|
Monday, June 16, 2003 |
|
Re: Interview With Noam Chomsky Dear Friends: In an interview with Noam Chomsky, Atilio Boron asks what was the real goal behind the war on Iraq, who's next on the US agenda, and what has been the impact of the war on America's domestic politics and their civil liberties. Chomsky responds with his customary brilliance and cutting insight. Because of the length of this interview, it will not be included in its entirety in this newsletter. Please see our web site, under the section heading of "Articles" for the complete interview. The URL is http://www.warandpeacewatch.com Noam Chomsky is one of America's most prominent political dissidents. A renowned professor of linguistics at MIT, he has authored over 30 political books dissecting such issues as U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media. _______________________ ZNet | Terror War June 14, 2003 What's Happening? Boron Interviews Chomsky by Noam Chomsky and Atilio Boron Atilio A. Boron: Looking at the recent US policies in Iraq, What do you think was the real goal behind this war? Noam Chomsky: Well, we can be quite confident on one thing. The reasons we are given can't possibly be the reasons. And we know that, because they are internally contradictory. So one day, Bush and Powell would claim that "the single question," as they put it, is whether Iraq would disarm and the next day they would say it doesn´t matter whether Iraq disarms because they will go on and invade anyway. And the next day would be that if Saddam and his group get out then the problem will be solved; and then, the next day for example, at the Azores, at the summit when they made an ultimatum to the United Nations, they said that even if Saddam and his group get out they would go on and invade anyway. And they went on like that. When people give you contradictory reasons every time they speak, all they are saying is, "don't believe a word I say." So we can dismiss the official reasons. And the actual reasons I think are not very obscure. First of all, there´s a long standing interest. That does not account for the timing but it does account for the interest. And that is that Iraq has the second large oil reserves in the World and controlling Iraqi oil and even ending up probably with military bases in Iraq will place the United States in an extremely strong position to dominate the global energy system even more than it does today. That's a very powerful lever of world control, quite apart from the profits that comes from it. And the US probably doesn't intend to access the oil of Iraq; it intends to use primarily safer Atlantic basin resources for itself (Western Hemisphere, West Africa). But to control the oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect. So that's a long standing interest. On the other hand it doesn't explain the timing. If you want to look at the timing, I think that it became quite clear that the massive propaganda for the war began in September of last year, September 2002. Before that there was a condemnation of Iraq but no effort to whip people into war fever. So we asked what else happened then September 2002. Well, two important things happened. One was the opening of the mid term congressional campaign, and the Bush´s campaign manager, Karl Rove, was very clearly explaining what should be obvious to anybody anyway: that they could not possible enter the campaign with a focus on social and economic issues. The reason is that they are carrying out policies which are quite harmful to the general population and favorable to an extremely narrow sector of corporate power and the corrupt sectors as well, and they can't face the electorate on that. As he pointed out, if we can make the primary issue national security then we will be able win because people will--you know--flock to power if they feel frightened. And that is second nature to these people; that's the way they have ran the country--right through the 1980´s--with very unpopular domestic programs but accustomed to press into the panic button--Nicaragua, Grenada, crime, one thing after another. And Rove also pointed out that something similar would be needed for the presidential election. And that's true and what they want do is not just to stay in office but they would like to institutionalize the very regressive program put forward domestically, a program which will basically unravel whatever is left of New Deal social democratic systems and turn the country almost completely into a passive undemocratic society, controlled totally by high concentration of capitals. This means slashing public medical assistance, social security; probably schools; and increasing state power. These people are not conservatives, they brought the country into a federal deficit with the largest increase in federal spending in 20 years, that is since their last term in office--and huge tax cuts for the rich, and they want to institutionalize these programs. They are seeking a "fiscal train wreck" that will make it impossible to fund the programs. They know they cannot face an election declaring that they want to destroy very popular programs, but they can throw up their hands in despair and say, "What can we do, there's no money," after they have made sure there would be no money by huge tax cuts for the rich and sharp increase in spending for military (including high tech industry) and other programs beneficial to corporate power and the wealthy. So that's the second, that's the domestic factor and in fact, there was a spectacular propaganda achievement on that. After the government-media propaganda campaign began in September they succeeded in convincing a majority of the population very quickly that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the United States, and even that Iraq was responsible for September 11th. I mean, there is not a grain of truth in all that, but by now majority of the population believes those things and those attitudes are correlated strongly with the commitment to war, which is understandable. If people think they are threatened with destruction by an enemy who´s already attacked them it is {delete "all"} likely that they'll go to war. In effect, if you look at the press today they describe soldiers as saying: "we are here for revenge-- you know--because they blew up the World Trade Center, they will attack us", or something. Well, these beliefs are completely unique to the United States. For more of this interview with Noam Chomsky, please go to our web site http://www.warandpeacewatch.com _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 2:31:39 PM 
|
|
Re: The Journalist as Target Dear Friends: The invasion of Iraq may well become known as the war when journalists became the target. Already under fire by the Pentagon was freedom of the press, and truth frequently went missing in action during the skirmishes. The BBC, Al-Jazeera, and the US Committee to Protect Journalists all concluded that the Pentagon was determined to deter western correspondents from reporting any war from the 'enemy' side; would view such journalism in Iraq as activity of 'military significance', and might well bomb the area. And so they did. _________________________ The Observer June 15, 2003 Turning the Tanks on the Reporters Iraq will go down as the war when journalists seemed to become a target, writes Philip Knightley The Pentagon made it clear from the beginning of the Iraq war that there would be no censorship. What it failed to say was that war correspondents might well find themselves in a situation similar to that in Korea in 1950. This was described by one American correspondent as the military saying: 'You can write what you like - but if we don't like it we'll shoot you.' The figures in Iraq tell a terrible story. Fifteen media people dead, with two missing, presumed dead. If you consider how short the campaign was, Iraq will be notorious as the most dangerous war for journalists ever. This is bad enough. But - and here we tread on delicate ground - it is a fact that the largest single group of them appear to have been killed by the US military. Brigadier General Vince Brooks, deputy director of operations, has told us the Americans do not target journalists. But some war correspondents do not believe him, and Spanish journalists have demonstrated outside the US embassy in Madrid shouting 'murderers'. I believe that the traditional relationship between the military and the media - one of restrained hostility - has broken down, and the US administration has decided its attitude to war correspondents is the same as that set out by President Bush when declaring war on terrorists: 'You're either with us or against us.' Journalists prepared to get on side - and that means 100 per cent on side - will become 'embeds' and get every assistance. Any who follow an objective, independent path, the so-called 'unilaterals', will be shunned. And those who report from the enemy side will risk being shot. The media should have seen it coming. Last year the BBC sent one of its top reporters, Nik Gowing, to Washington to try to find out how it was that its correspondent, William Reeve, who had just re-opened the Corporation's studio in Kabul and was giving a live TV interview for BBC World, was blown out of his seat by an American smart missile. Four hours later, a few blocks away, the office and residential compound of the Arab TV network Al-Jazeera was hit by two more American missiles. The BBC, Al-Jazeera, and the US Committee to Protect Journalists thought it prudent to find out from the Pentagon what steps they could take to protect their correspondents if war came to Iraq. Rear Admiral Craig Quigley was frank. He said the Pentagon was indifferent to media activity in territory controlled by the enemy, and that the Al-Jazeera compound in Kabul was considered a legitimate target because it had 'repeatedly been the location of significant al-Qaeda activity'. It turned out that this activity was interviews with Taliban officials, something Al-Jazeera had thought to be normal journalism. All three organisations concluded that the Pentagon was determined to deter western correspondents from reporting any war from the 'enemy' side; would view such journalism in Iraq as activity of 'military significance', and might well bomb the area. This view was reinforced in the early days of the war in Iraq, when the Pentagon wrote officially to Al-Jazeera asking it to remove its correspondents from Baghdad. Downing Street made the same request to the BBC. In the US a Pentagon official called media bosses to a meeting in Washington to tell them how foolhardy and dangerous it was to have correspondents in the Iraqi capital. But no one realised it might also be dangerous to work outside the system the Pentagon had devised for allowing war correspondents to cover the war: embedding. In total, 600 correspondents, including about 150 from foreign media, and even one from the music network MTV, accepted the Pentagon's offer to be embedded with military units. I found only one instance of an embedded correspondent who wrote a story highly critical of the behaviour of US troops and which went against the official account of what had occurred. On 31 March, American soldiers opened fire on a civilian van that had failed to stop at a checkpoint, killing seven Iraqi women and children. US officials said the driver of the car failed to stop after warning shots and that troops had fired at the passenger cabin as 'a last resort'. But William Branigin, of the Washington Post, embedded with the Third Infantry, witnessed the shooting. He reported that no warning shot was fired and that 10 people, not seven, were killed. It will be interesting to see what becomes of Branigin's relations with the US military. For the rest of the embeds, the conclusion of veteran New York Times journalist Sydney H Schanberg applies: 'Embedded means you're there,' he said. 'It also means you're stuck'. But that is what the Pentagon wanted, and after the death of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, and the probable deaths of two of his team (they're still listed as missing) who had been operating unilaterally, the Coalition Commander, General Tommy Franks, pointed out that no embedded correspondent had been killed. What Franks did not reveal was exactly how Lloyd died. Now, more than a month after Lloyd's death, neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Pentagon has told ITN what the investigation into his death has revealed. It may turn out this was an unfortunate accident, another 'friendly fire' incident. But what happened at the Palestine Hotel was a different matter. On 8 April, three war correspondents were killed when an American tank fired a shell at the suite on the 15th floor. Tarek Ayyoub, a cameraman for Al-Jazeera, was killed when a US plane bombed the channel's office in Baghdad. American forces also opened fire on the offices of Abu Dhabi TV, whose identity is spelled out in large letters on the roof. In the Iraq war the Pentagon regarded Al-Jazeera as an enemy propaganda station, putting out devastating accounts of Iraqi civilian casualties to a vast Arab audience, fuelling anti-American sentiment. Al-Jazeera was apprehensive about US reaction and repeatedly informed the US military of the exact co-ordinates of its Baghdad office. It was a waste of time. The Pentagon has offered neither explanation nor apology. When the news of the Palestine Hotel attack first came, the American command said nothing until it emerged that the French TV channel, France 3, had filmed the tank aiming and firing. Then the coalition put out a series of contradictory accounts. Colonel David Perkins, commander of the Third Infantry Division's Second Brigade, said Iraqis in front of the hotel were firing rocket-propelled grenades at the tank. The division's commander, General Bouford Blount, issued a statement saying the tank had come under sniper fire from the hotel roof and had fired at the source of the shooting, which had then stopped. Correspondents in the Palestine Hotel insisted there had been no grenades and no sniper fire. But the most telling evidence is that France 3's cameraman had started filming some minutes before the tank opened fire, and his camera's sound track records no shots whatsoever. More puzzling was an official Spanish government statement that the coalition had actually declared the Palestine Hotel a military objective 48 hours before it was attacked and that the correspondents should have left. This was news to the correspondents, all of whom denied knowledge of any warning. I am convinced that in the light of all the evidence the Pentagon is determined there will be no more reporting from the enemy side, and a few deaths among the correspondents who do will deter others. And the Pentagon's policy will work. Al-Jazeera seriously considered pulling all of its correspondents out of Iraq because it could not guarantee their safety. Arab TV and British media bosses will think twice in any future war of sending staff reporters to the enemy side - not least because insurers will refuse to underwrite the risk. I think the Pentagon is not concerned in the slightest about its attacks on journalists because it is convinced that the public will support its view and its actions. With five out of 10 Americans believing that most of the terrorists who carried out the attack on 11 September were Iraqis, the American media decided that its readers and viewers were not interested in the plight of Iraqi victims. The New York Times said it aimed to capture the true nature of the war but avoid 'the gratuitous use of images simply for shock value'. The biggest radio group in the US, Clear Channel, used its stations to organise pro-war rallies. McVay Media, one of America's largest communications consulting companies, advised its radio clients to play 'patriotic music that makes you cry, salute and get cold chills', and under no circumstances cover war protests. When New York magazine writer Michael Wolff broke ranks at the coalition's daily press conference at Qatar and asked General Brooks: 'Why are we here? Why should we stay? What's the value of what we're learning at this million-dollar press centre?' Fox TV attacked him for lack of patriotism, and right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh gave out Wolff's email address - in one day he received 3,000 hate emails. Finally, a mysterious civilian in army uniform took him aside and told him: 'This is a fucking war, asshole. No more questions for you.' Wolff realised that the press conferences were not for the benefit of correspondents. The correspondents were extras in a piece of theatre. The farce could not have taken place if the correspondents had gone home, but given the competitive nature of war reporting, there was no danger of that. Let's finish with a look at the image that everyone will still remember when the debate and all these issues are long forgotten. As seen on television and on the front pages of newspapers around the world, cheering Iraqis attach a rope and a chain to Saddam's neck then call on the services of an American vehicle to haul him down. The statue hesitates, bends at the knees and topples into the dust. In an information war heavy with symbolism, this marked the end of Saddam Hussein and the coalition's victory. But this image was not quite what it seemed. The statue was pulled down by American troops using American equipment - the Iraqis on their own would not have been able to do it. Although there were lots of other statues, the toppling of this one took place opposite the Palestine Hotel, where most members of the international media were still staying. Without the media, the event would have meant nothing. Long-distance shots show that the Iraqis who helped topple the statue and later celebrated its fall numbered no more than 100. So what happened? Was it as portrayed - a spontaneous outpouring of joy by ordinary Iraqis? Or was it a photo opportunity, a staged event in the theatre of propaganda? Excited TV presenters told their viewers they were witnessing history. But whose history? --Philip Knightley is the author of 'First Casualty' (Carlton), a history of war correspondents and propaganda. A longer version of this article appears in the BJR edition 14(2), available from SAGE Publications, 6 Bonhill Street, London EC2A 4PU. Subscription hotline: 020 7330 1266. E-mail: subscription@sagepub.co.uk Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 2:31:01 PM
|
|
Re: Former Aid Blasts War on Terror Dear Friends: When Rand Beers, a top White House counterterrorism adviser, resigned, it took Washington by surprise. But what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know? ______________________________ Washington Post June 16, 2003 Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror by Laura Blumenfeld Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox. "Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting. Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know? "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out." No single issue has defined the Bush presidency more than fighting terrorism. And no issue has both animated and intimidated Democrats. Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing." Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in. "Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork." In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded." The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy." "I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully." He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said. As for the Saudis, he said, the administration has not pushed them hard enough to address their own problem with terrorism. Even last September, he said, "attacks in Saudi Arabia sounded like they were going to happen imminently." Within U.S. borders, homeland security is suffering from "policy constipation. Nothing gets done," Beers said. "Fixing an agency management problem doesn't make headlines or produce voter support. So if you're looking at things from a political perspective, it's easier to go to war." The Immigration and Naturalization Service, he said, needs further reorganization. The Homeland Security Department is underfunded. There has been little, if any, follow-through on cybersecurity, port security, infrastructure protection and immigration management. Authorities don't know where the sleeper cells are, he said. Vulnerable segments of the economy, such as the chemical industry, "cry out for protection." "We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military," he said. Abroad, the CIA has done a good job in targeting the al Qaeda leadership. But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action: "a rhetorical policy. What else can you say -- 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' " When asked about Beers, Sean McCormack, an NSC spokesman, said, "At the time he submitted his resignation, he said he had decided to leave government. We thanked him for his three decades of government service." McCormack declined to comment further. However it was viewed inside the administration, onlookers saw it as a rare Washington event. "I can't think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme," said Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. "He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office." Although Beers has worked in three Republican administrations, he is a registered Democrat. He wanted to leave the NSC quietly, so when he resigned, he said it was for "personal reasons." His friends called, worried: "Are you sick?" When Beers joined the White House counterterrorism team last August, the unit had suffered several abrupt departures. People had warned him the job was impossible, but Beers was upbeat. On Reagan's NSC staff, he had replaced Oliver North as director for counterterrorism and counternarcotics, known as the "office of drugs and thugs." "Randy's your model government worker," said Wendy Chamberlin, a U.S. Agency for International Development administrator for Iraq, who worked with Beers on counterterrorism on the NSC of the first Bush administration. "He works for the common good of the American people. He's fair, balanced, honest. No one ever gets hurt feelings hearing the truth from Randy." The first thing Beers noticed when he walked into his new office was the pile of intelligence reports. The "threat stuff," as Beers calls it, was 10 times thicker than it had been before the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings. He was in a job that would grind down anyone. Every day, 500 to 1,000 pieces of threat information crossed his desk. The typical mix included suspicious surveillance at a U.S. embassy; surveillance of a nuclear power plant or a bridge; a person caught by airport security with a weapon, or an airplane flying too close to the CIA; a tanker truck, which might contain a bomb, crossing the border and heading for a city; an intercepted phone call between suspected terrorists. Most of the top-secret reports -- pumped into his office from the White House Situation Room -- didn't pan out. Often they came from a disgruntled employee or a spouse. When the chemical agent ricin surfaced in the London subway, "we were worried it might manifest here," he said. The challenge was: "Who do we alert? How do you tell them to organize?" Every time the government raises an alarm, it costs time and money. "There's less filtering now because people don't want to make the mistake of not warning," he said. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the office met three times a week to discuss intelligence. Now, twice a day, at 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., it holds "threat matrix meetings," tracking the threats on CIA spreadsheets. It was Beers's task to evaluate the warnings and to act on them. "It's a monstrous responsibility," said William Wechsler, director for transnational threats on Clinton's NSC staff. "You sit around every day, thinking about how people want to kill thousands of Americans." Steven Simon, director for counterterrorism in the Clinton White House, said, "When we read a piece of intelligence, we'd apply the old how-straight-does-your-hair-stand-up-on-your-head test." The government's first counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who left his White House job in February after more than 10 years, said officials judged the human intelligence based on two factors: Would the source have access to the information? How reliable was his previous reporting? They scored access to information, 12345; previous reporting, abcd. "A score of D5, you don't believe. A1 -- you do," Clarke said. "It's like a jolt of espresso, and you feel like -- whoop -- it pumps you up, and wakes you up." It's easier to raise the threat level -- from code yellow to code orange, for example -- than to lower it, Beers said: "It's easier to see the increase in intelligence suggesting something's going to happen. What do you say when we're coming back down? Does nothing happening mean it's not going to happen? It's still out there." After spending all day wrestling with global jihad, Beers would go home to his Adams Morgan townhouse. "You knew not to get the phone in the middle of the night, because it was for Dad," said his son Benjamin, 28. When the Situation Room called, Beers would switch to a black, secure phone that scrambled the signal, after fishing the key out of his sock drawer. There were times he would throw on sweats over his pajamas and drive downtown. "The first day, I came in fresh and eager," he said. "On the last day, I came home tired and burned out. And it only took seven months." Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda." In the end, Beers was arriving at work each day with knots in his stomach. He did not want to abandon his colleagues at such a critical, dangerous time. When he finally decided to quit, he drove to a friend's house in Arlington. Clarke, his old counterterrorism pal, took one look at the haggard man on his stoop and opened a bottle of Russian River Pinot Noir. Then he opened another bottle. Clarke toasted Beers, saying: You can still fight the fight. Shortly after that, Beers joined the Kerry campaign. He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service. On a recent hot night, at 10 o'clock, Beers sat by an open bedroom window, wearing a T-shirt, his bare feet propped on a table. Beers was on a three-hour conference call, the weekly Monday night foreign policy briefing for the campaign. The black, secure phone by his bedside was gone. Instead, there was a red, white and blue bumper sticker: "John Kerry -- President." The buzz of helicopters blew through the window. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed, there were more helicopters circling the city. "And we need to return to that kind of diplomatic effort . . . ," Beers was saying, over the droning sound. His war goes on. © 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.) ============================================================ 2:30:39 PM
|
|
Re: Why Doesn't US Media Speak Out? Dear Friends: Eric Margolis seeks to stir us from our complacency about our government's leading us into an unjust war with Iraq, and its aftermath. Why, he asks, are the British more concerned about Tony Blair's actions in the war on Iraq than Americans are with Bush's? Nor does the media escape his sharp eye, and even the grand dame of journalism, The New York Times, comes under his fire. ___________________________________ Canoe June 15, 2003 U.S. Media Caved in to the Bush Agenda By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor Why, readers in the U.S. keep asking me, are so many Americans unconcerned their government appears to have misled them and Congress over Iraq, and then waged a war with no basis in law or fact? Why is there growing outrage in Britain over Tony Blair's equally exaggerated or patently false warnings over Iraq, while middle America couldn't seem to care less about George Bush's "Weaponsgate." One answer is found in an old joke. Greenberg is sitting in a bar. He goes up to Woo, a Chinese gentleman, and punches him. "Why'd you do that?" cries Woo. "Because of Pearl Harbor," snarls Greenberg. "But I had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, I'm Chinese!" says Woo. "Chinese, Japanese, it's all the same to me," answers Greenberg. A month later, Greenberg sees Woo in the bar and apologizes to him. The Chinese gentleman smiles, then punches Greenberg. "Why did you do that?" cries Greenberg? "Because of the Titanic." "What do I have to do with the Titanic?" asks Greenberg. "Greenberg, iceberg, it's all the same to me." Iraqis, Iranians, Pakistanis, Saudis, Taliban, al-Qaida ... it's all too much for many geographically challenged Americans. Don't bother us with the details and strange names, they say, kill 'em all, God will sort 'em out. The Muslim 'A-rabs' did 9/11 and we got revenge. Whacking those I-raqis made us feel a whole lot better. So what if Saddam didn't really have the weapons of mass destruction good ol' George W. Bush said endangered the entire world? All politicians lie. So what?" First, venting national outrage over 9/11 was one factor that helped form this group-think. Second, starting with Afghanistan, the Bush White House threatened big corporate media it would be held "unpatriotic" and occasionally hinted at unspecified reprisals if coverage did not actively support the war effort there and in Iraq. Big media too often caved in, sometimes sounding like a public relations arm of the administration. Third, there was near total domination of Iraq media commentary by the special interest groups that helped to engineer this phony war. Almost all of it in the lead-up to war was done by self-serving Iraqi exiles, uninformed generals and neo-conservatives from Washington think-tanks sometimes echoing the views of Israel's Likud party. In short, a media lynch mob developed, endlessly repeating that Baghdad's terrifying killer weapons were about to blitz the U.S. I scanned the major U.S. networks for voices challenging the distortions and bunkum coming from the White House and neo-cons. There was virtually none. Group-think and the big lie prevailed. The British and Canadian media carried both pro- and anti-war views; as a result, there was far more healthy skepticism in both nations about the war than in America. By contrast, much of the U.S. mainstream media muffled criticism, became part of the war effort and devoted itself to patriotic flag-waving. Americans would have been totally misled had it not been for such Internet sites as Antiwar.com, Bigeye and LewRockwell, and incisive magazines such as American Conservative and Harpers. Even the august New York Times allowed itself to be used. Right now, the Times is hand-wringing about two cases of plagiarism and phony reporting by staffers. It should instead be anguishing that its pages trumpeted phony reports about Iraqi weapons and links to al-Qaida that came from anti-Saddam exile groups and the pro-war cabal in the Pentagon. Most so-called Iraqi "experts" on TV, including some colleagues of mine, merely regurgitated what they had read in the morning's Times. The Times and much of the major media were duped, to put it politely, abandoning their vital role in our democratic system as tribune and questioner of the politicians. So, too, the Democratic party, which, as war fever was being stoked by the Bush administration and the press, shamefully rolled over and played dead - with the exception of that great American, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who long ago denounced Bush's Iraq misadventure, and who now demands a full investigation of how Americans and their Congress were misled. Absurd exaggerations The black comedy continues: *Bush citing what turned out to be crudely forged documents in his state of the union address. *"Drones of death" that turned out to be rickety model airplanes. *The "decontamination" trucks cited by Colin Powell that turned out to be fire trucks when inspected by the UN. *The notorious "mobile germ labs" the British press now reports were for inflating artillery balloons and, in fact, were sold to Iraq by the U.K. Some British and American intelligence officers are accusing their governments of outright lies or absurd exaggerations. Maybe Americans have become brain-dead from too much TV. Maybe they don't care terrorism is surging, or that recent polls show the U.S. is reviled, hated, or distrusted around the globe thanks to this administration and its neo-con mentors. Maybe they don't understand that over 288 Americans and an estimated 26,300 Iraqi civilians and soldiers have so far died in a totally unnecessary conflict. Or that the U.S. in now stuck in an ugly little colonial war in Iraq, its very own West Bank and Gaza. (Note to American hate-mailers: spare Canada, I'm a New Yorker.) --Eric can be reached by e-mail at margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com. Copyright © 2003, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc. 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.) ============================================================ 2:29:46 PM
|
|
Re: Rumsfeld vs. Belgium Dear Friends: In one of his most recent boorish attacks, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fumed that Belgium "appears not to respect the sovereignty of other countries." He went on to threaten the removal of NATO headquarters to another jurisdiction if Belgian law wasn't changed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. This assertion comes from one who just weeks ago paid no heed to the will of the United Nations and invaded, conquered and now occupies a country, which posed no threat to the United States. Is this respecting sovereignty? And bear in mind, this is not the first time our country been up to such mischief. __________________ Counterpunch June 14, 2003 Rumsfeld v. Belgium "Leave Us Alone or We'll Move NATO" by David Lindorff Is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld an idiot or just an unbelievable boor? And do the Times and the Associated Press have historical memories that reach past the prior day's news? What prompted these ruminations was a comment made by our pompous war secretary during his current European tour, as reported in the NYT. Miffed by a 1994 Belgian law that empowers prosecutors to go after any war criminal regardless of nationality, for crimes against humanity wherever they may have occurred, Rumsfeld, who along with the rest of the U.S. government has been opposing inclusion of the U.S. in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, actually groused that Belgium "appears not to respect the sovereignty of other countries." He went on to threaten removal of NATO hq to another jurisdiction if Belgian law wasn't changed. This assertion comes from a guy who just weeks ago ignored the will of the United Nations and invaded, conquered and now occupies a country, Iraq, which posed no threat to the U.S.! Talk about respecting sovereignty! And remember, this was no one-time transgression. We're talking about the United States of America, a country that, along with the former Soviet Union, surely shares honors as the biggest violator of national sovereignty in modern history, and which since the end of the Cold War holds that title alone. A country that is illegally holding prisoners from its war in Afghanistan (including children ) even though that conflict is over, and which still refuses even to recognize them as prisoners of war. A country that has repeatedly, in recent memory, invaded other nations that posed no threat--Grenada and Panama, --not to mention North Vietnam and Cambodia, where the casualties numbered in the millions--and which actually kidnapped the head of state of Panama, brought him to the U.S., and tried, convicted and jailed him for crimes allegedly committed in his own country. A country that a few years back bombed two foreign nations--the Sudan and Afghanistan--with no warning, and which did the same more recently in Yemen. A country that for decades has engaged in an illegal embargo--an act of war under international law-- against Cuba, causing untold damage to that country's people and economy. A country that has repeatedly violated the sovereignty of other lands by forcing them (on pain of devastating trade sanctions), to permit the advertising of cigarettes, despite efforts in those nations to reduce smoking by banning such advertising. A country that today talks casually of invading Syria and/or North Korea, and which is openly discussing the adoption of a policy of undermining the government of a sovereign nation, Iran, and which for decades has just as casually overthrown governments it didn't like, including democratically elected ones in states like Guatemala and Chile. The point should by now be clear: Rumsfeld, who has had a hand in a fair number of the above gross violations of national sovereignty (and in plenty more that haven't been listed here), may be legitimately worried that he and a host of American military leaders may find themselves being charged under Belgium's statute, but he clearly has no business complaining about any country's concept of what is fair game when it comes to respecting sovereignty. But what about the Times and the AP? Times reporter Craig S. Smith focused on European diplomats' complaints about Rumsfeld's "tactlessness." He and his editors let Rumsfeld's comment slide past without a line of comment about America's own history of trampling on national sovereignty. Meanwhile, Pauline Jelinek, writing for the AP (as published in the Philadelphia Inquirer), didn't even mention any complaints about tactlessness. She seemed more concerned that Iraqi theater commander Gen. Tommy Franks, 1991 Gulf War commander Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell have already been sued under the Belgian law (the Franks suit was subsequently tossed out by the court). Is this because Smith, Jelinek and their bosses are ignorant? Possibly. More likely though, they just don't think that Belgium and the U.S. operate by the same set of rules. Under this editorial theory, other nations of the world are bound by a stern set of behavior guidelines, enshrined in the U.N. Charter and other global treaties--and of course enforceable by us, the world's self-appointed global prosecutor and cop. The U.S., however, doesn't operate under these same rules. When we invade another country, meddle in its political affairs, impede its health or environmental or labor reform efforts, or kidnap its leader, it is not a violation of sovereignty. It is our right. We can't expect someone like the strutting Rumsfeld to change, but we can insist that the Times and AP do better than operate as the defense secretary's recording secretary and PR flak. --Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A collection of Lindorff's stories can be found here: http://www.nwuphilly.org/dave.html @CounterPunch _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 2:28:57 PM
|
|
Dear Friends: I was recently asked by a new reader, "What action can we take to beat Bush in 2004?" It's a puzzler, isn't it? But Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky took a stab at it at the recent Take Back America Conference. We are all in agreement that we do not want Bush for President, now, or in the future. I must mention, however, that the silver lining in this dark cloud is the radicalizing factor he presents. People who just couldn't be bothered, or who didn't have the time to be involved, now see the danger in such an attitude. Bush is a consciousness-raiser. This isn't "just politics." This is our life, and the quality of America and its freedoms that we're talking about. So we must find time to act, and we must find something that interests us so that we can make our presence felt. As always, witness, and act, and do this in ways that are appropriate to you. I cannot stress this enough. Using this approach, your actions will feed you, and develop you, and become your yoga/yoke. Doing what everyone else tells you to do, or what you think you should do, has a high potential for personal burn-out, and is unsatisfactory. Among the current Democratic candidates for 2004, there's no one that really makes the hear sing. Many of you favor Dean, and Kucinich (if he would only change his hair cut) is among the most progressive of those currently running for President. One reader favors Mario Cuomo. And the ghost of Adlai Stevenson and Norman Thomas are always with us. Keep looking, keep your options open, and continue to take back America. Always remember--We are the people ______________________________ 1:30:48 PM
|
|
Re: Lingering September 11 Questions Dear Friends: It is our policy to run articles dealing with September 11 only if we feel that they balanced, in good taste, and germane to the situation at hand. Newsweek's web exclusive meets these requirements. The families of September 11 victims are still raising pertinent issues about the intelligence failures that led to the attack. And writings from far and wide have heightened their anxiety, and added to their questions. What really happened, and did the Bush administration use this tragedy to manipulate the public and to further its own agenda? ________________________ Newsweek Web Exclusive June 11, 2003 Lingering Questions by Michael Isikoff & Mark Hosenball The families of 9-11 victims are still raising pertinent issues about the intelligence failures that led to the attack. Plus, Is Washington hyping the Qaeda threat? June 11-- In a long-awaited, closed-door meeting, FBI director Robert Mueller ran into a buzz saw of criticism this week from irate family members of September 11 victims over the bureau's handling of a range of matters relating to the terror attacks. The FBI put out a bland press release about the meeting on Tuesday, stating that Mueller sought to "personally answer questions" from the family members and "help them understand the FBI's ongoing role in preventing and investigating acts of terrorism." But family members who attended the meeting at the J. Edgar Hoover Building in Washington told NEWSWEEK the meeting quickly grew contentious as soon as bureau officials finished the inevitable PowerPoint presentation on the status of the 9-11 probe. Many of those present were visibly annoyed with Mueller's responses--especially over his refusal to commit to holding any bureau officials accountable for intelligence failures that preceded the attacks. "A lot of family members were angry, and there was a lot of shouting out of turn," said Steve Push, the leader of one of the 9-11 victims'-family groups. "There was a lot of unhappiness with quite a few of the responses." Much of the stiffest criticism came from "the Jersey Girls"--a group of feisty young widows from northern New Jersey whose husbands died in the World Trade Center and who have become increasingly radicalized by what they view as the U.S. government's failure to provide them with answers to many key questions about the attacks. The women from New Jersey got especially frustrated when Mueller and other top bureau officials at the meeting repeatedly brushed aside their questions, saying they couldn't respond because the answers might jeopardize the Justice Departments pending case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the accused Al Qaeda terrorist who is facing charges that he was a co-conspirator in the 9-11 attacks. "I don't give a rat's a about Moussaoui!" said Patty Casazza, a 38-year-old New Jersey resident whose husband, John, died in the World Trade Centers north tower. "Send him to Guantanamo Bay and ... get what you can from him there." Another key issue for the Jersey widows--who peppered Mueller with questions throughout the session and sometimes interrupted his responses--is accountability. Kristin Breitweiser, 32, pressed to know why bureau officials had not put together information from the so-called Phoenix memo--a July 2001 communiqué from a Phoenix-based FBI agent reporting that a suspiciously large number of Middle Eastern men were enrolling in U.S. flight schools--with information from the FBI's Minneapolis office the following month about the detention of one flight-school student in particular, Moussaoui. When Mueller responded that, because of past problems with the FBI's computer system, only one junior analyst had access to reports on both matters in the summer of 2001, Breitweiser demanded to know whether she was disciplined for her failure to realize the significance of the intelligence and call the matter to the attention of higher ups. Mueller grew indignant, according to some of those present. "If you want me to fire some 24-year-old woman who didn't have tools to know what to do ... I will not do it," he told the group. "Fire her! Fire her!" some of those present shouted out. Breitweiser said the family members didn't mean to be insensitive. But many did feel that the bureau should at least reassign the analyst. More broadly, family members say they are sickened by the fact that nearly two years after the attacks, no one in the U.S. government--neither at the FBI, CIA nor anywhere else--has been dismissed or otherwise disciplined for the multiple mistakes and intelligence foul-ups that preceded the attacks. "I don't think he understands we're done with there being no accountability for what happened to our loved ones," said Lorie Van Auken, 48, another one of the Jersey group, whose husband, Kenneth, died in the attacks. Mueller largely "kept his cool" throughout the meeting, according to Push. And in meeting with the family members, the FBI director has gone further than many others in the U.S. government in reaching out to the victims. ("In any meeting, you're going to have some people who are happy and some people who aren't", said FBI spokesman Bill Carter.) But the questions the family members are raising--about what the U.S. government knew prior to the attacks and what it has learned since--are not likely to go away. A national commission investigating 9-11 is beset with tension, according to knowledgeable sources, and there is considerable debate as to whether the panel will ever get access to key White House documents in time to prepare its report due out next year. In the meantime, the Jersey widows say they have no intention of letting the matter rest. "We're anxious,"said Casazza. "And we want answers." Another Hyped WMD Report? Even as the debate intensifies over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, new questions are being raised about whether the Bush administration is hyping intelligence about the threat of an Al Qaeda attack using chemical, biological or radiological weapons. A U.S. report submitted to the United Nations Security Council and released over the weekend made a brief splash because it appeared to contain ominous new warnings about Al Qaeda's efforts to develop biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (that's CBRN in governmentspeak) weapons. "Al Qaeda will continue its efforts to acquire and develop such weapons," the report said. "We judge that there is a high probability that Al Qaeda will attempt an attack using a CBRN weapon within the next two years," the report added. Where "the two years" estimate came from was unclear; the report was prepared by the State Department's counterterrorism office and submitted to the Security Council under a resolution requiring member countries to give periodic updates on steps they are taking to dismantle the Al Qaeda network. A spokesman for U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte today played down the significance of the report, insisting it was "consistent with what we've said before"--although he was unable to point to any previous occasion where U.S. officials had said quite the same thing about the likelihood of an Al Qaeda attack using such weapons in the next two years. In any case, that alarmist conclusion is not quite consistent with a new CIA report on the same subject. The CIA report--prepared for domestic law-enforcement agencies and posted on the CIA's Web site--takes a somewhat more measured view. While the ultimate goal of Osama bin Ladens terror network goal may be to use WMD to "cause mass casualties," the agency concludes that Al Qaeda's actual capabilities to use such weapons are primitive to nonexistent at best. "Most attacks by the group--and especially associated extremists--probably will be small scale, incorporating relatively crude delivery means and easily produced or obtained chemicals, toxins, or radiological substances," it says. Given the attention now being focused on whether the Bush administration had overstated the intelligence on Iraqi WMD, now is probably not the best time for senior officials to be speaking with two voices on a quite similar subject. © 2003 Newsweek, Inc. _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 1:27:22 PM
|
|
Re: Kucinich Claims Bush Lied Dear Friends: In the following press release, US Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) claims that Bush capitalized upon the fear of the American people following September 11, and used this fear to mislead them and Congress into invading a country without provocation. There was no imminent threat from Iraq. There were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Kucinich has introduced a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives to force the administration to turn over its information justifying that Iraq posed a menacing threat to the safety of the United States. Is this the start of Weaponsgate? _____________________________ For Immediate Release Contact: Doug Gordon Thursday, June 12, 2003 (202) 225-5871 (w) Kucinich: Administration Capitalized On Fear Of Americans Misled Congress And The American People 11 Days For The White House To Tell The Truth Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH), the leader of the opposition to the war in Iraq in the House, today, continued his pressure to demand the truth about the Administrations lead-up to the war in Iraq. Today, Kucinich issued the following statement: "Last October, this Congress voted to give the President the authority to use force against Iraq to thwart an imminent threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "The Administration urged action against an imminent threat. So Congress voted, only weeks before the 2002 election. Some Democrats voted for it thinking there would be an opportunity to refocus on domestic issues. Instead national security and Iraq's so-called imminent threat became the divisive issue in the election. The question became: who as patriotic and who wasn't. "Now it is becoming apparent that there were no massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. There was no imminent threat. The Administration capitalized on the fears of Americans. They misrepresented the nature of the Iraqi threat. They misled Congress. They misled the American people. By pushing for a quick vote before the election they changed the election and manipulated the outcome of the 2002 election. "The Resolution of Inquiry will establish the truth once and for all." Last Thursday, Kucinich introduced a Resolution of Inquiry in the House of Representatives to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to back its yet unproven claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The resolution, now signed by 36 Members of Congress, seeks to force the Administration to turn over the intelligence to substantiate claims by the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and the White House Press Secretary that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and therefore posed a threat to the United States. The resolution is a privileged resolution and must be voted on in Committee within 14 legislative days of being introduced. ______________________________ US House of Representatives Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich Ohio 10th Congressional District http://www.house.gov/kucinich _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 1:26:53 PM
|
|
Re: Saddam Continues to be of Value in Iraq 1:25:46 PM
|
|
Dear Friends: William Pitt sagely writes, "Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people. Latter-day justifications about 'liberating' the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world do not obscure this fact. They lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. They are attempting, in the aftermath, to misuse the CIA by blaming them for all of it. Blaming the CIA will not solve this problem, for the CIA is well able to defend itself... They lied. Period. Trust a teacher on this. We can spot liars who have not done their homework a mile away." _______________________ Truthout June 13, 2003 The Dog Ate My WMDs by William Rivers Pitt After several years teaching high school, I've heard all the excuses. I didn't get my homework done because my computer crashed, because my project partner didn't do their part, because I feel sick, because I left it on the bus, because I had a dance recital, because I was abducted by aliens and viciously probed. Houdini doesn't have as many tricks. No one on earth is more inventive than a high school sophomore backed into a corner and faced with a zero on an assignment. No one, perhaps, except Bush administration officials forced now to account for their astounding claims made since September 2002 regarding Iraq's alleged weapons program. After roughly 280 days worth of fearful descriptions of the formidable Iraqi arsenal, coming on the heels of seven years of UNSCOM weapons inspections, four years of surveillance, months of UNMOVIC weapons inspections, the investiture of an entire nation by American and British forces, after which said forces searched "everywhere" per the words of the Marine commander over there and "found nothing," after interrogating dozens of the scientists and officers who have nothing to hide anymore because Hussein is gone, after finding out that the dreaded 'mobile labs' were weather balloon platforms sold to Iraq by the British, George W. Bush and his people suddenly have a few things to answer for. You may recall this instance where a bombastic claim was made by Bush. During his constitutionally-mandated State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Mr. Bush said, "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Nearly five months later, those 500 tons are nowhere to be found. A few seconds with a calculator can help us understand exactly what this means. 500 tons of gas equals one million pounds. After UNSCOM, after UNMOVIC, after the war, after the US Army inspectors, after all the satellite surveillance, it is difficult in the extreme to imagine how one million pounds of anything could refuse to be located. Bear in mind, also, that this one million pounds is but a part of the Iraqi weapons arsenal described by Bush and his administration. Maybe the dog ate it. Or maybe it was never there to begin with, having been destroyed years ago by the first UN inspectors and by the Iraqis themselves. Maybe we went to war on a big lie, one that killed over 3,500 Iraqi civilians to date, one that killed some 170 American soldiers, one that has been costing us one American soldier's life per day thus far. If you listen to the Republicans on Capitol Hill, however, this is all just about "politics." An in-depth investigation into how exactly we came to go to war on the WMD word of the Bush administration has been quashed by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives. Closed-door hearings by the Intelligence Committee are planned next week, but an open investigation has been shunted aside by Bush allies who control the gavel and the agenda. If there is nothing to hide, as the administration insists, if nothing was done wrong, one must wonder why they fear to have these questions asked in public. The questions are being asked anyway. Thirty five Representatives have signed House Resolution 260, which demands with specificity that the administration back up it's oft-repeated claims about the Iraqi weapons arsenal with evidence and fact. The guts of the Resolution are as follows: Resolved, That the President is requested to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 4 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents or other materials in the President's possession that provides specific evidence for the following claims relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction: (1) On August 26, 2002, the Vice President in a speech stated: `Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction . . . What he wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons.' (2) On September 12, 2002, in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly, the President stated: `Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon.' (3) On October 7, 2002, in a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, the President stated: `It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.' (4) On January 7, 2003, the Secretary of Defense at a press briefing stated: `There is no doubt in my mind but that they currently have chemical and biological weapons.' (5) On January 9, 2003, in his daily press briefing, the White House spokesperson stated: 'We know for a fact that there are weapons there Iraq.' (6) On March 16, 2003, in an appearance on NBC's `Meet The Press', the Vice President stated: `We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong.' (7) On March 17, 2003, in an Address to the Nation, the President stated: `Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.' (8) On March 21, 2003, in his daily press briefing the White House spokesperson stated: `Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly. All this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.' (9) On March 24, 2003, in an appearance on CBS's `Face the Nation', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.' (10) On March 30, 2003, in an appearance on ABC's `This Week', the Secretary of Defense stated: `We know where they are, they are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.' On June 10, 2003, Representative Henry Waxman transmitted a letter to Condoleezza Rice demanding answers to a specific area of concern in this whole mess. His letter goes on to repeat, in scathing detail, the multifaceted claims made by the Bush administration regarding an Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and deconstructs those claims with a fine scalpel. "What I want to know is the answer to a simple question: Why did the President use forged evidence in the State of the Union address?" the letter concludes. "This is a question that bears directly on the credibility of the United States, and it should be answered in a prompt and forthright manner, with full disclosure of all the relevant facts." It is this aspect, the nuclear claims, that has led the Bush administration to do what many observers expected them to do for a while now: They have blamed it all on the CIA. A report in the June 12, 2003 edition of the Washington Post cites an unnamed Bush administration official who claims that the CIA knew the evidence of Iraqi nuclear plans had been forged, but that CIA failed to give this information to Bush. The Post story states, "A senior intelligence official said the CIA's action was the result of 'extremely sloppy' handling of a central piece of evidence in the administration's case against then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein." Ergo, it wasn't the dog who ate the WMDs. It was the CIA. Unfortunately for Bush and his people, this blame game will not hold water. Early in October of 2002, Bush went before the American people and delivered yet another vat of nightmarish descriptions of what Saddam Hussein could do to America and the world with his vast array of weaponry. One week before this speech, however, the CIA had publicly stated that Hussein and Iraq were less of a threat than they had been for the last ten years. Columnist Robert Scheer reported on October 9, 2002, that, "In its report, the CIA concludes that years of U.N. inspections combined with U.S. and British bombing of selected targets have left Iraq far weaker militarily than in the 1980s, when it was supported in its war against Iran by the United States. The CIA report also concedes that the agency has no evidence that Iraq possesses nuclear weapons." Certainly, if citizen Scheer was able to read and understand the CIA report on Iraq's nuclear capabilities, the President of the United States could easily do so as well. The scandal which laid Bill Clinton low centered around his lying under oath about sex. The scandal which took down Richard Nixon was certainly more profound, as he was accused of misusing the CIA and FBI to spy on political opponents while paying off people to lie about his actions. Lying under oath and misusing the intelligence community are both serious transgressions, to be sure. The matter of Iraq's weapons program, however, leaves both of these in deep shade. George W. Bush and his people used the fear and terror that still roils within the American people in the aftermath of September 11 to fob off an unnerving fiction about a faraway nation, and then used that fiction to justify a war that killed thousands and thousands of people. Latter-day justifications about 'liberating' the Iraqi people or demonstrating the strength of America to the world do not obscure this fact. They lied us into a war that, beyond the death toll, served as the greatest Al Qaeda recruiting drive in the history of the world. They lied about a war that cost billions of dollars which could have been better used to bolster America's amazingly substandard anti-terror defenses. They are attempting, in the aftermath, to misuse the CIA by blaming them for all of it. Blaming the CIA will not solve this problem, for the CIA is well able to defend itself. Quashing investigations in the House will not stem the questions that come now at a fast and furious clip. They lied. Period. Trust a teacher on this. We can spot liars who have not done their homework a mile away. --William Rivers Pitt william.pitt@mail.truthout.org is a New York Times best-selling author of two books - "War On Iraq" available now from Context Books, and "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," now available from Pluto Press at www.SilenceIsSedition.com. Scott Lowery contributed research to this report. © : t r u t h o u t 2003 _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 1:24:58 PM
|
|
Re: The Parable of the Sheep Dear Friends: Another week has passed, and here we are sharing another Saturday together. Let me begin by telling you a tale. It's the parable of the sheep. ___________________ Common Dreams June 11, 2003 The Parable Of The Sheep by Larry Robinson The sheep were nervous. Recently some wolves had gotten into the flock and killed some of them. There was shock, of course, and outrage. There was some talk of how much the world had changed, how things would never be the same again. Some proclaimed that all the sheep must now band together behind their leader and that those who didn't should be cast forth from the flock. There were even calls for revenge. Unfortunately, nobody knew where to find the offending wolves. Sheepdogs were hired to protect the flock as well as to protect it from itself. Some sheep had been straying too far from the flock and henceforth this would be forbidden - for their own good, of course. Those who disobeyed were liable to get bitten or even eaten. One day the leader announced that a neighboring flock had been known to harbor wolves. Moreover, he had proof that this neighboring flock was intending to launch an attack and destroy the flock. This was because the others were jealous of the flocks goodness and virtue; their rich pasture was, naturally, proof of their goodness and virtue. It was announced that, for its own safety, the flock would have to conquer the others and remove their evil shepherd. As a bonus, they would get better access to the salt lick. This would also be good for the other sheep. To do this, though, would entail sacrifice. They would have to make do with less grass and they would get sheared every month instead of every year. A small number of lambs would be required to be sacrificed, as well. But it should be remembered that the world had changed and that these sacrifices were a small price to pay for freedom from the shepherd. Of course, there were those who whispered that the leader and his friends looked a little different; that, even though they seemed to have the same fleece as everyone else, they never had to get sheared. Some even said that the leaders wool sometimes slipped and you could see a dark muzzle with long teeth underneath. This notion was laughingly dismissed by most as paranoia. Every once in a while someone would ask about the shepherd. They would remember a time when wolves were far away; when grass was more plentiful and when they only got sheared once a year. These malcontents were quickly reminded that the shepherd had been their enemy, that they were all better off now that he was gone. The war against the other flock was over quickly and the leader proclaimed a glorious victory. No wolves were found in the other flock, but the leader confidently assured the sheep that wolves would be found, that it was just a matter of time. In the meantime, the leaders friends would get exclusive access to the best grass and water. This would benefit everyone because the droppings from the friends would fertilize the entire pasture making it much more productive. How will this story unfold? Will the sheep calmly accept these conditions? Will they stand up on their hind legs and demand more grass? Stay tuned, children, for the next episode. --Larry Robinson is a Sebastopol, California city council member and former mayor. He can be reached at lrob@pon.net © Copyrighted 1997-2003 _______________________________ 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.) =========================== 1:24:16 PM
|
© Copyright
2005
craig cline
.
Last update: 6/3/2005; 8:12:41 PM .
Last update: 6/3/2005; 8:12:41 PM .
