Friday, June 13, 2003

Re: A New Home for Nato? Dear Friends: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has warned Belgium that it is in danger of losing the right to host NATO, and that the US would withhold financing for a new NATO headquarters building if Belgium does not rescind a law that has been used to accuse American officials of war crimes. Belgium's controversial human rights laws give its courts power to try foreigners for war crimes even if they were committed abroad. Among those indicted are General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in Iraq; former Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who was the 1991 Gulf War commander; Vice-President Dick Cheney; and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Rumsfeld's blunt language served to stir up resentment against the US, just as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was mending internal divisions over the war in Iraq. Ironically, Rumsfeld lashed out at Belgium, declaring that "Belgium appears not to respect the sovereignty of other countries." ________________________ International Herald Tribune June 13, 2003 A different home for NATO?  by  Craig S. Smith/NYT NYT Rumsfeld says Belgian law could prompt alliance to leave   BRUSSELS Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Belgium on Thursday that it risked losing the right to host the world's most important military alliance if it did not rescind a law that has been used to accuse American officials of war crimes. "We will have to seriously consider whether we can allow our civilian and military officials to come to Belgium," he said, adding that NATO could easily hold its meetings elsewhere. The blunt language served to stir up resentment against the U.S. here just as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was mending internal divisions over the war in Iraq. "Tactless," is how one NATO diplomat described the U.S. defense secretary's words at an evening press conference in which he said the United States would withhold financing for a new NATO headquarters building as long as the Belgian law remained on the books. The attack is sure to fuel nationalist sentiments here and complicate the government's efforts to unwind the legislation, diplomats said. The comments overshadowed the progress the alliance's defense ministers made in revamping NATO into the faster-acting and farther-reaching organization that Washington has demanded. The ministers agreed on a streamlined command structure and the formation of a rapid reaction force later this year. The Belgian law, passed in the mid-1990s, allows virtually anyone to bring war crimes lawsuits against any country's national leaders in Belgium's courts. Former President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and, most recently, General Tommy Franks have been accused by various groups under the law. All NATO countries are concerned about the threat the law poses, diplomats here say, but many complained that Rumsfeld's approach only muddied the waters. "We believe that at the moment of particularly deep differences in Europe after the war in Iraq we should avoid harsh language and do everything to heal rather than provoke," said another senior NATO official. Many diplomats here, none of whom wished to be named, said it was classic behavior for Rumsfeld, a former U.S. NATO ambassador himself, who set Europe on edge earlier this year by calling differences over how to deal with Iraq a debate between "old" and "new" Europe. True as that was, many diplomats say the divisive language served to deepen resentments and harden positions. While the alliance's defense ministers and their NATO ambassadors have worked hard to ease lingering tensions over the fractious Iraq debate, some said Rumsfeld seemed determined to keep those tensions alive. "When the French or German ministers spoke, he would make a show of not paying attention, reading notes or talking to his neighbors," said one senior European diplomat. "He went out of his way to show he doesn't care." Despite Rumsfeld's behavior, the ministers managed to make striking progress on restructuring the alliance along the lines agreed to during a NATO summit meeting in Prague last year. "This is a new NATO, a NATO transformed," said George Robertson, the alliance's secretary-general. In further developments to sharpen the alliance's military edge, allies agreed that first elements of an elite rapid response force should be up and running by October. And a dozen allies signed commitments to lease ships and big transport planes to fill a yawning gap in their military toolbox. The alliance's worldwide operational command will be centered in its European headquarters outside Casteau in southern Belgium. Its Atlantic command, at Norfolk, Virginia, will become a "transformation headquarters" overseeing the military modernization. NATO's regional and subregional headquarters will be cut from 20 to 11 to slim down a grid of commands dating back to the Cold War.        Copyright © 2003 the International Herald Tribune All Rights Reserved _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) =========================== 4:46:52 PM

Re: State of Union Speech Based on Falsehoods Dear Friends: As early as March, 2002 the CIA warned the White House that documents being used to support the claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa were forged. Yet Bush used these documents for his State of the Union speech given on January 28, 2003. The purported Iraqi effort to buy uranium oxide was used by Bush and senior administration officials to support their claim that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. Who's going to be the fall guy for this one? Since investigations are clearly going to be held, the Bush administration is now back-peddling, and is getting to that "mistakes were made" stage. The alibi beginning to be offered is that Bush didn't know, or that he was intentionally misled. ______________________________ The Washington Post June 13, 2003 CIA Says It Cabled Key Data to White House But Officials Say Document Lacked Conclusion on Iraqi Uranium Deal by Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writer The CIA, facing criticism for its failure to pass on a key piece of information that put in doubt Iraq's purported attempts to buy uranium from Niger, said yesterday it sent a cable to the White House and other government agencies in March 2002 that said the claim had been denied by officials from the central African country. But Bush administration officials acknowledged that the 11/2-page document did not include the conclusion of a former U.S. ambassador dispatched by the CIA to Niger the month before that documents outlining a transfer of uranium to Baghdad were not authentic. The CIA cable attributed the Niger officials' denials to an anonymous source, but failed to mention the name of the former ambassador, who was a recognized expert in Africa, or that it had sent him to Niger. The purported Iraqi effort to buy uranium oxide was used by President Bush and senior administration officials as a central piece of evidence to support their assertion that Iraq had an ongoing nuclear weapons program. The CIA's failure to pass on the details of what it knew helped keep the uranium-purchase story alive until shortly before the war in Iraq began, when the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector told the Security Council that the documents were forgeries. An administration official said yesterday that the CIA report was only one of many such cables received by the White House each day. The official said that other information received after March 2002 supported claims that Iraq was actively attempting to buy uranium. Because of the anonymous nature of the source cited in the CIA report, it was not considered unusual or very important and not passed on to Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, or other senior White House officials. Rice, in defending Bush's decision to claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28, said she was unaware that there were doubts about the information. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." A White House spokesman said yesterday, "We have acknowledged that some documents detailing a transaction between Iraq and Niger were forged and we no longer give them credence. They were, however, only once piece of evidence in a larger body of evidence suggesting Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa." The official added that in his speech the president talked about purchases from Africa and did not specifically mention Niger, adding that Bush's comments were "based on a multiple of other sources." Senior intelligence officials said the CIA on several occasions after March 2002 told administration policymakers about its doubts about claims Iraq was seeking uranium. When the State Department on Dec. 19, 2002, posted a reference to Iraq not supplying details on its uranium purchases, the CIA raised an objection, "but it came too late" to prevent its publication, the senior intelligence official said. The agency did get a reference to the alleged sales removed from a speech made to the Security Council by U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte and kept it out of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the council on Feb. 5 that outlined the administration's case that Iraq had covert weapons programs, the official said. © 2003 The Washington Post Company _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 4:46:10 PM

Re: Senate Hearings on WMD Dear Friends: Questions about the existence of weapons of mass destruction are gaining momentum daily. Facing increasing pressure to investigate whether faulty information about these WMD was used to justify the attack on Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee will begin closed hearings next week on the matter. Opponents of the war have long been skeptical of the Bush administration's assertions that it had evidence of banned weapons. In the words of Representative Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA),''There is certainly a growing credibility gap that the Bush administration faces. There has to be an accounting.'' ____________________ The Boston Globe June 12, 2003 Closed Hearings are Planned on US Reports of Iraqi Arms Democrats seek a wider probe by Susan Milligan, Globe Staff WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee, facing mounting pressure to investigate whether faulty information on weapons of mass destruction was used to justify the attack on Iraq, will begin closed hearings next week on the matter, the panel's chairman said yesterday. But House and Senate Republicans rejected Democrats' call for public hearings or a full-scale investigation of the controversy, saying that it would be premature to do so until Intelligence Committee members complete their internal review. ''We need to do our homework first,'' said Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Intelligence Committee. He pledged to ''go about this in a very deliberate and bipartisan manner'' and said the panel would issue a statement ''when the committee deems it appropriate.'' Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and a leading advocate of a broader inquiry, said that he welcomed the closed hearings, but that they were not sufficient to fully explore the matter. In the months before the war, the Bush administration repeatedly pointed to evidence it said it had that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, in violation of United Nations resolutions. But a prewar report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, released recently, said that there was no direct evidence of such weapons. Some Democrats are now saying that the United States may have been duped, and they want a full investigation of whether the intelligence was flawed and whether anyone in the Bush administration knowingly presented wrong or incomplete information. Opponents of the war have long been skeptical of the Bush administration's assertions that it had evidence of banned weapons, and they had demanded that UN inspectors be given more time to look for them. But now, questions are being raised by lawmakers such as Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida and former chairman of the Intelligence Committee, as well as lawmakers who voted for the resolution authorizing force against Iraq. Graham is a Democratic presidential candidate who voted against that resolution, but he was widely considered by his colleagues to be an evenhanded, nonpartisan leader of the committee. ''Hearings are essential,'' said Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who last year voted to allow force against Iraq. ''We need to review all of the prewar intelligence and determine whether that intelligence information was accurate. ''Then we have to determine whether or not there was any attempt by anyone in the administration to color that intelligence in a way to make it appear that the evidence of weapons of mass destruction was different than it actually was,'' he said. Representative Joseph M. Hoeffel, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said he did not regret his vote to authorize force against Iraq, but did worry that Congress's overwhelming decision to allow force was based on wrong information. ''There is certainly a growing credibility gap that the Bush administration faces,'' Hoeffel said. ''There has to be an accounting.'' Roberts and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chided Democrats for what the senators called a partisan assault. They said their committees were both committed to conducting thorough examinations of the intelligence community, including the flow of intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. ''I see individuals taking small bits and pieces and elevating it in such a way that it raises suspicion and doubt in the minds of the leaders,'' Warner said. ''The evidence I have examined does not rise to give the presumption that anyone in this administration has hyped or cooked or embellished such evidence to a particular purpose.'' Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice have also defended the administration's statements about evidence of Iraqi arms. But several members of Congress -- including Hoeffel and Representative William D. Delahunt, Democrat of Quincy -- said that Powell was always more measured and cautious in his language than President Bush when Powell gave closed briefings to Congress before the war about weapons of mass destruction. Capitol Hill Republicans have defended the president, but have pointed out that eliminating weapons of mass destruction was not the only reason the United States and Britain launched an attack. Democrats said their big concern was that the United States be confident of its intelligence reports before launching any future attack, particularly if the doctrine of preemptive strikes becomes an accepted piece of American foreign policy. ''Were the American people misled or was the president misled? In either case, it warrants a full, thorough investigation,'' Delahunt said. --Susan Milligan can be reached at milligan@globe.com. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 4:45:36 PM

Think early 1930s, folks, in Germany, as Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, and maybe, just maybe, you'll see that we are not far away from suffering the same fate at the hands of the fascist good ole boys from Texas....   Re: Paul Krugman Readies for Battle With House Majority Leader Dear Friends: Journalist Paul Krugman is ready to do battle with House Majority leader Tom DeLay. Not only was DeLay involved in the attempted Texas redistricting dirty tricks fiasco, the Westar Energy case, and the sabotaging of tax credits for 12 million children, but he and his gang are key players in the radical right power grab. If they are successful, they will transform our country into an America few of us would welcome. By playing down the seriousness of the challenge, says Krugman, we help bring DeLay's vision closer to reality.  --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- The New York Times June 13, 2003 'Some Crazy Guy' by Paul Krugman Last year I tried to illustrate just how far to the right America's ruling party has moved by quoting some of Representative Tom DeLay's past remarks. I got some puzzling responses. "Who cares what some crazy guy in Congress says?" wrote one liberal economist, chiding me for being alarmist. Some crazy guy? Public images are funny things. Newt Gingrich became a famous symbol of Republican radicalism. By contrast, most people know little about Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader. Yet Mr. DeLay is more radical  and more powerful  than Mr. Gingrich ever was. Maybe Mr. DeLay's public profile will be raised by his success yesterday in sabotaging tax credits for 12 million children. Those tax credits would cost only $3.5 billion. But Mr. DeLay has embedded the credits in an $82 billion tax cut package. That is, he wants to extort $22 in tax cuts (in the face of record budget deficits) for every dollar given to poor children. But the really important stories about Mr. DeLay, a central figure in the impeachment of Bill Clinton, involve his continuing drive to give his party a permanent lock on power. Consider the case of Westar Energy, whose chief executive was indicted for fraud. The subsequent investigation turned up e-mail in which executives described being solicited by Republican politicians for donations to groups linked to Mr. DeLay, in return for a legislative "seat at the table." The provision Westar wanted was duly inserted into an energy bill. (Republican leaders deny that there was any quid pro quo.) There's every reason to believe that the Westar case is unusual only in the fact that the transaction came to light. Under Mr. DeLay's leadership, Republicans have established a huge fund-raising advantage, based not just on promises special interests have always been able to buy favorable policies, but never so brazenly  but also on threats. Mr. DeLay pioneered the "K Street strategy," which  in a radical break with tradition  punishes lobbying firms that try to maintain good relations with both parties. Then there's the Texas redistricting story. Normally states redraw Congressional districts once a decade: Texas redistricted after the 2000 census. But under Mr. DeLay's leadership, Texas Republicans are trying to increase their advantage in seats with a second redistricting. This in itself is an unprecedented power grab. But it gets worse. Texas Democrats responded with a parliamentary maneuver, walking out to deprive the state Legislature of a quorum. In response, hundreds of state law enforcement officers were diverted from crime-fighting to search for the missing Democrats  assisted, yes, by the Department of Homeland Security. A telling anecdote: When an employee tried to stop Mr. DeLay from smoking a cigar on government property, the majority leader shouted, "I am the federal government." Not quite, not yet, but he's getting there. So what will Mr. DeLay and his associates do with their lock on power, once it is firmly established? They will push through a radical right-wing agenda. For example, expect to see much less environmental protection: Mr. DeLay has described the Environmental Protection Agency as "the Gestapo." Above all, expect to see the wall between church and state come tumbling down. Mr. DeLay has said that he went into politics to promote a "biblical worldview," and that he pursued President Clinton because he didn't share that view. Where would this worldview be put into effect? How about the schools: after the Columbine school shootings, Mr. DeLay called a press conference in which he attributed the tragedy to the fact that students are taught the theory of evolution. There's no point in getting mad at Mr. DeLay and his clique: they are what they are. I do, however, get angry at moderates, liberals and traditional conservatives who avert their eyes, pretending that current disputes are just politics as usual. They aren't  what we're looking at here is a radical power play, which if it succeeds will transform our country. Yet it's considered uncool to point that out. Many of those who minimize the threat the radical right now poses to America as we know it would hate to live in the country Mr. DeLay wants to create. Yet by playing down the seriousness of the challenge, they help bring his vision closer to reality.  Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) 4:44:53 PM