigungsministeriums jedenfalls besitzen die für diese Aufgabe
eingesetzten deutschen Wachsoldaten ab Kriegsbeginn kriegsvölkerrechtlichen
Kombattantenstatus – sind also Kriegsteilnehmer. Deshalb hat das
Bundesministerium der Verteidigung angeordnet, ab diesem Zeitpunkt die vom
Kriegsvölkerrecht besonders geschützten Sanitätssoldaten von der Bewachung
der US-Einrichtungen zurückzuziehen. In noch direkterem Maße stellt sich die
Frage nach der deutschen Rolle im Hinblick auf die deutschen
Besatzungsangehörigen in den AWACS-Flugzeugen der NATO, die in der
Türkei eingesetzt sind. Bis dato ist noch kein Parlamentsbeschluß getroffen,
der allein diese Einsätze auf die notwendige verfassungsrechtliche Grundlage
stellen könnte. Auf welcher Rechtsgrundlage also handeln die Soldaten der
Bundeswehr? Und weiter: Wie steht es mit der im Soldatengesetz
niedergelegten Verpflichtung jedes einzelnen Bundeswehrsoldaten, sich
Befehlen zu widersetzen, deren Befolgung eine Straftat implizierte? Jetzt ist die
Bundesregierung gefordert, um Rechtssicherheit für die Soldaten herzustellen.

[Joerver]

Krieg am Golf – Irak als Präzedenzfall für die neue offensive US-Strategie?

Als der Schurke noch Partner war – Wie die USA halfen, Saddam Hussein stark zu machen.
Michael Seul
2.Teil
http://www.ndrinfo.de/container/ndr_style_file_default/1,230…

Die USA jagen den irakischen Diktator mit Gewalt aus dem Amt.
Dabei haben die Amerikaner Saddam Hussein in den 80er Jahren tatkräftig
unterstützt. Ja, sie haben ihn sogar vor einer Niederlage im Krieg gegen den
Iran bewahrt. Michael Seul über ein Kapitel, an das die US-Regierung heute
nicht so gerne erinnert werden möchte.
Manuskript Michael Seul
In der Wahl ihrer Verbündeten waren die USA nie zimperlich. Nach der
islamischen Revolution im Iran und insbesondere nach der
Botschaftsbesetzung 1979 war Teheran der Erzfeind der USA. Die Folge: Der
irakische Diktator Saddam Hussein, der 1980 den Iran angriffen hatte, wurde
zum Freund der Amerikaner. Dabei stand der Irak 1979 auf der Liste jener
Staaten, die den Terrorismus aktiv unterstützen. Es lagen zudem Erkenntnisse
vor, dass Bagdad seit Mitte der siebziger Jahre versuchte, in den Besitz von
Chemiewaffen zu gelangen. Um den Irak aber mit moderner Waffentechnik im
Kampf gegen den gemeinsamen Feind Iran aufrüsten zu können, sorgte die
Reagan-Administration dafür, dass der Irak 1982 wieder von der Liste
verschwand. Umgehend wurden an Bagdad 60 zivile Hubschrauber geliefert,
die schnell zu militärischen Zwecken umrüstbar waren. In einer weiteren
Lieferung erhielt der Irak 10 Helikopter, die dafür ausgerüstet waren,
Pflanzenschutzmittel zu versprühen.
1983 empfing Saddam Hussein einen besonderen Gast. Die Rede ist vom
heutigen Verteidigungsminister der USA, Donald Rumsfeld. Nach eigenen
Angaben war er auf „privater“ Mission im Nahen Osten, um den Terrorismus im
Libanon zu bekämpfen. Geheimdienstprotokolle, die später der Presse
zugespielt wurden, ergeben heute allerdings ein anderes Bild: Rumsfeld war
als Gesandter im Auftrag der US-Regierung unterwegs und unterbreitete dem
Regime in Bagdad ein Unterstützungsangebot, das dieses nur zu gerne
annahm. Dies geschah, obwohl das US-Außenministerium Kenntnis davon
hatte, dass der Irak immer noch Terrorgruppen unterstützte und erstmals im
Krieg gegen den Iran auch Giftgas einsetzte. In den folgenden Jahren bekam
der Irak zahlreiche Rüstungsgüter und Technologie, um seinen schlecht
laufenden Krieg gegen den Iran doch noch zu seinen Gunsten zu wenden. Die
Lieferungen wurden nicht ausschließlich von den Vereinigten Staaten
abgewickelt. Nach Geheim-Verhandlungen erlaubte die Reagan-Administration
auch Staaten wie Saudi-Arabien, Kuwait und Ägypten, amerikanische Waffen
an den Irak zu verkaufen. Neben Waffen und Munition von der Haubitze bis zur
Fliegerbombe versorgte die CIA den Irak 1985 zudem mit Geheimdienst-Informationen.
Mit amerikanischen Satellitenfotos und Aufklärungsdaten
konnten die irakischen Bombenangriffe und Kampfgaseinsätze „präziser““
durchgeführt werden.
Kritik aus den eigenen Reihen wusste man in der US-Regierung geschickt zu
umgehen. 1985 versuchte das Repräsentantenhaus, den Irak wieder auf die
Liste der Staaten zu setzen, die den Terrorismus unterstützen. Doch trotz der
Warnungen der CIA überzeugte der damalige US-Außenminister George
Shultz den Initiator des Antrags, diese Initiative zurückzuziehen. Er gaukelte
dem Abgeordneten Howard Berman vor, dass sich der Irak vom Terrorismus
gelöst habe. Im Falle eines Rückfalls würde die Regierung selbst dafür sorgen,
dass der Irak wieder auf dieser Liste erscheint. Dabei hatte die CIA die dafür
notwendigen Erkenntnisse schon seit zwei Jahren. Somit aber blieb die Tür für
immer neue Waffenlieferungen nach Bagdad offen.
13
Das für die Ausfuhrgenehmigungen zuständige amerikanische
Handelsministerium wusste seit 1986 von den wahren Zielen irakischer
Produktionsstätten, an die amerikanische High-Tech-Produkte geliefert wurden.
Der Geheimdienst und das Verteidigungsministerium setzten das Ministerium
davon in Kenntnis, dass der Irak in bestimmten Produktions- und
Forschungsanlagen ballistische Raketen entwickelt. Doch das
Handelsministerium ignorierte diese Erkenntnisse und erlaubte in den
Folgejahren Technologietransfers. Diese Importe zeigten schließlich die
Wirkung, die sich Bagdad von ihnen versprochen hatte. Durch amerikanische
Technik und Maschinen gelang es dem Irak, seine veralteten SCUD-Raketen in
ihrer Reichweite so zu steigern, dass sie nun bis Saudi-Arabien und Israel
reichten, wie Saddam Hussein im Golfkrieg 1991 demonstrierte.
Den CIA-Erkenntnissen wurde damals keine Beachtung geschenkt, es sei
denn, sie wurden zur Unterstützung des Irak benötigt. So identifiziert der
Geheimdienst das irakische Ministerium für Industrie und militärische
Industrialisierung (MIMI) und die dazugehörenden Einrichtungen als Kernstück
des irakischen Programms zur Entwicklung von Massenvernichtungswaffen.
Und die CIA konnte zudem vermelden, dass der Irak aktiv versucht, atomare,
biologische und chemische Waffen herzustellen. Aber auch dies brachte die
USA nicht von ihrem Kurs ab. Vielmehr versorgten sie den Irak weiter mit der
angeforderte Technologie. Geliefert wurde so ziemlich alles, was sich ein
Biowaffenforscher wünscht, - von Pesterregern, Milzbrand bis Botulinus
Bakterien und West-Nile Viren. Die USA lieferten dem Irak reproduzierbare
Erreger, die zur Produktion von biologischen und chemischen Waffen geeignet
waren. Dies wäre mit geschwächten Erregern nicht möglich gewesen.
Selbst der rücksichtlose Einsatz der Chemiewaffen änderte nichts an der
Position der amerikanischen Regierung. Als im März 1984 iranische Soldaten
an mit dem Nervengift Tabun versetzten Senfgas starben, traf sich gleichzeitig
der Sonderbotschafter Donald Rumsfeld mit dem irakischen Außenminister
Tarek Aziz. Dabei wurden auch weitere Waffenlieferungen und
Technologietransfers vereinbart. Die Giftgaseinsätze im Krieg gegen den Iran
wurden in den folgenden Jahren offiziell möglichst nicht zur Kenntnis
genommen. Für das Giftgasmassaker gegen die Kurden in der nordirakischen
Stadt Halabja 1988, das weltweit Empörung auslöste, machte die US-Regierung
zunächst den Iran verantwortlich - entgegen eigenen
Geheimdienstberichten. Anschließend folgte eine Politik des Schweigens. Der
Grund: Nach Geheimdienst-Erkenntnissen waren beim Giftgas-Angriff die 1983
gelieferten 10 amerikanischen Hubschrauber eingesetzt worden, die mit
Einrichtungen zum Versprühen von Pflanzenschutzmitteln ausgerüstet worden
waren. Aber auch aus dieser Aktion der Iraker wurden keine Konsequenzen
gezogen. Bereits ein halbes Jahr später wurde das Regime in Bagdad mit
neuen Milzbranderregern beliefert.
Die amerikanische Regierung verfolgte ihren Kurs selbst dann weiter, als sich
internationale Partner und Banken bereits vom Irak abwandten. Nachdem
internationale Banken 1989 Kreditzusagen gesperrt und geheime irakische
Konten eingefroren hatten, gab es aus den USA Kreditzusagen in Höhe von
einer Milliarde US-Dollar, - deklariert für landwirtschaftliche Zwecke. Die Gelder
wurden sogar noch einen Tag vor dem irakischen Einmarsch in Kuwait
genehmigt und erst danach gesperrt. Am Tag vor der Invasion erhielt der Irak
aus den USA fast 700.000 US-Dollar.
Die US-Regierung stellte in einer Nationalen Sicherheitsdirektive aus dem
Oktober 1989 zwar fest, im Irak gebe es in der Frage der Menschenrechte
Defizite, man zeigte sich aber langfristig an normalen Beziehungen mit dem
Irak interessiert.
In den 80er Jahren wurde das Regime in Bagdad förmlich mit Waffen und
Technologie überschüttet. Unter der Reagan-Administration gab es jährlich
durchschnittlich fast 260 Exportlizenzen. Dabei gab es ein System zur
Überwachung des Technologietransfers an den Irak. Zu prüfen war, ob die
Exportartikel dazu geeignet waren, die nationale Sicherheit zu gefährden oder
den Bau von Atomwaffen zu ermöglichen. Das Handelsministerium benötigte
vor Erteilung einer Exportlizenz eine Erlaubnis des Verteidigungsministeriums.
Oftmals wurde diese jedoch nicht beantragt. Und bei einer Verweigerung setzte
man sich mehr als einmal über das Verbot hinweg.
Die USA handelten also jahrelang nach der Maxime „Der Feind meines
Feindes ist mein Freund“ .Saddam Hussein wurde im Krieg gegen den Iran
unterstützt. Damit förderte Washington zugleich Bagdads Pläne, in den Besitz
von Massenvernichtungswaffen zu gelangen. Die Folgen sind bekannt.
Inzwischen ist aus dem Partner von einst ein Schurke geworden. Vergeblich
versuchte Washington, den Diktator mit diplomatischen und wirtschaftlichen
Mitteln zu stürzen. Jetzt wollen die USA Saddam Hussein mit Gewalt aus
Bagdad vertreiben.
*...*...*
Flocken:
Auch dieser Krieg hat also eine Vorgeschichte.
In der Süddeutschen Zeitung konnte man in dieser Woche sogar lesen:
„Das Programm zum Bau irakischer Massenvernichtungswaffen war auch ein
amerikanisch-britisches Projekt – um dem Irak im Krieg gegen den Iran zu
helfen.“ Allerdings – Geschäfte mit Bagdad machten ebenfalls deutsche
Firmen. Güter wurden geliefert, die u.a. das irakische Atomwaffen-Programm
zum Erfolg führen sollten.

[Joerver]

The twenty lies of George W. Bush
By Patrick Martin
20 March 2003

Monday night’s 15-minute speech by President Bush, setting a 48-hour deadline for war against Iraq, went beyond the usual distortions, half-truths, and appeals to fear and backwardness to include a remarkable number of barefaced, easily refuted lies.

The enormous scale of the lying suggests two political conclusions: the Bush administration is going to war against Iraq with utter contempt for democracy and public opinion, and its war propaganda counts heavily on the support of the American media, which not only fails to challenge the lies, but repeats and reinforces them endlessly.

Without attempting to be exhaustive, it is worthwhile listing some of the most important lies and contrasting Bush’s assertions with the public record. All of the false statements listed below are directly quoted from the verbatim transcript of Bush’s remarks published on the Internet.

Lie No. 1: “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision.”

The decision for war with Iraq was made long ago, the intervening time having been spent in an attempt to create the political climate in which US troops could be deployed for an attack. According to press reports, most recently March 16 in the Baltimore Sun, at one of the first National Security Council meetings of his presidency, months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush expressed his determination to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his willingness to commit US ground troops to an attack on Iraq for that purpose. All that was required was the appropriate pretext—supplied by September 11, 2001.

Lie No. 2: “For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war.”

The US-led United Nations regime of sanctions against Iraq, combined with “no-fly” zones and provocative weapons inspections, is one of brutal oppression. The deliberate withholding of food, medical supplies and other vital necessities is responsible for the death of more than a million Iraqis, half of them children. Two UN officials who headed the oil-for-food program resigned in protest over the conditions created in Iraq by the sanctions. The CIA used the inspectors as a front, infiltrating agents into UNSCOM, the original inspections program. The CIA’s aim was to spy on Iraq’s top officials and target Saddam Hussein for assassination.

Lie No. 3: “The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament...”

Iraq has never “defied” a Security Council resolution since the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. It has generally cooperated with the dictates of the UN body, although frequently under protest or with reservations, because many of the resolutions involve gross violations of Iraqi sovereignty. From 1991 to 1998, UN inspectors supervised the destruction of the vast bulk of the chemical and biological weapons, as well as delivery systems, which Iraq accumulated (with the assistance of the US) during the Iran-Iraq war, and they also destroyed all of Iraq’s facilities for making new weapons.

Lie No. 4: “Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again because we are not dealing with peaceful men.”

According to the Washington Post of March 16, referring to the 1991-1998 inspection period: “Under UN supervision, Iraq destroyed 817 of 819 proscribed medium-range missiles, 14 launchers, 9 trailers and 56 fixed missile-launch sites. It also destroyed 73 of 75 chemical or biological warheads and 163 warheads for conventional explosives. UN inspectors also supervised destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, more than 600 tons of weaponized and bulk chemical weapons agents, 4,000 tons of precursor chemicals and 980 pieces of equipment considered key to production of such weapons.”

Lie No. 5: “The Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

The Washington Post article cited above noted that CIA officials were concerned “about whether administration officials have exaggerated intelligence in a desire to convince the American public and foreign governments that Iraq is violating United Nations prohibitions against chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and long-range missile systems.” The article quoted “a senior intelligence analyst” who said the inspectors could not locate weapons caches “because there may not be much of a stockpile.”

Former British Foreign Minister Robin Cook, who resigned from the Blair government Monday in protest over the decision to go to war without UN authorization, declared, “Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term.” Even if Iraq is concealing some remnants of its 1980s arsenal, these would hardly deserve Bush’s lurid description, since they are primitive and relatively ineffective. “Some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” are those being unleashed by the United States on Iraq: cruise missiles, smart bombs, fuel-air explosives, the 10,000-pound “daisy-cutter” bomb, the 20,000-pound MOAB just tested in Florida. In addition, the US has explicitly refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons.

Lie No. 6: “[Iraq] has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda.”

No one, not even US government, seriously believes there is a significant connection between the Islamic fundamentalists and the secular nationalist Ba’athist regime in Iraq, which have been mortal enemies for decades. The continued assertion of an Al Qaeda-Iraq alliance is a desperate attempt to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks.

It also serves to cover up the responsibility of American imperialism for sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. The forces that now comprise Al Qaeda were largely recruited, trained, armed and set in motion by the CIA itself, as part of a long-term policy of using Islamic fundamentalists as a weapon against left-wing movements in the Muslim countries. This policy was pursued from the 1950s and was escalated prior to and during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, which ended in 1989. Osama bin Laden himself was part of the CIA-backed mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan before he turned against Washington in the 1990s.

Lie No. 7: “America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully.”

The Bush administration went to the United Nations because it wanted UN sanction for military action and it wanted UN member states to cough up funds for postwar operations, along the lines of its financial shakedown operation for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Bush’s most hawkish advisors, such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, initially opposed going to the UN because they did not want diplomacy to slow down the drive to war. They only agreed after Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the pace of the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf gave enough time to get the UN to rubber-stamp the war.

Lie No. 8: “These governments [the Security Council majority] share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it.”

This is belied by virtually every statement on Iraq issued by the governments of France, Russia, China, Germany and other countries opposed to military action, which have repeatedly declared that they see no imminent threat from Iraq. Bush brands his opponents on the Security Council as cowards, as though they were afraid to take action against Saddam Hussein. These countries were, in fact, increasingly alarmed—by the United States, not Iraq. Insofar as they summoned up resolve, to the shock of the Bush administration, it was to deny UN support for the war that Washington had already decided to wage.

Lie No. 9: “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world.”

Only three nations are contributing military forces to the war: 250,000 from the US, 40,000 from Britain, and 2,000 from Australia. The other members of the “broad coalition” are those which have been bribed or browbeaten to allow the US to fly over their countries to bomb Iraq, to station troops, ships or warplanes on their territory, or provide technical assistance or other material aid to the war. None will do any fighting. All are acting against the expressed desire of their own population.

Lie No. 10: “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.”

Bush defines the UN body’s responsibility as serving as a rubber stamp for whatever action the United States government demands. In relation to the UN, however, the United States does have definite responsibilities, including refraining from waging war without Security Council authorization, except in the case of immediate self-defense. Under Article 42 of the UN Charter, it is for the Security Council, not the US or Britain, to decide how Security Council resolutions such as 1441 are to be enforced. The US decision to “enforce” its interpretation of 1441 regardless of the will of the Security Council is a violation of international law.

Lie No. 11: “If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.”



The widely reported US military strategy is to conduct an aerial bombardment of Iraq so devastating that it will “shock and awe” the Iraqi people and compel the Iraqi armed forces to surrender en masse. According to one press preview, US and British forces “plan to launch the deadliest first night of air strikes on a single country in the history of air power. Hundreds of targets in every region of Iraq will be hit simultaneously.” Estimates of likely Iraqi civilian casualties from the immediate impact of bombs and missiles range from thousands to hundreds of thousands, and even higher when the long-term effects are included.

Lie No. 12: “As our coalition takes their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.”

This is particularly cynical, since the immediate consequence of Bush’s 48-hour ultimatum was the withdrawal of all UN humanitarian aid workers and the shutdown of the oil-for-food program, which underwrites the feeding of 60 percent of Iraq’s population. As for medicine, the US has systematically deprived the Iraqi people of needed medicine for the past 12 years, insisting that even the most basic medical supplies, like antibiotics and syringes, be banned as “dual-use” items that could be used in a program of biological warfare.

Lie No. 13: “We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.”

The goal of the Bush administration is to install a US puppet regime in Baghdad, initially taking the form of an American military dictatorship. It is no exaggeration to say that the US government has been the leading promoter of dictatorships around the world, from Pinochet of Chile to Suharto of Indonesia to Saddam Hussein himself, who, according to one recent report, got his political start as an anti-communist hit-man working in a CIA-backed plot to assassinate Iraq’s left-nationalist President Qasem in 1959.

A classified State Department report described by the Los Angeles Times of March 14 not only concluded that a democratic Iraq was unlikely to arise from the devastation of war, it suggested that this was not even desirable from the standpoint of American interests, because “anti-American sentiment is so pervasive that elections in the short term could lead to the rise of Islamic-controlled governments hostile to the United States.”

Lie No. 14: “Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.”

This combines a lie and a brutal truth. The Bush administration has taken every possible measure to insure that war takes place, viewing the resumption of UN weapons inspections with barely disguised hostility and directing its venom against those countries that have suggested a diplomatic settlement with Iraq is achievable. In prosecuting the war, the Bush administration is indeed prepared to use “every measure,” up to an including nuclear weapons, in order to win it.

Lie No. 15: “War has no certainty except the certainty of sacrifice.”

There will be colossal sacrifices for the Iraqi people, and sacrifices in blood and economic well-being for the American people as well. But for Bush’s real constituency, the wealthiest layer at the top of American society, there will be no sacrifices at all. Instead, the administration is seeking a tax cut package of over $700 billion, including the abolition of taxation on corporate dividends. Major US corporations are in line to reap hundreds of millions of dollars in profits from the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure shattered by the coming US assault. These include the oil construction firm Halliburton, which Vice President Cheney headed prior to joining the Bush administration, and which continues to include Cheney on its payroll.

Lie No. 16: “[T]he only way to reduce the harm and duration of war is to apply the full force and might of our military, and we are prepared to do so.”

Every aggressor claims to deplore the suffering of war and seeks to blame the victim for resisting, and thus prolonging the agony. Bush is no different. His hypocritical statements of “concern” for the Iraqi people cannot disguise the fact that, as many administration apologists freely admit, this is “a war of choice”—deliberately sought by the US government to pursue its strategic agenda in the Middle East.

Lie No. 17: “The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed.”

No one, even in the American military-intelligence complex, seriously believes this. US counter-terrorism officials have repeatedly said that a US conquest and occupation of Iraq, by killing untold thousands of Arabs and Muslims and inflaming public opinion in the Arab world and beyond, will spark more terrorism, not less.

Lie No. 18: “We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over.”

This is belied by the record of the past twelve years, which has seen a steady decline in Iraqi military power. Saddam Hussein has never been a threat to any “free nation,” if that term has any meaning, only to the reactionary oil sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf and to neighboring Iran, all ruled by regimes that are as repressive as his.

Lie No. 19: “As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country.”

The demands of the world were expressed by the millions who marched in cities throughout the world on February 15 and March 15 to oppose a unilateral US attack on Iraq. Bush seeks to have it both ways—claiming to enforce previous Security Council resolutions against Iraq (“the just demands of the world”), while flagrantly defying the will of the majority of the Security Council, the majority of the world’s governments, and the vast majority of the world’s people.

Lie No. 20: “Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty... The United States with other countries will work to advance liberty and peace in that region.”

For “the Iraqi people,” substitute “the Egyptian people,” “the people of the Arabian peninsula,” “the Pakistani people” or those of other US-backed dictatorships, not to mention the Palestinians who live under a brutal Israeli occupation that is supported by Washington. Does the US government believe that any of them are “deserving and capable of human liberty?” When the parliament of Turkey, under the pressure of popular opposition, voted to bar the US from using Turkish territory to invade Iraq, the Bush administration appealed to the Turkish military to pressure the government into overturning this democratic decision.


Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/bush-m20_prn.shtml

[Joerver]

With a Colin, a Dick and a Bush in charge what did you expect?








http://www.geocities.com/tbhpolitoon/Fire.gif

[Joerver]

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/22_breaks.html

Daraus folgenden Auszug:
Michael Moore Explains it All to You

This isn`t to say that America will be living behind an iron curtain, of course. It`s still a free country, as they say. The Oprah Winfrey show, for example, recently featured a Michael Moore interview, and, through a clip from his Oscar-nominated Bowling for Columbine introduced millions to a side of American foreign policy few ever see. As Louie Armstrong sang, "What a Wonderful World," the following statistics flashed upon the screen:

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran
U.S. installs Shah as dictator

1954 U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem

1963 --1975: American military kills 4 million people in Southeast Asia

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages a coup in Chile. Democratically-elected President Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed; 5,000 Chileans killed

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorians and four American nuns killed

1980s: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorists to kill Soviets. CIA gives them $3 billion

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds `contras` 30,000 Nicaraguans die

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to kill Iraqis

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as president of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. US invades Panama and removes Noriega 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from the U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait

1991- present: American planes bomb Iraq on a weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 Iraqi children die from bombings and sanctions.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

2000-01 U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

September 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his CIA training to murder 3,000 people.

Though most are now aware that anti-American sentiment is rising, many avoid introspection, and instead join pundits and politicians in pointing fingers at France. And so, Moore`s timely reminder has never been more urgent: "The rest of the world knows we`ve done these things," has says. "We just don`t want to believe this about ourselves. And I mean, who would?"

Remaining ignorant is costly, however, especially as we forge ahead with the same kind of behavior that`s brought us to this place. "Well, you lost 3000 people," Moore imagines citizens in other countries saying. "We here in Southeast Asia lost 4 million. We here in Guatemala lost 200,000. We here in Chile lost 10,000 people. . . They`re not so sympathetic if we are going to ignore what`s being done in our name."

[Joerver]

Arthur Schlesinger Jr.: `Good foreign policy a casualty of war`
Date: Sunday, March 23 @ 09:27:39 EST
Topic: Foreign Policy


Today, it is we Americans who live in infamy.

By Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Los Angeles Times

NEW YORK -- We are at war again -- not because of enemy attack, as in World War II, nor because of incremental drift, as in the Vietnam War -- but because of the deliberate and premeditated choice of our own government.

Now that we are embarked on this misadventure, let us hope that our intervention will be swift and decisive, and that victory will come with minimal American, British and civilian Iraqi casualties.

But let us continue to ask why our government chose to impose this war. The choice reflects a fatal turn in U.S. foreign policy, in which the strategic doctrine of containment and deterrence that led us to peaceful victory during the Cold War has been replaced by the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy.



Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy. The global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism. Public opinion polls in friendly countries regard George W. Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein. Demonstrations around the planet, instead of denouncing the vicious rule of the Iraqi president, assail the United States on a daily basis.

The Bush Doctrine converts us into the world`s judge, jury and executioner -- a self-appointed status that, however benign our motives, is bound to corrupt our leadership. As John Quincy Adams warned on July 4, 1821, the fundamental maxims of our policy "would insensibly change from liberty to force ... [America] might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." Already the collateral damage to our civil liberties and constitutional rights, carried out by the religious fanatic who is our attorney general, is considerable -- and more is still to come.

What drove the rush to war? Hussein has a significantly smaller military force than he had in 1990, and he has grown weaker as more weapons have been exposed and destroyed under the United Nations` inspection regime. The cause of our rush to war was so trivial as to seem idiotic. It was the weather. American troops, our masters tell us, will lose their edge in the Persian Gulf`s midday sun; so we had to go to war before summer. This is a reason to rush to war? We have, after all, a professional army -- and a professional army ought not to lose its edge so quickly and easily.

There is a base suspicion that we are going to war against Iraq because that is the only war we can win. We can`t win the war against Al Qaeda because Al Qaeda strikes from the shadows and disappears into them. We can`t win a war against North Korea because it has nuclear weapons. Indeed, the danger from North Korea is far more clear, present and compelling than the danger from Iraq, and our different treatment of the two countries is a potent incentive for other rogue states to develop their own nuclear arsenals.

How have we gotten into this tragic fix without searching debate? No war has been more extensively previewed than this one. Despite pro forma disclaimers, President Bush`s determination to go to war has been apparent from the start. Why then this absence of dialogue? Why the collapse of the Democratic Party? Why let the opposition movement fall into the hands of infantile leftists?

I think the media are greatly to blame. There have been congressional efforts to jump-start a debate. Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia have delivered strong and thoughtful speeches opposing the rush to war. They have been largely ignored by the media. Some philanthropist had to pay the New York Times to print the text of Byrd`s powerful Feb. 12 speech in a full-page advertisement -- a speech ignored by the media when delivered. The media have played up mass demonstrations at the expense of the reasoned case against the war.

According to polls, a near majority of ill-informed Americans believes Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and the Pentagon and resulting massacre of nearly 3,000 innocent people. Hussein is a great villain, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. Many, perhaps most, Americans believe a war against Iraq will be a blow against international terrorism. But evidence from the region indicates very plainly that it will make recruitment much easier for Al Qaeda and other murderous gangs.

What should we have done? What if opposition to war had received a fair break from the media? There are two strong arguments for the war -- that Hussein might down the road acquire nuclear weapons, and that the people of Iraq deserve liberation from his monstrous tyranny.

Unlike biological and chemical weapons, nuclear arms -- and their production facilities -- are hard to conceal. Inspection, surveillance, tapping telephone calls and espionage could check any nuclear initiative on Hussein`s part. He is containable, and he is not immortal.

The more powerful argument is humanitarian intervention. This comes with ill grace from an administration that includes people who showed no objections to Hussein`s human rights atrocities when he was at war with Iran. But do we have a moral obligation to fight despicable tyrants everywhere?

Hussein is unquestionably a monster. But does that mean we should forcibly remove him from power? "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled," Adams said in the same July 4 speech, "there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy." We are now going abroad to destroy a monster. The aftermath -- how America conducts itself in Iraq and the world -- will provide the crucial test as to whether the war can be justified.

America as the world`s self-appointed judge, jury and executioner? "We must face the fact," President John F. Kennedy once said, "that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient -- that we are only 6% of the world`s population -- that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind -- that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity -- and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is a historian and the author, most recently, of "A Life in the 20th Century: Innocent Beginnings." He served as special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.

Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

Reprinted from The Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/
la-war-opschlesinger23mar23,1,7925658.story

[Joerver]

March 23, 2003
Perle`s Plunder Blunder
By MAUREEN DOWD


WASHINGTON

It`s Richard Perle`s world. We`re just fighting in it.

The Prince of Darkness, a man who whips up revelatory soufflés and revolutionary pre-emption doctrines with equal ease, took a victory lap at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday morning.

The critical battle for Baghdad was yet to come and "Shock and Awe" was still a few hours away. (The hawks, who are trying to send a message to the world not to mess with America, might have preferred an even more intimidating bombing campaign title, like "Operation Who`s Your Daddy?")

Yet Mr. Perle, an adviser to Donald Rumsfeld, could not resist a little pre-emptive crowing about pre-emption, predicting "a general recognition that high moral purpose has been achieved here. Millions of people have been liberated."

His conservative audience at the Reagan shrine`s "black coffee briefing" (they`re too macho for milk and sugar) was buzzed that their cherished dream of saving Iraq by bombing it was under way.

The chesty "you repent, we decide" Bush doctrine was cooked up pre-Bush, fashioned over the last 12 years by conservatives like Mr. Perle, Mr. Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith and Bill Kristol.

The pre-emption doctrine prefers ad hoc coalitions, allowing an unfettered America to strike at threats and potential threats. At A.E.I., Mr. Perle boasted that far from going it alone, the Bush administration had a coalition of "more than 40 countries and . . . growing." (Including Micronesia, Mongolia and the Marshall Islands, all of them.)

And he was already looking forward to giving makeovers to other rogue regimes. "I`m rather optimistic that we will see regime change in Iran without any use of military power by the United States," he said.

Michael Ledeen, an A.E.I. scholar on the same panel, called Iraq "just one battle in a broader war. Iran is . . . the mother of modern terrorism."

As Bush 41 learned, waging holy wars can be dicey. After pressing the morality of Desert Storm, he faced questions about his postwar conduct. Critics excoriated Mr. Bush, who had labeled Saddam another Hitler, for turning his back as Saddam laid waste to Kurdish refugees and to Kurds and Shiite Muslims rising up against him after the war.

Now Mr. Perle, who urged America to war with moral certitude, finds himself subject to questions about his own standards of right and wrong.

Stephen Labaton wrote in The Times on Friday that Mr. Perle was advising the Pentagon on war even as he was retained by Global Crossing, the bankrupt telecommunications company, to help overcome Pentagon resistance to its proposed sale to a joint venture involving a Hong Kong billionaire.

The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. That`s why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on government approval of the sale. (In his original agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out for "working meals," which could add up, given his status as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps a vacation home among the feckless French.)

Although his position on the Defense Policy Board is not paid, Mr. Perle is still bound by government ethics rules that forbid officials from reaping financial benefit from their government positions. He and his lawyer told Mr. Labaton that his work for Global Crossing did not violate the rules because he did not lobby for the company and was serving in an advisory capacity to its lawyers.

But that distinction is silly because Global Crossing has so many other big names on its roster of influence-peddlers that it doesn`t need Mr. Perle`s Guccis for actual lobbying footwork or advice on the process. His name alone could be worth the $725,000 if it helps win the Pentagon`s seal of approval.

His convictions of right and wrong extend to the right and wrong investments. On Wednesday he participated in a Goldman Sachs conference call to advise clients on investment opportunities arising from the war, titled, "Implications of an Imminent War: Iraq Now. North Korea Next?"

Maybe Mr. Perle should remove the laurel wreath from his head and replace it with a paper bag.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy

[Joerver]

Alle Cartoon, die mit Bush, Irak und Saddam zu tun haben

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushObsession/main.asp

.

[Joerver]

Linda Heard: `Who dares critique the smirking commander?`
Posted on Sunday, March 23 @ 09:33:35 EST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baghdad Burns While Dubya Does Lunch

By Linda Heard, CounterPunch

America`s great commander George W Bush has surely to be admired for his amazing sangfroid. If he had any worries about the impending `Shock and Awe` campaign, he didn`t show them as he played with his pooch on the White House lawn on the day the war kicked off. After an intimate dinner with the missus, the wondrous leader took time out to give the order to attack Baghdad before delivering his mushy message to the nation.

But unfortunately for him Aunty Beeb, also known as the BBC, erroneously broadcast Dubya preparing for his Churchillian moment in history. There he was practicing his speech totally unaware that the cameras were rolling. As his mouth moved soundlessly evoking a guppy in an aquarium a middle-aged ma`am primped his locks, spraying every offending hair in to place.

Worse, the small man deliberately contorted his facial features in an effort to convey passivity, emotion and greatness as though he were looking into a mirror, which he probably was. The result was an orchestrated pre-written blurb absent of sincerity or sympathy. Lee Strasburg must be turning over in his grave.



By the time it was over and my tears of mirth (and sorrow) had dried it was well past Dubya`s bedtime and determined not to lose any beauty sleep over a silly thing like a war, he went off to bed. That`s the true mark of leadership. After all, why should he worry when he`s got Eritrea in his Coalition of the Callous?

No doubt, the chilling Rummy Rumsfeld didn`t have to practice to face his audience. He did what he does best - gleefully warning of the carnage to come. He told the world that Baghdad was facing an attack of the scope and scale the world had never seen before, but of course the US has nothing at all against the Iraqi people, he tells us.

Indeed, why would the Iraqi people grumble when cruise missiles are devastating the heart of their capital? Why should they mind when a neo-imperialist occupying force invades their sovereign integrity? How churlish! Isn`t this being done to free them from that dastardly Saddam who as we have heard hundreds of times has `gassed his own people`?

As I write, the Kurds are dreading the arrival of their old foes the Turks and the bloodbath, which could ensue. They have been sold to the Turks for US rights to fly over Turkish territory. This is far from being the first time that the luckless Kurds have been betrayed by opportunist US administrations.

The conscripted Shias in southern Iraq around Basra are being bombarded and urged to come out with their hands up by hundreds of thousands of propaganda leaflets dropped with the bombs. The Shia population has long hoped to have a say in the way its country is run but they haven`t a hope in hell. Their close relations with the Iranian ayatollahs will rule out their dreams as long as the US is pulling the strings.

The people of Baghdad are hiding in their bunkers hoping they will still have a home, nay a city, when it`s over. Terrified refugees have fled their homes and are gathering around the Jordanian border, and Bush has lunch with Cheney. `Have another breadstick Dick!`

As the plumes of smoke rise over the ancient Mesopotamian metropolis, Britain`s Tony Blair and France`s Jacques Chirac face one another over the dinner table. Chirac has said that Blair is the rudest person he has ever met; Blair has been spouting disingenuously that if it wasn`t for France menacing its veto, peace could have been achieved. In earlier times it could have been pistols at dawn. Today, it may mean the demise of the entente cordiale and the possible fragmentation of the European Community.

In purely humanitarian terms, surely the French proposal of containment would have made far more sense. War should always be a last resort, especially one with so much potential for destabilizing other countries, wrecking economies and widening political divisions worldwide. Did I say `humanitarian`? How passe! Humanitarian isn`t part of the `New American Century`.

Instead war has been reduced to a flippant exercise as a British newspaper recently did with its `Let`s Roll` on the front page, a disingenuous attempt to link Iraq with 9-11.

Included in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, our leaders will not shirk from lies if these serve as a pretext for war. Britain`s Blair used his honest face to good purpose when trying to pass off a plagiarized paper as intelligence and forged correspondence concerning Iraq`s alleged attempts to purchase uranium. Sadly for him the plagiarisers and the forgers were less professional in their efforts.

The jingoistic Fox News anchors are already sporting their flag pins, and the almost 50 per cent of Americans who believe that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11 are flying the Star Spangled banner from their balconies. The patriots are pouring bottles of the finest Bordeaux and Beaujolais down the drain, while Russian vodka and Chinese beer stays on the shelves.

As the embedded, or rather entombed, US/UK government selected reporters are issuing their censored reports, we are left to seek for the truth and sift through the lies.

Those reporters who remain in Baghdad have been warned by the US to leave. Veteran war reporter Kate Adie said that those journalists using satellite uplink to file their stories would be fired upon by American pilots.

The American media, which had recently begun to loosen its nationalistic shackles, is regressing into being a propaganda arm for its government once again.

I noticed Lou Dobbs, the host of CNN`s Moneyline, successfully intimidating the international philanthropist George Soros in mid-sentence for daring to criticize his beloved leader.

Dobbs had previously invited a dubious duo to warble `Have you forgotten?` against the emotive background of crumbling twin towers. On Lou`s website, Kofi Annan comes under attack for daring to suggest that a war without United Nations approval might be illegal.

British television is little better. Last Saturday`s worldwide anti-war demonstrations warranted hardly any coverage, the protesting schoolchildren covered with fake blood and the thousands who have downed tools even less.

They say that the first casualty of war is truth, and it already looks as though that is going to be a rare commodity in the weeks and months ahead. If the White House and Downing Street get their way, we will never know the true effects of their aggression on the Iraqi people.

We will be shielded from the broken limbs, the fearful screams, the blood and the gore. We will see what they want us to see and we will know what they want us to know and if we find out anything that they don`t want us to know, then we will be called anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein or crazed conspiracy theorists.

No. We are destined, instead, to witness Iraqis dancing in the streets, dispensing candy as the good old American cavalry arrive to save them from Saddam. The Bush administration will justify the `collateral damage` by either finding Iraq`s infamous weapons of mass destruction, or planting them and then Iraq will get a Karzai clone who will salivate at the idea of privatizing Iraqi oil.

Even before the war is over, Iraqi diplomats are being kicked out of their embassies and consulates, their real estate seized `for the next Iraqi (puppet) administration`. Some 1.6 billion dollars of Iraqi funds in the US, which were frozen after the Gulf War is to be grabbed too `to help pay for Iraq`s reconstruction`. Arms manufacturers are already laughing all the way to the bank, while Bush`s cronies rub their hands together waiting for their lucrative post-war contracts to be implemented.

The human shields, or those who are still living, will return home to write their memoirs, the peace movements will be stripped back to the leftist stalwarts and another American protectorate is born. The New World Order is here...until it is challenged, as it must surely be.

Reprinted from CounterPunch:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
heard03222003.html
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=10699&mode=nest…

[Joerver]

Bush träumt vom Churchill und Mt. Rushmore

George W. Bush`s Churchillian moment
Martin F. Nolan
Sunday, March 23, 2003
©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback


URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/ar…


On July 17, 2001, President Bush accepted a bust of Winston Churchill, which now sits in the Oval Office.

"He knew what he believed," Bush said, "and he really went after it in a way that seemed like a Texan to me." Sculpted by Jacob Epstein, the bust was a gift from Tony Blair. Like Bush, the British prime minister is gambling that history regards war -- a war culminating in victory -- as a more lasting legacy than peace.

Inside 10 Downing Street, the London townhouse used by British prime ministers since the mid-18th century, portraits of Blair`s predecessors line a stairway. Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, British leaders who pursued peace in Europe in the 1930s, get no special treatment. Churchill`s likeness, however, is larger than that of the others.

"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing fields, we shall fight in the fields and streets and in the hills," Churchill said on June 4, 1940, in words still adorning posters and tapestries in British shops and homes. "Britain will fight the menace of tyranny for years, and, if necessary, alone."

Does Bush think he`s Churchillian?

When leaders consult history, war is a test and a trial. Another sculpture, a huge one, looms over the Black Hills in South Dakota, where Bush spoke on Aug. 14, 2002, saying, "Standing here at Mount Rushmore reminds us that a lot of folks came before us to make sure that we were free."

The folks memorialized there are not James Monroe, James Buchanan, Benjamin Harrison and Rutherford B. Hayes, all of whom occupied the White House in peacetime. Instead, Gutzon Borglum carved into granite giant heads of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, who presided over long and bloody wars; and Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt, who led the United States into territorial, not to say imperial, expansion.

In its grammatical preferences, history is like the stock market. Rejecting uncertainty, it favors the declarative mood, not the subjunctive. The "what ifs" of history have been on parade among decisionmakers and in the streets of the world`s cities for months.

Bush and Blair ask: What if Saddam Hussein uses his weapons of mass destruction?

Peace advocates ask: What if you give United Nations weapons inspectors more time?

War does not answer questions quickly, but in wartime, democracies instantly rally around the flag.

"For it`s Tommy this and Tommy that, and `Chuck `im out, the brute!`/But it`s `Savior of `is country` when the guns begin to shoot," Rudyard Kipling wrote of the fickleness of British public opinion toward the British soldier.

In the 1930s, sophisticates at Oxford and Cambridge saw Churchill as a warmongering pest. But after Nazi bombs fell on London, his popularity soared. In October 1941, a poll of American voters showed that many admired Britain, but only 17 percent favored joining the British in their war against Germany.

Isolationist disdain for President Franklin D. Roosevelt matched the contemptuous ferocity of many anti-war protesters toward Bush. But in December,

after Pearl Harbor, millions of minds changed overnight.

Yet this war is different because of American demographics. For those born before or during World War II, "the war" means the conflict against Hitler and fascism, a noble hour for the greatest generation. For millions born since then, "the war" means Vietnam, the longest in U.S. history, pursued by politicians with misguided machismo. Its lasting image is B-52 bombers and payloads of futile barbarity.

Bush`s father was a hero in World War II. The son`s spotty service in the Texas Air National Guard is not the only preparation he has had for wartime leadership. In April`s Atlantic Monthly, Richard Brookhiser explores "The Mind of George W. Bush" and finds that the president`s insistence on punctuality is a product of his training at Harvard Business School.

One need not study along the banks of the Charles to learn that time is money, but a certain sense of urgency animates the first president with an MBA.

Even if that personality trait had not been evident before Sept. 11, 2001, that day would have changed things utterly.

That date on the calendar separates Bush from his detractors. As a potential target (of the airliner that crashed instead into the Pentagon), he may take terrorism personally. But that circumstance only intensifies the importance of an oath "to preserve, protect and defend" the Republic. Would Al Gore or Ralph Nader feel differently? Or do protesters think Sept. 11 would not have happened on their watch?

For Bush, Sept. 11 makes irrelevant all of the blunders and bad arms deals that characterized American policy before then. Had the U.S. signed on to every codicil of the Kyoto treaty, would President Jacques Chirac be ready to march into Baghdad? Probably not, thinks Bush, as do many other Americans.

And, like many Americans, he thinks the details of any alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden don`t matter. Both are bad dudes with murderous intent.

When Bush accepted the bust of Churchill, he said, "He is a constant reminder of what a great leader is like." John F. Kennedy said of Churchill that "he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle."

But Bush will search in vain for the speech in which Churchill said he had nothing to offer but blood, tears, sweat and tax cuts.

An earlier prime minister, the Duke of Wellington, said, "A great country can have no such thing as a little war." True, but in Bush`s Republican Party, many are already acting small, trying to stifle dissent.

Whatever else this war produces, the most lasting legacy of the speakership of Dennis Hastert may well be the presentation of "freedom fries" in the congressional chow line.

Martin F. Nolan, a former reporter and editor for the Boston Globe, lives in San Francisco.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback

[Joerver]

Strains in U.S.-German relationship reaches school exchanges
STEPHEN GRAHAM, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, March 23, 2003
©2003 Associated Press

URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/20…


(03-23) 12:32 PST BERLIN (AP) --

First, President Bush snubbed Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Now a Tennessee high school has called off an exchange with German students.

More than a dozen students from Hamburg`s Sachsenweg School were to depart next Tuesday until their hosts suggested they stay home rather than bring "anti-American feeling," said Sachsenweg English teacher Jutta Kuehn. The German agency that coordinates educational exchanges said other programs also have been called off.

Despite efforts by officials including the American ambassador to Germany to play down such incidents, the cancelation was another indication that the disagreement over Schroeder`s anti-war stand is beginning to strain German-American friendship at its heart.

The bond is rooted in Germans` gratitude for American aid rebuilding after World War II, defending West Germany during the Cold War, and consenting to German reunification in 1990.

While France`s anti-war strategy is scene as a calculated move to counter U.S. influence in the world, Germany`s stand tends to rankle more with Washington; Bush pointedly refused to congratulate Schroeder on his re-election last year.

Indeed, Schroeder`s opposition to war marks the first time that postwar Germany has staked out a position on international security independent from Washington`s.

Germans, from Schroeder down to Sachesenweg`s English teacher, have been stung by accusations that the opposition to war stems from anti-Americanism, and are baffled by calls to boycott French and German goods.

Germans remember their own history of aggression and destruction in two world wars, and their decades of insecurity on the Cold War front lines.

In the case of Iraq, they worry about a humanitarian disaster and say they haven`t seen enough evidence that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein justifies military action now.

But flag-burning and comparisons between Bush and Adolf Hitler during anti-war protests this week prompted German President Johannes Rau to appeal to demonstrators not to "stir hate against America."

These are just the sort of misunderstandings that 30 years of educational and cultural exchanges between the United States and Germany are meant to bridge, said Sabina Margalit, the executive director of the German American Partnership Program in New York.

To confront German stereotypes, the German Foreign Ministry grants about $1 million a year to student exchange programs. This year some 6,000 students from each country are to participate in exchanges, recovering to pre-Sept. 11 levels.

Gottfried Boettger, an official at the government agency that coordinates the exchanges, said other programs have been scuttled by war, but declined to elaborate.

Kuehn, the teacher, said she could understand Americans who consider the Germans ungrateful. "But it is sad when the kids have to bear the brunt of political events."

Tim Tackett, the principal of the Oakland High School in Murfreesboro, denied the war played a role in calling off the Germans` trip to Tennessee and his students` plans to travel to Hamburg in the summer. Security was the main issue, he said.

While those concerns were shared, Kuehn and students alike said they got clear messages that the war was the deciding factor.

Kristina Milina, a 16-year-old student, said her pen-pal was quite candid.

"She said her teacher didn`t want to do it because Germany wasn`t supporting the war," Milina said. "We were really shocked and felt like we`d been taken for a ride."

Kuehn said the cancellation had poisoned relations between the schools, leaving a mark on the young German 9th and 10th graders.

"They`re bitterly disappointed," said Kuehn, who is talking to another school about setting up an alternative exchange. "This will certainly stick in their minds."

U.S. Ambassador Dan Coats insisted that no retribution was intended and expressed regret that the exchange had been canceled.

"I think the children should have gone to Tennessee," he told the Hamburg Journal television program on Monday. "We need to continue these exchanges. That`s what maintains our good relations."

©2003 Associated Press

[Joerver]

The cost of conflict
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Ex-presidents club` gets fat on conflict
High-flying venture capital firm Carlyle Group cashes in when the tanks roll, writes Jamie Doward

Jamie Doward
Sunday March 23, 2003
The Observer

It is the sort of thing they really could have done without. For 15 years one of America`s most powerful venture capital groups has tried to play down suggestions that its multi-billion dollar funds get fat on the back of global conflict. But now, with the invasion of Iraq under way, a new book chronicling the relatively short history of the Carlyle Group threatens to draw attention to the company`s close links with the Pentagon.

Dan Briody, author of the Iron Triangle, Inside the Secret World of the Carlyle Group, alleges the company`s executives were so worried about his book they told staff not to talk to him. The Carlyle Group rejects this and argues the book is little more than a cuttings job based around some of the more crazy conspiracy theories found on the internet. It also points out that only around 7 per cent of its funds are invested in defence companies, far less than several other venture capital groups.

`Peel away the layers of factual errors and self-righteousness and all you`re left with is baseless innuendo. This book should be exposed for what it is: a compilation of recycled conspiracy theories masquerading as investigative journalism,` said Chris Ullman, Carlyle`s spokesman.

But Briody`s account of how an upstart venture capi tal firm went from nothing to managing funds of nearly $14 billion in just 15 years, earning investors returns of around 36 per cent, is likely to reinforce the controversial image of the Carlyle Group and raise concerns about its influence in Washington and beyond.

Sometimes called the Ex-Presidents Club, Carlyle has a glittering array of ex-politicians and big league bankers on its board. Former secretary of state James Baker is managing director while ex-secretary of defence Frank Carlucci is chairman. George Bush senior is an adviser. John Major heads up its European operations. To give the conspiracy theorists plenty of ammunition, US newspapers have also highlighted the fact that current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was a wrestling partner of Carlucci`s at Princeton and the two have remained close friends ever since.

Interestingly though, Briody`s book chronicles how Carlyle was founded by two relative unknowns - Stephen Norris, a former executive with the Marriott hotels group, and David Rubenstein, a Washington lawyer and former policy assistant to Jimmy Carter. The two men saved Marriott millions by spotting a tax loophole that the company exploited to great effect. Buoyed by their success, Norris and Ruben stein struck out on their own and recruited two other co-founders, Marriott executive Dan D`Aniello and corporate financier William Conway.

Initially the group - named after New York`s Carlyle hotel - shied away from the defence sector and its early investment record was spectacularly unsuccessful. It backed a management-led buyout of Caterair and appointed George W Bush to the board. The company bombed and was quickly branded Crater Air by Wall Street. Norris, who presided over the deal, jumped ship, followed by Bush Jr shortly before the company`s woes became public in 1994.

The appointment of Carlucci to the company board marked a new phase in Carlyle`s history. It was Carlucci who spearheaded the $130 million acquisition of BDM Consulting in 1990. The company was a specialist in the defence contracting business and had a formidable network of contacts thanks to its CEO, Earle Williams, a close friend of Carlucci. It was a good time for the Carlyle Group. Defence contracts were being slashed as the Cold War ended and cheap buyout opportunities were everywhere.

Carlyle identified a key target: Vinnell. Few people have heard of Vinnell. It started life building airstrips, but by the 1970s was training Saudi troops to protect oil fields. Unlike other US firms it stayed in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and by the time Carlyle snapped the firm up in 1992 it had built up the country`s national guard from 26,000 to 70,000 troops. Carlyle sold its interest in Vinnell in 1997.

But perhaps Carlyle`s most famous acquisition was United Defense in 1997. The company had developed a huge 40-tonne howitzer, the Crusader, which, despite widespread opposition from the army, was commissioned by the Pentagon. The $665m contract was signed just two weeks after the attacks on the twin towers and less than a month later Carlyle decided to take the company public in a move that was to earn the group nearly $240m. Months later the Crusader programme was scrapped while United Defense was handed a new contract to build a lighter gun.

At the same time it emerged that the bin Laden family - estranged from their terrorist son - was an investor in the Carlyle fund that owned United Defense. The backlash was ferocious. Carlyle hired a PR firm but the group was under siege. In an astonishing move Democrat Representative Cynthia McKinney cited the Carlyle Group as an example of an organisation `close to this administration poised to make huge profits off America`s new war`. The bin Laden family sold their stakes in the fund. A spokesman said their investment was valued at `only` around $2m, although Briody quotes insiders who say the family`s investment had been significantly greater in the past.

In the wake of 11 September came a fear of anthrax attack. One company that benefited was Pittsburgh- based IT Group, which won a number of contracts to clean up anthrax-infected buildings, including the Hart Senate Office Building. Carlyle owned 25 per cent of the firm, which it subsequently sold on. Likewise its investment in US Investigation Services, a company that specialises in checking the background of employees, saw business improve dramatically.

`I do not exaggerate when I say that Carlyle is taking over the world in government contract work, particularly defence work,` one employee told Briody. Other Carlyle companies also benefited, including EC&G which makes X-ray scanners, Composite Structures, a maker of metal-bond structures in fighter jets and missiles, and Lier Siegler Services Inc, a major military contractor, providing logistics support.

Carlyle - whose high-profile investors include George Soros and Saudi Arabia`s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal - refutes suggestions it profits from war. Co-founder William Conway even went on record saying `no one wants to be a beneficiary of 11 September.`

This may be true, but unfortunately for the Carlyle Group its investments are beneficiaries of this new era of multilateral conflict. Indeed, a case can be made that even those companies Carlyle wouldn`t class as defence investments - and which aren`t examined by Briody - have benefited.

Last month it bought CSX Lines, an ocean carrier firm that specialises in shipping heavy equipment. One of its biggest customers is the US military. Late last year it bought Firth Rixson, a specialist engineering firm that makes aerospace parts. It also has a 33 per cent stake in Qinetiq, the government`s Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.

Whatever Carlyle says, its image as being at the apex of what Eisenhower termed the `military industrial complex` endures.


Guardian Unlimited © Gu

[Joerver]

Siehe auch #487 Good Foreign Policy


‘Pearl Harbor in Reverse’

Arthur Schlesinger, former JFK confidant and the country’s preeminent liberal historian, views America’s war on Iraq with “deep gloom”

By Brian Braiker
NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


March 22 — “The bane of ideology,” wrote Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in his 1986 book “The Cycles of American History,” “is that it exalts abstractions over human beings. It impoverishes our sense of reality, and it impoverishes our imagination, too.” Schlesinger knows a few things about ideology and its role in history: In 1962 the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and advisor to President John F. Kennedy witnessed first-hand the tense unfolding and peaceful resolution of the Cuban missile crisis. Today he is witnessing “with deep gloom” what he calls a dangerous shift in American foreign policy towards the ideological.

THE SON OF A prominent American historian, the bow-tied Schlesinger followed in his father’s professional steps, and even went on to live through a good chunk of it himself. An unrepentant New Dealer, he taught at Harvard, his alma mater, from 1946 until 1961, when he was appointed special assistant to the president for Latin American affairs. He won his first Pulitzer Prize for history at the age of 28 for his book “The Age of Jackson,” and his second in 1966 for “A Thousand Days: JFK in the White House.” He is the general editor of a new series of biographies called “The American Presidents” (Henry Holt & Company).
NEWSWEEK’s Brian Braiker spoke with Schlesinger about Gorge W. Bush as a wartime president.



NEWSWEEK: How would you describe Bush as a wartime president?

Arthur Shlesinger: Well I think he’s made a fatal mistake. I think we’ve made a fatal mis-turn in our foreign policy by abandoning the doctrine of containment-plus-deterrence (which won the Cold War peacefully), and adopting as the basis of our foreign policy preventive war. Preventive war, anticipatory self-defense, was the doctrine with which the Japanese justified Pearl Harbor. FDR, an earlier American president, said that it was a date that will live in infamy. And now the Bush doctrine is a doctrine of preventive war, which makes America the self-appointed world’s judge, jury and executioner. However benign the motives, it’s bound to have a corrupting effect on our leadership. I think the whole notion of America as the world’s judge, jury and executioner is a tragically mistaken notion.

Robert Kennedy called preventive war “Pearl Harbor in reverse.” Is that what we’re seeing now?

That’s what we’re seeing now. And no wonder we look to the rest of the world as a lumbering bully. I regard this with deep gloom.

Are you suggesting that Bush and his administration lack a sense of history that is required of someone in this position?
Yes. I think they lack a sense of history. They lack an instinct of respect for the views of other countries. It’s “the rest of the world is OK only insofar as it conforms to the views of the White House.” And I don’t think this is a healthy position for the White House to have.

How does aggression against Saddam Hussein, as you have said, play into our enemies’ hands?
Anti-American zealots around the world are strengthened by the conduct of this administration, by their belief that the rest of the world has to conform to our issues, to our attitudes.

But does containment even work against someone like Saddam?

Yeah, he was contained for ten years. The last thing he would do would be to commit an act of aggression because an act of aggression would legitimize the reaction of massive retaliation. He has not stirred beyond his own frontiers for ten years. As the C.I.A. has pointed out, the threat from Saddam Hussein will come only when we invade him.

How will that threat manifest itself, in your opinion?
I have no idea.

JFK’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson consigned Britain to a “tame and minor role in the world.” Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently referred to our allies as “old Europe.” Do you see parallels there?
Well, Dean Acheson was not secretary of State when he made that remark. He made it as a private citizen. Rumsfeld has succeeded in antagonizing most of the rest of world.

So if personalities play a role in shaping history, then, what can you say about the personalities of Bush and Rumsfeld?
They’re ideologues. Bush seems to feel that he’s been appointed by the almighty to go to war with Iraq. But Iraq is far less of a clear and present danger than North Korea. North Korea has nuclear weapons. The difference in our treatment between Iraq and North Korea is strong incentive for other countries, other rogue states, to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

Still, we are witnessing a rally-round-the-flag phenomenon of a new war-Bush’s approval ratings are above 70 percent. How long do you expect that to hold true?
Well, it all depends on how the war goes. I think the British have lost more men in the war than we have. I think the war will be over in two or three weeks, if it lasts more than a month, then I think the polls will be less enthusiastic about the war.


There didn’t seem to be much in the way of Congressional debate before this war. Why do you think that is?
Partly because of the American press. Every utterance of [Vice-President Dick] Cheney or Rumsfeld was given front-page treatment, whereas any utterance from Senators [Edward] Kennedy or [Robert] Byrd or Bob Graham were ignored or given page 18, one-paragraph treatment. There was the makings of a great debate about this, but the press so favored the administration and they so excluded, they so ignored the opposition in Congress. Both Byrd and Kennedy gave thoughtful, capable speeches—a succession of them—and the press did not give equal time to the opposition.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/889365.asp?0cv=KB20#BODY

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Pressekonferenz von Michael Moore nach dem Gewinn des Oskar auf Video:

http://www.oscar.com/oscarnight/winners/win_32297.html

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

[Joerver]

Damit mit niemand Einseitigkeit nachsagen kann.