Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
My Links
Project for the OLD American Century
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| MORE LUNACY: NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BRIBES FOR SUPREME COURT FASCISTS & GIVING LECTURES????? |
| 03.31.04 (9:15 am) [edit] |
[b]NEO-CON, NEO-FASCIST REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD--
INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN BRIBERY/CRONYISM TO DO FAVORS FOR CRIMINALS --AND -- SOMEONE GIVING A LECTURE, WHICH ALL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DO... ALL OF THEM INCLUDING THE NEO-NAZI SUPREME FASCIST SCALIA WHO SHOULD RECUSE HIMSELF FOR HIS SORDID BRIBE-TAKING FROM RIECH MARSHALL CHENEY, THE PIG WHO IS COVERING-UP THE ENERGY RAPE OF AMERICA BY HIS CORPORATE CRONIES.
THE NEO-CON, NEO-FASCISTS HAVE A CONGENITAL DISEASE: THE INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CORRUPTIONS AND CRIMES COMMITTED BY THE RICH -- AND-- HONEST ACTIONS OF THOSE THEY DON'T LIKE.[/b]
[u][b]Scalia Should Recuse Himself[/b][/u] - http://www.commondreams.org/v...
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has never displayed much regard for judicial ethics. For instance, he cast a decisive vote in the 2000 Florida recount case of Bush v. Gore, arguably the most important decision in the court's recent history, despite the fact that his sons were working for law firms associated with the campaign of George W. Bush.
After Scalia's support from the bench allowed him to assume the presidency, Bush appointed one of the justice's sons to a high-level position in the U.S. Department of Labor.
This year, Scalia again wants to bend judicial standards past the breaking point.
The Supreme Court agreed last month to take up an appeal by Vice President Dick Cheney in a case that involves the refusal of the No. 2 man in the Bush administration to disclose the identities of members of the secretive energy task force he headed shortly after taking office in 2001.
Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent to support the task force's work, yet Cheney refuses to reveal the names of energy industry insiders - such as Enron's Ken Lay - who appear to have influenced efforts by the task force to shape an energy policy for the United States.
Cheney has come under increasingly intense political and legal pressure to disclose the identities of energy industry insiders he met and consulted with. Now he wants the Supreme Court to rule that he does not have to abide by rules that seek to ensure government decision making can be scrutinized by the American people.
No honest jurist would hesitate to rebuke Cheney.
However, there are some questions about whether all the jurists who are to hear this case will be honest players.
Three weeks after the court agreed to take the Cheney case, Scalia spent a weekend duck hunting in southern Louisiana with Cheney. The bird-slaying trek brought to light a fact that Cheney and Scalia both acknowledge: The men are old friends. Yet Scalia continues to claim he can and will remain impartial with regard to a case that is of tremendous consequence for his old friend.
Even if Scalia could remain impartial, the appearance of impropriety is so obvious - and so extreme - that he must recuse himself from this case.
If Scalia fails to take the ethical course, his fellow justices should move to sanction a jurist who seems to have a problem distinguishing between right and wrong.
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-CONS' REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD: NO LEGAL COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS?!?!?! |
| 03.31.04 (9:03 am) [edit] |
[b]ACCORDING TO THE NEO-CON, NEO-FASCIST REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD--
NO LEGAL COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR DEFENDANTS!?!?!?!?
PERHAPS THESE NEO-CON NEO-NAZIS SHOULD REVISIT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & THE BILL OF RIGHTS: The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
OF COURSE, THE NEO-CONS HAVE TO [u]LASH OUT LIKE MAD DOGS FOAMING AT THE MOUTH IN THEIR SYPHLITIC RAGE AT THE FRENCH WHO HAVE RESPECT FOR THE RULE OF LAW[/u], WHICH THEY DO NOT!!! OF COURSE, THE NAZIS ELIMINATED THIS RIGHT FOR GERMAN JEWS AND DISSIDENTS WHO DISAGREED WITH THEM, TOO!!!
IN THE NEO-CON, NEO-FASCIST REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD: THE LIKES OF THE CORRUPT HERR FUHRER BUSH, RIECH MARSHAL CHENEY & S.S. OFFICERS ASHCROFT, RICE & ROVE WOULD DECIDE WHETHER YOU SHOULD HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL!!! TO HELL WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION & THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!
NO WONDER THE IRAQIS AREN'T QUITE THRILLED WITH DUBYA'S 'COWBOY' DEMOCRACY WITH RIGGED ELECTIONS!!!!!!!! [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...
[u][b]History to Right of Counsel[/b][/u], http://www.nlada.org/About/Ab...
Roots of the modern right to counsel for the defendant who cannot afford to pay a private lawyer can be found more than a century ago. In Webb v. Baird, (6 Ind. 13), the Indiana Supreme Court in 1853 recognized a right to an attorney at public expense for an indigent person accused of crime, grounded in "the principles of a civilized society," not in constitutional or statutory law.
"It is not to be thought of in a civilized community for a moment that any citizen put in jeopardy of life or liberty should be debarred of counsel because he is too poor to employ such aid," the Indiana court wrote. "No court could be expected to respect itself to sit and hear such a trial. The defense of the poor in such cases is a duty which will at once be conceded as essential to the accused, to the court and to the public."
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The right to counsel in federal proceedings was well-established by statute early in the country's history, and was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1938 in Johnson v. Zerbst. The Webb v. Baird decision, however, was the exception rather than the rule in the states. Well into the 20th century, most states relied only on the volunteer pro bono efforts of lawyers to provide defense for poor people accused of even the most serious crimes. While some private programs, such as the New York Legal Aid Society, were active as early as 1896 in providing counsel to needy immigrants, and the first public defender office began operations in Los Angeles in 1914, such services were non-existent outside of the largest cities.
The United States Supreme Court developed the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in state proceedings gradually and somewhat haltingly in the 20th century. In Powell v. Alabama, the famous "Scottsboro Case" from the Depression era, the Court held that counsel was required in all state capital proceedings. (Read the Court's key reasoning.)
Only a decade later, however, in Betts v. Brady, the Court declined to extend the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to state felony proceedings. It was not until 1963, twenty-one years after Betts, that the Court again addressed the issue of the right to counsel in state proceedings involving serious non-capital crimes. In a dramatic series of decisions, the Supreme Court firmly established the right to counsel in virtually all aspects of state criminal proceedings.
The most significant decision on the right to counsel in Supreme Court history was Gideon v. Wainwright, which overruled Betts v. Brady. The Court unanimously held that an indigent person accused of a serious crime was entitled to the appointment of defense counsel at state expense. (Read the Court's key reasoning.)
Twenty-two state attorneys general joined petitioner Clarence Earl Gideon in arguing that Sixth Amendment protection be extended to all defendants charged with felonies in state courts.
Four years later, with its decision in In re Gault, the Supreme Court built on the Gideon decision to extend to children the same rights as adults by providing counsel to the indigent child charged in juvenile delinquency proceedings. The right to counsel in trial courts was significantly expanded again when the Court, in Argersinger v. Hamlin, extended the right to counsel to all misdemeanor state proceedings where there is a potential loss of liberty.
The decisions in Gideon, Gault and Argersinger are the best known of the right-to-counsel cases in the Supreme Court, but they were part of a broader array of decisions rendered by the Court in the past three decades, all of which protect the right to counsel for people who cannot afford to hire a private lawyer. The Court recognized the low-income defendant's right to counsel at such critical stages of criminal proceedings as:
1. post-arrest interrogation, in Miranda v. Arizona in 1966, and Brewer v. Williams in 1977;
2. line-ups, in United States v. Wade in 1967;
3. other identification procedures, in Moore v. Illinois in 1977 (one-person showups);
4. preliminary hearings, in Coleman v. Alabama in 1970;
5. arraignments, in Hamilton v. Alabama in 1961; and
6. plea negotiations, in Brady v. United States and McMann v. Richardson, both in 1970.
After conviction, the indigent defendant is constitutionally guaranteed the right to counsel in:
1. sentencing proceedings, per Townsend v. Burke in 1948, and United States v. Tucker in 1972;
2. appeals of right, per Douglas v. California in 1963; and
3. in some cases, probation and parole proceedings, per Mempa v. Rhay in 1967.
In addition, the right to counsel for indigent defendants often extends, under state or federal law or practice, to collateral attacks on a conviction as well as a range of what might be called " quasi-criminal" proceedings involving loss of liberty, such as mental competency and commitment proceedings, extradition, prison disciplinary proceedings, status hearings for juveniles, some family matters such as non-payment of court-ordered support or contempt proceedings, as well as child dependency, abuse and neglect situations.
Finally, in any criminal proceeding in which counsel appears, the defendant is entitled to counsel's effective assistance, under Strickland v. Washington, decided in 1984.
These diverse requirements under the federal Constitution, often supplemented by more stringent state standards, created enormous pressures on the lawyers who provided indigent defense. The mandate of the Gideon, Gault and Argersinger decisions, as well as the Supreme Court's requirement to provide counsel at all critical stages of a prosecution, meant that government would have to assume vastly increased costs for providing counsel to the poor. Policymakers began to think about more systematic ways to deliver constitutionally required defense services.
The first significant efforts to systematize and standardize the provision of indigent defense services occurred in the early 1970's. In 1973, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (NAC) wrote a basic set of standards governing indigent defense systems. The next year, the U.S. Justice Department convened the National Study Commission on Defense Services, which issued its comprehensive Guidelines for Legal Defense Systems in the United States (msword, 96 Kb) in 1976. Today, a comprehensive web of standards at the national, state and local levels governs the provision of indigent defense across the country. In 2000, the U.S. Justice Department compiled all these standards in a single compendium.
But serious problems remain. As the Justice Department found, in its 2000 report (in pdf format), Improving Criminal Justice Systems Through Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations: Standards are frequently not implemented, contracts are often awarded to the lowest bidder without regard to the scope or quality of services, organizational structures are weak, workloads are high, and funding has not kept pace with other components of the criminal justice system. The effects can be severe, including legal representation of such low quality to amount to no representation at all, delays, overturned convictions, and convictions of the innocent. Ultimately, as Attorney General Janet Reno states, the lack of competent, vigorous legal representation for indigent defendants calls into question the legitimacy of criminal convictions and the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole.
|
|
|
| |
| ... IS BUSH UNHINGED? ... THE SHORT ANSWER: YES ... |
| 03.31.04 (8:45 am) [edit] |
[b]Is Bush Unhinged?[/b]
Before you conclude that I myself must be unhinged even to raise such a question, ask yourself this: If a man talks as if he has lost contact with reality, then might he actually have done so? Granted that this possibility deserves evaluation, then consider President George W. Bush’s rhetoric in his March 19 speech to diplomats and others at the White House.
The president begins by stating his interpretation of the recent bombings in Madrid, reiterating one of his recurrent themes of the past two and a half years: “[T]he civilized world is at war” in a “new kind of war.” The concept of war, of course, ranks high among evocative metaphors. Not by accident have politicians declared wars on poverty, drugs, cancer, illiteracy, and an assortment of other alleged enemies. A society at war, as William James observed in 1906 in his call for the “moral equivalent of war,” finds a reason for unaccustomed solidarity and—here’s where the politicians come in—for unaccustomed submission to central government authority. James himself, after all, was arguing that “the martial type of character can be bred without war.” Political leaders are always seeking to establish such character, with themselves in command of the battalions of “disciplined” subjects. Insofar as the so-called war on terrorism merely represents the latest attempt to bend the war metaphor to an obvious political purpose, we might well dismiss the president’s rhetorical flourish as nothing but the same old same old.
Bush, however, will allow no such dismissal. “The war on terror,” he insists, “is not a figure of speech.” Well, I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but that is precisely what it is. How can one go to war against “terror,” which is a state of mind? Even if the president were to take more care with his language and to speak instead of a “war on terrorism,” the phrase still could not be anything more than a metaphor, because terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime. War on terrorism, too, can be only a figure of speech.
War, if it is anything, is the marshalling of armed forces against somebody, not against a state of mind or a form of action. Wars are fought between groups of persons. We might argue about whether the United States can wage war only against another nation state, as opposed to an indefinitely large number of individuals committed to fanatical Islamism who in various workaday guises are living in scores of different countries. The expression “war on certain criminals and conspirators of criminal acts” would fit the present case better and would entail far more sensible thinking about the proper way to deal with such persons. The idea of war, obviously, calls to mind too readily the serviceability of the armed forces. Hence the application of such forces to the conquest of Iraq in the name of “bringing the terrorists to justice,” although that conquest was actually nothing but a hugely destructive, immensely expensive diversion from genuine efforts to allay the threat posed by the Islamist maniacs who compose al Qaeda and similar groups. “These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice,” the president declares, speaking as always as if only a fixed number of such killers exist, rather than a vast reservoir of actual and potential recruits that is only augmented and revitalized by actions such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would be a boon to humanity if the president could be brought to understand the distinction between waging war and establishing justice.
Whatever our understanding of the president’s “war on terror” might be, however, he definitely parts company with reality when he states, “There is no neutral ground—no neutral ground—in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.” Of course, this Manichean pronouncement echoes the administration’s previous declaration that everybody on earth is either with us or against us—and if they know what’s good for them, they’ll fall into line with our wishes. Aside from the undeniable fact that some nations simply prefer, as did the Spanish people (as opposed to the Aznar government), to avoid the blowback of U.S. interventions around the world, the president’s insistence on equating U.S. policy with good, freedom, and life and all alternative policies with evil, slavery, and death represents the sort of childish bifurcation one expects to find expressed by a member of a youth gang, not by the leader of the world’s most powerful government. To raise but a single example, though a highly relevant one in this context, can any dispassionate person argue that the U.S. position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is entirely good, whereas every alternative position is entirely evil?
Observers endowed with humane moral sensibilities recognize that there is plenty of evil to go around in Israel and elsewhere. In Iraq, for example, the U.S. government bears clear responsibility for killing and injuring thousands of noncombatants in the past year—not to mention the horrendous mortality and suffering it brought about previously by enforcement of the economic sanctions used to cripple that country for more than a decade. Some people maintain that the price was worth paying, that ultimately the good obtained will more than compensate for the harm caused in the process, but even if one accepts that assessment for the sake of argument, it remains true nevertheless that much harm was caused, that the burden of responsibility for evils perpetrated must be borne by the U.S. side as well as by the demonized enemy (Saddam Hussein having been made out after 1990 as “another Hitler”). International conflicts in the real world do not often divide neatly into nothing-but-good versus nothing-but-evil. For the president of the United States to employ such a juvenile characterization raises the possibility that his mind is so immature that he ought to be removed from office before he propels the world into even worse disasters.
Seemingly aware of previous criticism, the president declares that “the terrorists are offended not merely by our policies—they are offended by our existence as free nations.” I myself have seen no evidence to confirm such a statement; certainly the president has adduced none. I have seen, however, the translated testimony of one Osama bin Laden, who in a famous October 2001 videotape objects to U.S. support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, and to U.S. economic sanctions and other hostile actions against Iraq—that is, to various U.S. policies. “Millions of innocent children are being killed in Iraq and in Palestine and we don’t hear a word from the infidels. We don’t hear a raised voice,” says bin Laden. In my ears, this statement sounds like an objection to U.S. policies. I have seen no evidence that bin Laden or any other known Islamic terrorist takes offence at our very existence, provided that we mind our own business in our own homeland.
In the president’s mind, however, every deviation from adherence to his promulgated national-security policy of U.S. world domination and preventive warfare represents a dangerous form of appeasement: “Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence, and invites more violence for all nations. The only certain way to protect our people is by early, united, and decisive action”—that is, by global military intervention by the United States, with all other nations serving as its lackeys. In the neoconservative vision to which the president has been converted, time stands still: It is always 1938, and if we fail to bring all our military might to bear preventively against the Hitler du jour, we shall certainly be plunged into global catastrophe.
Waxing positive, the president credits recent U.S. and allied military actions with bringing about “a free Afghanistan” and the “long-awaited liberation” of the Iraqi people. He maintains that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression, and instability in the Middle East. . . . [Y]ears of illicit weapons development by the dictator have come to the end. . . . [T]he Iraqi people are now receiving aid, instead of suffering under the sanctions. . . . [M]en and women across the Middle East, looking to Iraq, are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like. . . . Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?
This effusion evinces a tenuous grip on reality. Nobody begrudges the Iraqi people their freedom, but many of us have serious doubts about just how much freedom those long-suffering people really have. Their country is occupied by a lethal foreign army whose soldiers roam freely, breaking into homes and mosques at will, maintaining checkpoints that often become the venues of unjustified killings, carrying out police activities by employing such means as aerial bombardment and bursts of heavy machine-gun fire. If this unfortunate scene is the “glimpse of what life in a free country can be like” that others throughout the Middle East are getting, then woe unto anyone who yearns to stimulate those Middle Easterners to seek freedom. “With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater Middle East,” the president states. If he really harbors such confidence, one can only note how ill-founded it is.
The president seems to have no idea of what a free society consists of. Violent military occupation and the complete absence of the rule of law totally invalidate any claim that either Iraq or Afghanistan is now a free society. At present Iraq is awash with violence perpetrated by resistance fighters and occupation forces and with criminality of all sorts unleashed by the disruptions associated with the war and by the U.S. dissolution of the old police apparatus. “We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us,” Bush declares. But they never placed their trust in us in the first place; they simply suffered our invasion and occupation of their country. In any event, we have already gravely disappointed the hopes that many Iraqis held for life after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The country is rife with resentment and hostility, and the people are eager for U.S. forces to get out. Although the president maintains that “[w]e’ve set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region,” one cannot help concluding from the facts on the ground that the upshot of the U.S. invasion and occupation has been just the opposite, that U.S. actions in Iraq have only poured fuel on the fires of terrorism there as well as in the wider world.
It is disconcerting for me to listen to the president’s speeches. I get the unsettling feeling that the man inhabits another world in which things are the exact opposite of how they seem to me. Of course, I may be the one whose perspective is askew. Unlike Bush, I cannot claim that the Almighty has licensed my position. Yet I fear that time will tell in favor of my view of the matter—a view shared, of course, by most people on the planet, indeed, by nearly everybody who has not been bribed, intimidated, or blinded by partisan loyalty to the Bush administration. For now, this difference of views might seem to be nothing more than that—just one man’s opinion jousting with another’s—but reality has a way of passing definite judgment, and I will not be surprised if Bush’s pronouncements ultimately come to be seen as having no more substance than a bad dream.
[i][b]Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy at The Independent Institute and editor of its scholarly quarterly journal, The Independent Review. He is also the author of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government and the editor of Arms, Politics and the Economy: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. For further articles and studies, see the War on Terrorism and OnPower.org[/b] - [/i]. http://www.independent.org/ti...
|
|
|
| |
| THAT AUDACIOUS RICHARD CLARKE ... |
| 03.31.04 (8:22 am) [edit] |
[b]That Audacious Richard Clarke[/b]
Evoking those steamy fear-filled days of August 1814, Washington is again hot, bothered, and praying for rain. This time, it is not a British army running the White House administration out of town. Instead, it is the compelling, courageous, and stubborn revelations of longtime administration terrorism guru Richard Clarke.
His book,[i] Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror[/i], was submitted to the administration for review over six months ago. It sets out how the Bush administration came to office obsessed with Saddam Hussein, put al Qaeda on the back burner, and, after 9/11, used that event to implement a long held plan to go into Baghdad. That the administration approved Clarke's book for release may have been a White House oversight, or even a tactical miscalculation.
But it is not only the book itself, but Clarke's [i]temperate, calm, and knowledgeable public presentation of the facts that has frightened the White House to its very core[/i]. http://www.cbsnews.com/storie...
The Bush-Cheney campaign is riding a single horse to November: their approach to war on terror. More and more, it seems the White House takes its war on terror about as seriously as it takes its war on steroids.
We might have known this earlier. In early 2000, Condoleeza Rice explained the Bush approach to security in[i] Foreign Affairs [/i]magazine. In an article containing almost 7,000 words on national security, she [i]mentions terrorism only five times[/i]: http://www.foreignpolicy2000.... four in terms of rogue states like Iraq, and one referring to Chechnya. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, having repeatedly attacked U.S. military and diplomatic facilities and killed Americans in the 1990s, and against whom President Clinton had retaliated militarily, warranted not a single mention by the future national security advisor.
Bush himself has repeatedly confirmed Clarke's facts. The Bush-Cheney ticket has proven to be willfully blind to how terrorism works, and, consequently, how it can be reduced or eliminated. It is a strange cold fact that human and physical resources were prematurely and carelessly shifted from the effort to root out al Qaeda in Afghanistan to fuel the long-favored neoconservative goal of rooting out Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
The President and Vice President do not deny that Saddam Hussein's rule was always a bigger thorn in their side than the decentralized and difficult-to-target Al Qaeda. This is public knowledge, contained in late 1990s publications of future Bush political appointees, and in Bush-friendly books like Bob Woodward's "[i]Bush at War[/i]" and David Frum's "[i]The Right Man[/i]."
At one time, Saddam Hussein, like current dictators in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, served a useful purpose. The future of Iraq might have evolved, under its own power through domestic reformers, in the pattern of post-Suharto Indonesia. Suharto, a former ally, was dictator for thirty years, was accused of genocide and murder of his own citizens, and was recently awarded the title of "most corrupt leader in modern history," beating out Ferdinand Marcos and Mobutu Sese Seko. A lot like Saddam Hussein, without the WMDs. Which is to say, a lot like Saddam Hussein.
Our current Deputy Secretary of Defense and lead soprano in the "topple Saddam" choir, Paul Wolfowitz, knows the Suharto story better than anyone. As U.S. ambassador to Indonesia under Reagan, he was a strong advocate for the US-Indonesia alliance. Over a decade later, in May 1997, Wolfowitz still sung Suharto's praises to Congress, noting that "progress [on human rights] has to be credited to the strong and remarkable leadership of President Suharto." In two years, the reformers had taken back Indonesia in a conflicted, but democratic, process.
It's too bad that Wolfowitz couldn't recognize and grant the same possibilities for Iraq under Hussein. But then again, perhaps he saw that possibility of change from within all too clearly, hence the urgency of a new U.S. friendly puppet government in Baghdad.
Clarke accurately describes the Cold Warriors in the Bush administration with "It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier." I and many others observed the same thing, at a lower level within the Pentagon.
The White House faces a grave and growing danger. Its attack machine is activated against Clarke, but, preferring character assassination over basic truth, it will be hard to sustain. Clarke's public stance of honor and credibility has real staying power, and it has already inspired and heartened both new witnesses and the mainstream media to seek and reveal the truth.
This truth is damaging to that single horse the administration is riding in this election race. The economy, the budget, the debt, veteran's benefits, military readiness, Medicare and social security crises, education, immigration – all are issues where the administration has sorely disappointed conservatives like me, as well as liberals and independents, in every state. If the war on terror horse stumbles, the administration falls.
In 1814, grace prevailed in the form of a rare and unpredicted tornado that arrived while the city burned on the afternoon of August 25th.
"[i]The tornado tore through the center of Washington and directly into the British occupation ... The collapsing buildings and flying debris killed several British soldiers. Many of the soldiers did not have time to take cover from the winds and they laid face down in the streets. One account describes how a British officer on horseback did not dismount and the winds slammed both horse and rider violently to the ground[/i]."
The rains that followed put out the fires, and much was saved.
The audacious Mr. Clarke is for all Americans a modern sign of grace, of the power of truth over deception, and of courage over cowardice. May the strong winds blow and the rain come down in Washington, and again save our Republic.
- [i][b]Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski can be reached at karen@militaryweek.com[/b][/i]. - http://militaryweek.com/witho...
|
|
|
| |
| EVER NOTICE HOW NEO-CONS WANT ENDLESS WARS? IN IRAQ, SYRIA, IRAN, CHINA, ETC.? BUT THEY STAY HOME! |
| 03.31.04 (8:09 am) [edit] |
[b]EVER NOTICE THAT IT IS THE MAD-DOG NEO-CONS WHO SEE EVERYONE ELSE AS AN ENEMY?
EVER NOTICE THAT IT IS THE NEO-CON ARM-CHAIR CHICKEN-HAWKS WHO LUST FOR WAR FROM THE COMFORT OF THEIR EASY CHAIRS?
EVER NOTICE THAT IT IS THE NEO-CONS WHO LUST FOR ENDLESS WARS WITH AFGHANISTAN (A FIASCO), IRAQ (A GUERRILLA QUAGMIRE), SYRIA, IRAN, CHINA? YOU NAME IT, THEY WANT TO FIGHT IT!
BUT, EVER NOTICE THAT THESE NEO-CON CRAZIES NEVER GO FIGHT THEMSELVES? THEY AVOID WAR FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR LOVED-ONES! IT IS YOU AND I WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THEIR CANNON-FODDER SO THEY CAN GET RICH QUICK![/b]
[u][b]New World Disorder[/b][/u]
"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things." This warning is from Niccolo Machiavelli, yet it has never had sharper resonance.
More than a decade ago, after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, President George H. W. Bush explicitly sought to initiate, as he put it to Congress, a "new world order." He made that momentous declaration on Sept. 11, 1990. Eleven years later, the suddenly mystical date of 9/11 motivated his son to finish what the father began. A year ago last week, Bush the younger launched a war against the man who tried to kill his dad, initiating the opposite of order.
The situation hardly needs rehearsing. In Iraq, many thousands are dead, including 564 Americans. Civil war threatens. Afghanistan, meanwhile, is choked by drug-running warlords. Islamic jihadists have been empowered. The nuclear profiteering of Pakistan has been exposed but not necessarily stopped. Al Qaeda's elusiveness has reinforced its mythic malevolence. The Atlantic Alliance is in ruins. The United States has never been more isolated. A pattern of deception has destroyed its credibility abroad and at home. Disorder spreads from Washington to Israel to Haiti to Spain. Whether the concern is subduing resistance fighters far away or making Americans feel safer, the Pentagon's unprecedented military dominance—the costs of which stifle the U.S. economy—is shown to be essentially impotent.
In America, the new order of things is defined mainly by the sour taste of moral hangover, how the emotional intensity of the 9/11 trauma—anguished but pure—dissolved into a feeling of being trapped in a cage of our own making. As the carnage in Madrid makes clear, the threats in the world are real and dangerous to handle, but one U.S. initiative after another has escalated rather than diffused such threats. Instead of replacing chaos with new order, our nation's responses inflict new wounds that increase the chaos. We strike at those whom we perceive as aiming to do us harm but without actually defending ourselves. And most unsettling of all, in our attempt to get the bad people to stop threatening us, we have begun to imitate them.
The most important revelation of the Iraq war has been of the Bush administration's blatant contempt for fact. Whether defined as "lying" or not, the clear manipulation of intelligence ahead of last year's invasion has been completely exposed. The phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been transformed. Where once it evoked the grave danger of a repeat of the 9/11 trauma, now it evokes an apparently calculated American fear. The government laid out explicit evidence defining a threat that required the launching of preventive war, and the U.S. media trumpeted that evidence without hesitation. The result, since there were no weapons of mass destruction, as the government and a pliant press had ample reason to know, was an institutionalized deceit maintained to this day. At the United Nations, the United States misled the world. In speech after speech, President Bush misled Congress and the nation. And note that the word "misled" means both to have falsified and to have failed in leadership. To mislead, as the tautological George Bush might put it, is to mislead.
The repetition of falsehoods tied to the war on terrorism and the war against Iraq has eroded the American capacity, if not to tell the difference between what is true and what is a lie, then to think the difference matters much. The administration distorted fact ahead of the invasion, when the American people could not refute what had not happened yet. And the administration distorts fact now, when the American people do not remember clearly what we were told a year ago. That Bush retains the confidence of a sizable proportion of the electorate suggests that Americans don't particularly worry anymore about truth as a guiding principle of their government.
In that lies the irony. The Bush dynasty has in fact initiated a new order of things. The United States of America has become its own opposite, a nation of triumphant freedom that claims the right to restrain the freedom of others; a nation of a structured balance of power that destroys the balance of power abroad; a nation of creative enterprise that exports a smothering banality; and above all, a nation of forcefully direct expression that disrespects the truth. Whatever happens from this week forward in Iraq, the main outcome of the war for the United States is clear. We have defeated ourselves.
[b][i]James Carroll is a best-selling author, most recently of An American Requiem, which won a National Book Award. His work has appeared in The New Yorker and many other publications, and he writes a weekly column for The Boston Globe.[/i][/b] - http://www.tompaine.com/featu...
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. OCCUPATION BARS U.N. FROM OVERSEEING ELECTIONS! |
| 03.31.04 (6:19 am) [edit] |
[b]Iraqi Council Bars UN from Overseeing Elections [/b]
[i]Al-Hayat [/i]reports that the Interim Governing Council (IGC) is rejecting any role for the United Nations in overseeing Iraqi elections save that of "help and consultation). Iraqi National Congress spokesman Intifadh Qanbar said that the UN delegation was told by the IGC that elections would have to be a purely Iraqi affair, that Iraqis would have to take the leading role in them, and that there would be no UN role in administering elections. He also said that no interference would be brooked from Iraq's neighbors.
Qanbar and the INC sharply criticized UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi for having opposed the first Gulf War (which aimed at forcing Saddam back out of Kuwait), and blamed him for meeting with Saddam in 1998. He also criticized Brahimi's statement that Iraq might face a civil war. Muhammad Bahr al-Ulum, a cleric now in the last days of his temporary presidency of the IGC, had also complained two days ago in Kuwait that Brahimi's report on Iraq had lacked balance.
Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has rejected charges that he had misused American funds, saying that such charges derived from the CIA and that they were false.
Chalabi was supported by the CIA and the State Department around 1992 to 1996 or so, when they dropped him because he could not give an accounting of the millions of dollars they had given him to overthrow Saddam. He was then picked up by the Pentagon instead, and especially once the Bush administration came to power.
The attempt by the INC to marginalize Brahimi and the United Nations reflects Chalabi's fear that he would not be able to win a fair, UN-supervised election. One fears he plans on vote-buying and other corrupt acts to be elected or appointed to a high Iraqi governing post, possibly as Prime Minister. Although the al-Hayat story says that the IGC wants to limit the UN role, if one looks carefully this move seems to be coming mainly from Chalabi and his people.
[i][b]By Juan Cole[/b][/i], http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?...
|
|
|
| |
| THE DEFECTOR |
| 03.31.04 (5:49 am) [edit] |
[b]The Defector [/b]
Both the ferocity of the White House attacks and his lionization by the liberal press testify: Richard Clarke has drawn blood.
The former counter-terrorism chief seeks to dynamite the central pillar of the Bush presidency: that the president has bravely and brilliantly led us in the War on Terror and that the war on Iraq made us more secure.
According to Clarke, the White House, especially Condi Rice, was diffident if not indolent in coping with the threat of Al Qaeda prior to 9-11. And the obsession with Iraq blinded the White House to the real threat.
As Clarke tells it, at a meeting of sub-Cabinet officers he called in April 2001 to discuss Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, Paul Wolfowitz dismissed the "little terrorist" in Afghanistan and sought to refocus the meeting on Iraq.
On 9-11 itself, Clarke was stunned to hear Donald Rumsfeld call for bombing Iraq -- not Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda was -- because there were better "targets" in Iraq, though Baghdad had had nothing to do with the atrocities.
On Sept. 12, Clarke was enraged as he watched Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz try to steer the president's wrath away from Al Qaeda and Afghanistan, toward Iraq and Saddam. Clarke contends the eventual invasion of Iraq was a disaster for the war on terror.
First, it diverted vital resources, such as U.S. Special Forces, away from the hunt for Osama when we might have caught and killed him. In the two years since bin Laden escaped, the cancer cells he created have multiplied. Now we face Al Qaeda clones all over the world.
Second, the Iraqi invasion played into bin Laden's hand. He had long predicted the United States would invade an oil-rich Islamic nation to seize its resources, and in the eyes of the Arab and Islamic world, we have done exactly that.
Third, the pandemic hatred of the United States, as seen in the recent Pew polls, is, Clarke believes, a direct consequence of our invasion.
Fourth, we ignited a war of national resistance in Iraq that has given the Islamic young a cause in which to believe and for which to fight -- i.e., to expel imperialist-infidel America from Baghdad, which for 500 years was the seat of the caliphate.
Bush's grand strategy is the Bush Doctrine. By it, the United States asserts a right to launch pre-emptive strikes and preventive wars on rogue nations to deny them weapons of mass destruction. After 9-11, said Bush, we cannot risk a rogue nation giving a biological or nuclear weapon to Al Qaeda. To prevent it, we take down rogue regimes and disarm them, before they strike.
Under the Bush Doctrine we invaded Iraq. Yet, we now know that Saddam had no links to 9-11, no ties to Al Qaeda, no weapons of mass destruction, no plans to attack us.
The White House has fallen back on the argument that Saddam and his Baathist regime constituted a terrorist state with a horrific record on human rights that would forever be a threat if ever it did acquire the weapons for which it still had plans, if not programs.
Moreover, our long-term policy for ending the terrorist threat is to use our resources to advance a "world democratic revolution." When all Islamic states are free and democratic, the threat of terror will pass away.
The test case is Iraq, but only the early returns are in.
What do they show? Clearly, the Iraqi people are glad to be rid of the tyrant and his regime. And while no roses were strewn in the path of U.S. troops, the Iraqis are not all hostile. The Libyans have come around, and the Iranians want to talk. Progress is being made.
Yet, the price in U.S. and Iraqi dead and wounded is high, and the cost in resources, $150 billion and counting, is prohibitive of any new war on Iran or North Korea, whose arsenals are far more advanced. Much of our Army is tied down. Our alliances are strained. The cancer of terrorism appears to have metastasized. The Islamic world appears to be against us.
By our old standards -- America does not attack nations that do not attack us -- Iraq was not a war of necessity, but a war of choice. Was it wise? Bush says yes, Clarke no.
The verdict of history is not yet in. But if Iraq collapses in chaos or civil war to become a spawning ground of Islamic terror, Bush will be a failed president and America will need a new foreign policy.
However, by then, the architects of the Iraq war could still be in power. We are headed for interesting times, made more interesting by Richard Clarke.
[i][b]By Patrick J. Buchanan[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/pat/?artic...
|
|
|
| |
| US SHOULD NOT STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL-- BUT ISRAEL CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY US |
| 03.30.04 (6:29 pm) [edit] |
[b]THE US SHOULD NOT STOP SUPPORTING ISRAEL.
HOWEVER THE US SHOULD ENDORSE ANY CRIME ISRAEL CHOOSES TO COMMIT.
NOR SHOULD ISRAEL BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE US.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT ISRAEL'S CANNON-FODDER TO BE USED TO SYSTEMATICALLY MASSACRE THE PALESTINIAN AND ARAB PEOPLES: THE INSANE NEO-CON'S FANTASY OF THEIR 21st CENTURY HOLOCAUST.[/b]
[u][b]Israel's isolation ... and ours[/b][/u]
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half-blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shiite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "[T]his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on al-Qaida, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel, there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
[i][b]By Patrick J. Buchanan[/b][/i], http://www.wnd.com/news/artic...
|
|
|
| |
| NEW POLL REVEALS IRAQIS DON'T WANT DUBYA'S IMPOSED "DEMOCRACY" |
| 03.30.04 (6:22 pm) [edit] |
[b]One Year Later: Warning Signs in Iraq[/b]
The U.S. mission in Iraq has now entered its second year, and it remains as controversial as ever. Bush Administration supporters contend that, despite the periodic terrorist bombings and insurgent attacks on American forces, major progress is being made toward creating a stable, united, democratic Iraq. Critics counter that not only does the security environment remain extremely dangerous, but there are increasingly worrisome political and ideological trends in Iraqi society.
A recent nationwide poll of Iraqis conducted by [i]ABC News[/i] and other organizations gives some comfort to the administration and its allies. A majority of Iraqis feel that their lives are somewhat better than they were a year ago, and the coalition gets reasonably high marks for restoring schools and other portions of Iraq's infrastructure. Nevertheless, the poll reveals even more alarming information about Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation and the country's political future.
Consider the level of hostility regarding the presence of coalition forces. The Kurds strongly support the troop presence, 82 percent to 12 percent. But the Arabs (both Sunni and Shiite) take a very different view. Only 30 percent support the occupation; 60 percent oppose it. Since Arabs make up approximately 80 percent of Iraq's population, that scope of opposition is ample cause for concern. Clearly, opposition to the U.S.-led mission is far more widespread than just disgruntled supporters of Saddam Hussein.
More Iraqis believe that the war humiliated Iraq than believe that it liberated the country. Again, the Kurd-Arab split is pronounced and troubling. Only 11 percent of Kurds believe the war was a humiliation; 48 percent of Arabs regard it in that manner. Just 33 percent of Arabs (and a mere 21 percent of Sunni Arabs) see the war as an act of liberation.
Proponents of the Iraq mission can take some comfort that 78 percent of all respondents, and even 74 percent of Arabs, believe that armed attacks on coalition forces constitute unacceptable behavior. Yet it is sobering that 21 percent of Arab respondents think that such attacks are appropriate. That figure can fairly be interpreted as the hard core supporters of the insurgency. Since there are nearly 16 million Arab teenagers and adults in Iraq, that translates to some 3.3 million proponents of violent resistance to the occupation. It is additional evidence that the insurgency is not confined to "Saddam diehards," as the administration argued for so long.
Perhaps the most sobering result of the poll is the tepid support for democracy in Iraq. When asked what kind of government Iraq should have a year from now, only 28 percent advocate a democratic system, while 47 percent favor "a single strong Iraqi leader" and 10 percent want a government of religious leaders. When asked what kind of government the country should have in 5 years, the results are just modestly better: 42 percent favor democracy, 35 percent a single strong leader, and 10 percent a government of religious figures.
That means that the United States and its coalition partners are trying to build democracy in a country where not even a bare majority of the population endorses such a system. For democracy to have a good chance to take root and thrive, the support level probably needs to be in the area of 70 to 75 percent. That is especially true because, historically in most non-Western societies, non-democratic forces tend to be more motivated, better organized, and, above all, more ruthless than their democratic adversaries. It is hardly encouraging for the prospects of a democratic Iraq that the enemies of democracy there actually outnumber the proponents.
The poll results raise serious doubts about whether the security environment will improve anytime soon. Except in the Kurdish north, the war is deemed a humiliating occupation rather than a liberation. Likewise, except in Kurdish territory, there appears to be widespread opposition to the occupation, and an alarmingly large contingent of hard-core opponents willing to countenance violence against coalition forces.
The poll results lead to even stronger doubts about Iraq's future. The notion that Iraq will become a stable, united democracy once the occupation ends looks more like a pipe dream than a reasonable expectation. Unless the United States plans to occupy and control Iraq for a very long time, it is likely that the country will revert to authoritarian rule. Given the stark differences in opinion on an assortment of issues between Kurds and Arabs, there is also more than a small chance that the country will fragment along those ethnic lines. Those are not happy prospects, but they come as little surprise to realist policy experts who warned before the war began that the United States was embarking on a thankless and frustrating mission.
. [i][b]Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy[/b][/i]. - http://www.cato.org/dailys/03...
|
|
|
| |
| REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD: OKAY TO ABORT HUMAN BEINGS IF DUBYA WANTS TO!!!!! HO HO HO!!!!! |
| 03.30.04 (2:51 pm) [edit] |
[b][u]REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM BIZARRO WORLD[/u]:
OKAY TO ABORT LIFE IF DUBYA WANTS TO ...
OKAY TO ABORT LIFE IN THE SERVICE OF THE NEO-CON'S EMPIRE ...
ONCE YOU'RE OUT-OF-THE-WOMB, IT'S TIME TO BE A SLAVE TO THE NEO-CON'S WORLD OF WARFARE AND SERFDOM ...
WHAT IS THE POINT OF LIFE IF IT IS JUST TO BE USED AS DUBYA'S CANNON-FODDER?[/b]
[u][b]Mom Says President 'Personally Responsible' For Son's Death[/b][/u]
The mother of an Illinois National Guard pilot killed in Iraq says she holds President George W. Bush "personally responsible" for the death of her son.
Rosemarie Dietz Slavenas blamed Bush and said her son died because the United States lacks what she calls a "civilized foreign policy."
Slavenas held a private civilian ceremony for her son, Lt. Brian Slavenas (pictured, right), NBC5's Charlie Wojciechowski reported on Thursday. After the ceremony, a bugler played taps and Slavenas' mother came out of the church to speak to the media.
"My son was not a soldier," Slavenas said. "He was my son. George [W.] Bush killed my son. I request in Brian's name a stop to the killing. No more preemptive wars."
Hundreds of people attended the funeral Thursday for 1st Lt. Brian Slavenas. He was remembered by several speakers at Faith United Methodist Church in Genoa as a wonderful man and a good friend.
Just a few hours later, and just blocks away, another service was held for Slavenas), Wojciechowski reported. At the Genoa Veteran's Home, the 30-year-old pilot was remembered as a brave soldier by his father and brothers, who served in the military.
|
|
|
| |
| OVERRATED WOLFOWITZ'S OVERCONFIDENCE! |
| 03.30.04 (1:04 pm) [edit] |
[b]Wolfowitz's Overconfidence
[u]A theory about why he was wrong about Iraq[/u].[/b]
According to the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz habitually "belittled" the threat posed by al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11. In one much-quoted passage from Clarke's new book, [i]Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror,[/i] Wolfowitz complains at a White House meeting, "You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because [the] FBI and CIA have failed to find the linkages does not mean they don't exist."
Why did Wolfowitz trust his own judgment over the findings of the FBI and CIA? Why, similarly, did Wolfowitz blandly assume that post-Saddam Iraq would quickly get back on its feet? [i]Slate [/i]editor Jacob Weiberg last fall offered a plausible explanation for the overconfidence of the Pentagon hawks (including Wolfowitz):
[i]The assumption that events will conform to a preconceived model is a failing to which neoconservatives are notably vulnerable. Part of this may be Marxist residue that never quite washed off. The intellectual descendants of Trotskyists, the neocons find the idea of revolution from above, in which intellectuals and ideas play the crucial role, instinctively appealing. Many neocons also tend to buy into overly deterministic, Hegelian theories of history (see Fukuyama, Frank). In this sense, the assumption that Iraq was destined to become a liberal democracy with just a nudge from the United States is an error akin to Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick's Hannah Arendt-inspired view that Communist totalitarian societies could never reform from within[/i].
But James Mann's absorbing new book, [i]Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet [/i]furnishes an alternative, Wolfowitz-specific explanation. Mann doesn't present it this way, but here's [i]Chatterbox's [/i]construct: Wolfowitz was corrupted by early success. Twenty-odd years ago, Wolfowitz took two very lonely positions that proved to be spectacularly right. As a consequence, he developed an unshakable belief that once he's thought through a problem (which, according to Mann, Wolfowitz does very slowly) he should ignore the cavils of lesser minds. Time will prove that he's right.
The first lonely position was Wolfowitz's early belief that U.S. policymakers should worry about Iraqi expansionism. Wolfowitz formulated this position in 1979, when he was working as deputy assistant secretary of defense for regional programs in the Carter administration. (Wolfowitz's work for a Democratic presidential administration, and before that, the pro-détente Ford administration, would initially cause problems when he sought a job with the hard-line Reagan administration, whose hawkish views were more in tune with Wolfowitz's own.) Defense Secretary Harold Brown was horrified by Wolfowitz's idea, which was included in a study called[i] Capabilities for Limited Contingencies in the Persian Gulf[/i]. A quarter-century later, however, Wolfowitz's analysis looks eerily prescient:
[i]Iraq has become militarily pre-eminent in the Persian Gulf, a worrisome development. ... Iraq may in the future use her military forces against such states as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia (as in the 1961 Kuwait crisis that was resolved by timely British intervention with force). ... [W]e must not only be able to defend the interests of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and ourselves against an Iraqi invasion or show of force, we should also make manifest our capabilities and commitments to balance Iraq's power—and this may require an increased visibility for U.S. power[/i].
In 1990, Dennis Ross, who wrote this passage at Wolfowitz's direction, was traveling with Secretary of State James Baker when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. To Ross' amazement, an Army general briefing Baker on the matter used an updated version of the report that he and Wolfowitz had put out 11 years earlier.
Wolfowitz's second lonely position was taken in 1982, when he was heading the policy planning staff at Ronald Reagan's State Department. It was a challenge to the widespread belief that China's strategic significance as an ally against the Soviet Union rendered it untouchable on human rights and Taiwan. In fact, Wolfowitz argued, China had a weak army and would be of no great use to the United States in a war against the Soviets; perhaps it was time to regard China more as an embryonic great-power rival. Mann writes:
[i]Here, once again, Wolfowitz was taking American foreign policy several steps beyond the usual cold war thinking of the era. When he studied the Persian Gulf in the late 1970s, Wolfowitz had started out with the predicatable cold war anxieties about a Soviet drive toward the oil fields of the Middle East, but he then had gone on to focus on a different possibility, the prospect that Iraq might try to dominate the oil fields by invading its neighbors. So too with Wolfowitz's China policy. ... In both instances, Iraq and China, Wolfowitz was beginning to think about foreign policy issues that were to arise a decade later, after the Soviet collapse[/i].
To Mann, Wolfowitz's early ideas about Iraq and China contributed to Wolfowitz's eventual advocacy of unilateral American power around the world. But [i]Chatterbox[/i] thinks they may also have given Wolfowitz too much confidence in his ability to render risky judgments. Wolfowitz was not yet 40 when he staked out these positions. Within the foreign policy establishment, that made him a baby. Now he's a "wise man" of 60, drawing on the lessons of his youth to address new foreign policy challenges. And the main lesson is: [i]The Wolf Man is Never Wrong[/i]. [Which is why overrated Wolfowitz-the-Liar should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with his criminal activities.]
[i]Chatterbox[/i] [i]is[/i] wrong, on occasion, and promises to discard this theory if he encounters a better one. - http://slate.msn.com/id/20979...
|
|
|
| |
| JUST ANOTHER DAY OF DUBYA PISSING ALL OVER THE OVAL OFFICE: BUSH LIES ... OTHERS DIE ... |
| 03.30.04 (8:13 am) [edit] |
[b]Striking Where Bush Is Weakest[/b]
If the Bush administration had gone after Osama bin Laden with anything akin to the energy it is expending to discredit Richard Clarke, the story of America's response to terrorism might have been dramatically different. That, of course, is the point that Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser, makes when he says that Bush and his aides "ignored" the terrorist threats before September 11, 2001, and, even more significantly, when he suggests that the administration diverted attention from the real war on terrorism with an unnecessary war on Iraq.
Those are powerful charges, and Clarke has made them convincingly in his testimony before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, in various media appearances over the past few days, and in his book, Against All Enemies. Predictably, the White House spin machine has been churning out increasingly-visceral attacks on Clarke, a self-described Republican who still praises Bush's father as a masterful leader. Amid the tit-for-tat that has developed, however, Clarke has already prevailed. No matter what the Bush administration throws at the man who served in four White Houses, Clarke has already trumped his attackers.
Clarke did so by opening his testimony before the commission on Wednesday not with a bold pronouncement about the failings of the administration, but with an apology: "I welcome these hearings because of the opportunity that they provide to the American people to better understand why the tragedy of 9/11 happened and what we must do to prevent a reoccurrence. I also welcome the hearings because it is finally a forum where I can apologize to the loved ones of the victims of 9/11," he began. "To them who are here in the room, to those who are watching on television, your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. And for that failure, I would ask -- once all the facts are out -- for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
In that statement, Clarke proved to be a more masterful political strategist -- and, be clear, a duel between a renegade aide and a president in an election year is about politics -- than White House electoral strategist Karl Rove. Why? Because Clarke recognized the ultimate vulnerability of the Bush administration: An absolute inability on the part of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and, above all, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, to admit when they have failed, when they have been proven wrong and when they have been caught in lies.
The administration that began by neglecting George Bush's popular-vote deficit in the 2000 and claiming a mandate for radical change has been consistent in nothing so much as its refusal to accept unpleasant realities. Bush and his aides always refuse to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong. As such, they are always pointing fingers of blame at others. September 11? Blame evil or Bill Clinton -- pretty much the same thing in the Bush administration's collective mind. False information about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction program gets into the State of the Union Address? Blame the CIA or someone, anyone, in Europe. Economic downturn? Blame Democrats in Congress for not backing bigger tax cuts for corporations and more-of-the-same trade policies. False figures on the cost of Medicare reform go to Congress? Blame, well, er, gee, gay marriage?
No matter what goes wrong, the ironclad rule of the Bush administration has been to find someone outside the administration -- preferably a Democrat or a foreigner -- to blame. And if there is no way to blame someone else, the policy has been to keep expressing an Orwellian faith in the prospect that the failure will become a success, or that the lie will be made true -- witness Cheney's refusal to back away from his pre-war "they'll greet us with flowers" fantasy about the Iraqi response to a U.S.-led invasion.
Supposedly, this refusal to bend in the face of reality is smart politics. But a constant pattern of avoiding responsibility tends, eventually, to catch up even with the smartest politicians. Richard Nixon never recognized that fact and it destroyed his presidency. Bill Clinton, for all of his failings, did recognize it and, with his televised apology for mishandling of the Monica Lewinsky mess, thwarted Republican attempts to destroy his presidency.
Richard Clarke, who lived inside the belly of the beast that is the Bush administration, recognizes its many vulnerabilities. And, by reminding the American people that apologies are owed for failings before 9/11 and since, he struck Bush and his aides where they are weakest.
[b]By John Nichols, The OnLine Beat[/b], http://www.thenation.com/theb...
|
|
|
| |
| HOW MANY AMERICANS SHOULD DIE FOR ISRAEL? HOW ABOUT SENDING WAR-LOVING REDUCTIO-ABSURDs TO WAR??? |
| 03.30.04 (8:10 am) [edit] |
[b]Bush Adviser: War Launched to Protect Israel[/b]
IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East.
Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security.
The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.
Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.
He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.
”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.
”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.
Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.
Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role.
Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make.
The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret.
The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.
Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story.
Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration.
Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001.
In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work.
Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.
Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.
Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”.
Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia.
His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.
In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.
That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow.
He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.
”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”.
”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.”
To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration.
Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.
”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.”
Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq.
”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.
But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said.
Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight.
”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said.
[i][b]By: Emad Mekay[/b][/i], http://www.independent-media....%20Reported
|
|
|
| |
| AMERICANS ARE NOT SACRIFICIAL LAMBS FOR ISRAEL-- EXCEPT UNDER HERR FUHRER BUSH!!!!! |
| 03.30.04 (8:05 am) [edit] |
[b]Israel's isolation ... and ours[/b]
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half-blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shiite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "[T]his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on al-Qaida, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel, there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
[b]By Patrick J. Buchanan[/b], http://www.wnd.com/news/artic...
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE IS CREDIBLE, BUSH AND RICE ARE NOT!!!!! |
| 03.30.04 (8:02 am) [edit] |
[b]A CREDIBLE CLARKE[/b]
RICHARD CLARKE came across as calm, credible -- and courageous -- in his testimony Wednesday.
The government's former top counterterrorism adviser began with an expression of contrition before the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, directing his comments to relatives of the victims: "Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed."
His comparison of the Clinton and Bush administrations' approaches to terrorism was dramatic and damning. The Clinton White House, he said, had "no higher priority" than combating terrorism -- while the Bush White House made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Not surprisingly, several commission members tried to challenge Clarke's motives. John Lehman, a former Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan who now is chair of J.F. Lehman & Co., questioned whether Clarke was "an active partisan trying to shove out a book."
Clarke never flinched. He pointed out that the last time he had to declare party loyalty was 2000 -- when he requested a Republican ballot in the Virgina primary. He noted that he had served in the White House under Reagan and both Bushes. He addressed head-on the notion that he was aligned with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry.
"Let's just lay that one to bed," he testified. "I'm not working for the Kerry campaign." While he co-teaches a class with a longtime friend and professional associate who works for Kerry, Clarke stated unequivocally that he would not work for a Kerry administration.
Clarke forcefully countered suggestions that his criticisms of President Bush contradict his closed-door testimony to the commission as well as his public statements during his White House tenure.
"In the 15 hours of (closed-door) testimony, no one asked me what I thought about the president's invasion of Iraq," he said. "And the reason I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States is because by invading Iraq . . . the president of the United States has greatly undermined the war on terrorism."
Those words were followed by a long silence, punctuating their power. Clarke has raised unsettling questions about this administration's approach to terrorism, before and after Sept. 11. These questions will not go away.
White House attempts to discredit this public servant have been aggressive to the point of unseemliness. Clarke proved Wednesday that he is fully capable of defending his honor.
[b]San Francisco Chronicle[/b], http://www.independent-media....%20Reported
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAELI ASSASSINATIONS: DEFENCE OR MURDER? |
| 03.30.04 (5:26 am) [edit] |
[b]Defence or murder?[/b]
[i][b]Does Israel have a legal right to assassinate its enemies - or are such executions war crimes? After two years deliberating, its supreme court is set to decide. Anthony Dworkin reports [/b][/i] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/isr...,2763,1180910,00.html
A half-blind man in a wheelchair is blown apart on a crowded city street. An insecure 16-year-old boy is coaxed into donning an explosive vest. Are the events of last week in Israel a preview of the future of warfare in the age of "asymmetric" conflict? And if so, what rules of law and morality should govern such a conflict, bringing its conduct into some semblance of conformity with recognised humanitarian principles?
When Israel killed the Hamas founder and spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin with a missile launched from a helicopter, it provoked a storm of criticism. As one Israeli commentator put it, this was the mother of all targeted assassinations. From Kofi Annan to Jack Straw to the European Union's Javier Solana, international statesmen lined up to denounce the strike as unlawful. Among the western liberal democracies, only the United States stood partly aside from the chorus of condemnation - its muddled response a telling reflection of its own contentious anti-terrorist war.
Israel countered by describing Yassin as the "godfather of the suicide bombers" and giving notice that its campaign of targeted killings would be intensified. Anyone involved in the terrorist war against Israel should know there is no immunity, said the country's public security minister the day after the attack.
The morality and legality of assassinating terrorist suspects is being argued out around the world, and is one of the hottest topics in the field of international law. Such discussions often seem merely theoretical, unlikely to have any impact on the actions of the governments involved. But in the case of Israel, there is one body whose assessment of the question could have real and immediate consequences - the country's own supreme court. Within months, the court is likely to deliver its decision in a case brought by two non-profit groups seeking a declaration that the Israeli government's policy of targeted killing is contrary to international law and should be halted.
"I believe this may be the most important case that the supreme court has yet been asked to consider," says one of the lawyers for the petitioners, Michael Sfard. In line with the significance of the moral, legal and security issues at stake, the court has not rushed to a decision. It has had the case before it for two years. Nevertheless Sfard is confident that the case is now in "the final few metres". The groups he represents and the Israeli government have been asked to submit their final briefs.
The first targeted killing in response to the violence of the current Palestinian intifada took place in November 2000, when the Fatah activist Hussein Abayat was killed in a helicopter attack near Bethlehem. Since then, well over 100 Palestinian militants have been the victims of such attacks (not counting the roughly equal number of bystanders who have also died).
At first the assassinations were directed at people who were said to be "ticking time bombs" - individuals who were actively involved in organising terrorist attacks. But more recently the Israeli military has shifted to a wider range of targets, including figures such as Sheikh Yassin, who are leaders of militant groups rather than actual bomb-makers. The government of Ariel Sharon openly acknowledges these targeted strikes as an essential part of its armed struggle to protect Israel's citizens against terrorism.
According to Sfard, though, the killings are not merely unjustified - they are war crimes, perhaps even crimes against humanity. However much we may castigate terrorists, he argues, we must accept that they are not soldiers but civilians, and must be fought with law enforcement methods. That means they can be killed only when there is no other way to prevent them from carrying out an attack that would endanger human life. Otherwise suspected terrorists should be detained and put on trial before they can lawfully be punished for their actions.
"If a terrorist - or any criminal - is threatening someone's life, then you can do everything necessary to stop him," says Sfard. "But these assassinations target people at home, sleeping in their beds, or when they're simply driving in their cars - they're not endangering anyone at the time when they're killed." To kill under these circumstances is simply execution - but carried out without any trial or proof of guilt.
Not surprisingly, the Israeli government and its supporters present the matter in an entirely different way. They argue that Palestinian militants may not be soldiers, but they are still participants in an armed conflict - determined fighters who aim to kill Israeli civilians and who have engineered a concerted campaign of atrocities.
"These targeted killings are almost always legitimate," argues Yoram Dinstein of Tel Aviv University, one of the country's foremost authorities on the laws of war. Under these, he points out, civilians who join in a conflict by directly participating in hostilities make themselves a lawful target for enemy forces. And that doesn't just mean the people who carry out terrorist missions, but also those who equip and send them. "There is no difference in this respect between the person who blows himself up and the dispatcher," Dinstein argues.
Are the leaders of Hamas criminals or combatants? The terms of the question echo a familiar argument over Guantánamo Bay and America's proclaimed war against al-Qaida. In the Israeli-Palestinian case, though, few would deny that there is an armed conflict going on. The crux of the case is therefore likely to come down to a dispute about what it means for someone to take a direct part in hostilities. In the law, this is a notoriously slippery and contested concept - all the more so in the age of low-intensity terrorist warfare.
Like much of the modern law of war, the guiding principle here can be found in the horrific experience of "total war" in the second world war. The aim was to make sure that it was no longer acceptable to target civilians assisting in the general war effort - which in a modern society could be taken to cover almost any adult. But are those who train and equip suicide bombers taking part in hostilities? What about those such as Sheikh Yassin who approve strategic decisions - for instance by giving the go-ahead for women to be used in suicide missions?
And if these people lose their immunity from attack, is that true only while they are directly engaged in terrorist activity? Or do they forfeit their civilian status indefinitely - so that they can be attacked not just when they're fitting an explosives belt or poring over a list of targets, but when they're sleeping, driving, or leaving a mosque? And what about the inherent problem of targeting suspects who don't admit that they are fighters? These are the issues that Israel's supreme court will have to grapple with.
There is no clear legal precedent, and the court will have to base its decision on a view about how the underlying principles of the law should be applied in this unforeseen kind of war. But there are a couple of factors that it might fall back on. The court might make a distinction between the military and political wings of organisations such as Hamas - so that it might rule that only those involved in the military chain of command could be attacked. And it might specify that targeted killings are never permissible when the suspected terrorists can be apprehended without the risk of serious loss of life.
In such an emotive case, though, the factors shaping its decision may not be entirely legal. Sfard believes the biggest obstacle he and his colleagues face is a political one. "The justices are in a very problematic position," he argues. "I am sure that they don't want to be the first judges from a liberal democratic country to authorise a policy of execution without trial - but if the policy was put to a popular vote, it would certainly win. It may be difficult for the court to take a step that would be seen by much of the public as harming the government's power to defend the nation's security."
In fact, there may be a middle way the court could choose, as Dinstein points out. "I don't believe the court will rule against the government in total," he says. But he adds that the present supreme court is notoriously activist: it won't want simply to give the government free rein. Therefore the judges may set some guidelines on the practice of targeted killing, and at the same time extend a wide degree of deference to the Israeli army as to how it applies these guidelines in practice. For instance, they might say that military commanders are best placed to judge whether a particular killing is militarily necessary to defend the country against the risk of future attacks.
Whenever it comes, the court's decision is likely to be minutely scrutinised and passionately disputed. Judges on the American supreme court have already said that they may look to the Israeli legal system for precedents when they consider the ground rules for the US war on terror. The new international criminal court (though it is unlikely to have jurisdiction over Israeli or American actions for the foreseeable future) may also have to consider the use of force against terrorists at some point. Israel's justices will be the first to enter this legal minefield, but they will certainly not have the final word on the subject.
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA, 'THE WAR PRESIDENT' WAGED A WAR OF LIES |
| 03.30.04 (5:24 am) [edit] |
[b]The 'war president' waged a war of lies[/b]
A cascade of embarrassing revelations and accusations are demolishing George W. Bush's slickly packaged, made-for-TV persona as a "war president" and the scourge of Islamic terrorists.
Former president Jimmy Carter accused Bush and British PM Tony Blair of waging a war of "lies" against Iraq.
Poland's president said he was "deceived" by Bush into sending troops to Iraq. Spain's new prime minister denounced Bush's Iraq adventure as a "fiasco" and a "war based on lies."
A group of leading American business executives ran a full-page ad in The New York Times entitled "Have you noticed what's happened to chief executives who lie?" with a picture of an executive being led away in handcuffs. The ad described the Iraq invasion as a "state-sponsored deception (that) already dwarfs the damage done by the worst corporate scandals," citing 566 American dead and a cost of $125 billion US (not to mention 20,000 Iraqi deaths).
The underlying message was stark: the president and his "war cabinet" ought to face criminal charges for lying to the nation and starting an unnecessary war for domestic political reasons.
The fourth bombshell exploded when Richard Clarke, the respected former counter-terrorism chief under presidents Clinton and George Bush Sr., went public with the most damning accusations yet made against the White House. His testimony before a commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. asserted the Bush administration damaged U.S. national security, did not do enough to prevent the 9/11 attacks, and obsessed over Iraq while largely ignoring al-Qaida's threat.
Bush, said Clarke, did "a terrible job" in fighting terrorism. Bush's obsession with Iraq left the U.S. "needlessly unprepared" to counter an al-Qaida attack. He also criticized, somewhat less strongly, the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
Clarke, a Republican, insisted there were no links between Iraq and either 9/11 or terrorism, and that Iraq had no concealed weapons, a position long maintained by this column. But the feeble, politicized 9/11 commission failed to follow up on this dramatic testimony.
Vice President Dick Cheney was described by Clarke as a "right-wing ideologue." He accused Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a principal architect of the Iraq War, of "belittling" the al-Qaida threat.
We learned Defence Secretary Rumsfeld was so preoccupied with anti-missile defence before 9/11 he ignored al-Qaida.
[b]Urgent warnings [/b]
The commission's report stated Rumsfeld "did not recall any particular counter-terrorism issue that engaged his attention before 9/11," though the CIA claimed to have urgently warned both Bush and Rumsfeld of impending attacks.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who refused to testify, was shown to be a dithering, confused amateur and a character assassin who has led the White House attacks on Clarke.
Attorney General John Ashcroft, another self-styled scourge of terrorists, actually proposed cutting spending on counter-terrorism exactly one day before 9/11 - and again, afterward. Unfortunately, the commission failed to ask why the Bush administration had been sending millions in aid to the "terrorist" Taliban until four months before 9/11.
This column has repeatedly asserted the Bush administration was asleep on guard duty on 9/11.
True, there were no warnings hijacked airliners were coming on that specific day. But with the benefit of hindsight, we see the same ineptitude and confusion that preceded the attack on Pearl Harbor - a combination of distraction, smugness, self-deception, disbelief and bungling. On Dec. 7, 1941, Japan's naval codes were being intercepted and deciphered; her attacking aircraft were spotted by radar. Yet the obvious conclusions somehow were not made. The same applies to Sept. 11, 2001.
In the U.S. Navy, a ship's captain is responsible for all accidents or misfortunes, no matter what the excuse. But no senior member of the Bush administration has accepted responsibility for the death of some 3,000 people on 9/11. No one resigned.
No senior U.S. official acted with the honour and courage of Britain's foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who resigned to protest a war against Iraq he charged was based entirely on falsehoods and disinformation.
Instead, the Bush administration launched a trumped up war against Iraq to mask its own negligence prior to 9/11, and to satisfy America's lust for revenge by attacking a nation innocent of that crime.
Clarke, at least, had the decency to apologize to the families of the 9/11 victims, saying, "the government failed you. And I failed you." We have yet to hear a peep of self-criticism from the blundering but arrogant Bush White House.
Of course not. This administration is running for re-election on its "war record" against Iraq, and its so-called war on terrorism. Bush is playing Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman.
But his claim to be a war president is like the man who murders his family, then begs for mercy because he is an orphan. The Iraq war was not one of self-defence, like World War II, but an unprovoked, illegal aggression engineered by the Bush administration and justified by a torrent of shameful lies. Bush's "war on terrorism" is a police action that was unnecessarily and foolishly militarized.
Richard Clarke, no matter his motives, has done his nation an important, badly needed service.
[i][b]By Eric Margolis -- Contributing Foreign Editor, Toronto Sun[/b][/i], http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand...
|
|
|
| |
| REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM-- "9/11 CHANGED EVERYTHING", LET BUSH & RICE LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE, LIE!!!!! |
| 03.29.04 (5:23 pm) [edit] |
[b]The War on Clarke [/b]
Richard Clarke must be wondering if explaining what the United States did not do in the war on terrorism is more dangerous than actually fighting the terrorists. Clarke, the former terrorism czar for both Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, is now being vilified by a host of Bush officials, including Dick Cheney and Condeleeza Rice, as a liar.
The attack on Clarke, which consists of leaks, threats and intimidation tactics, has become the genuine hallmark of the Bush presidency. Previous victims of the Bush smear machine include:
1. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, who challenged the fantasy spun by Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and correctly insisted that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to pacify Iraq.
2. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had provided the Bush administration with a report that Niger had not supplied Iraq with uranium yellowcake essential for building a nuclear device. Not only were his character and competence called into question, but his family's security was jeopardized by a White House leak that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative.
3. Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, who reported on the Bush administration obsession with Iraq and talk early on of removing Saddam Hussein.
These smear campaigns were mild compared to the vicious assault now underway against Richard Clarke. What is the truth about Richard Clarke?
I was neither a personal friend nor fan of Richard Clarke when I was in government. Richard Clarke, in my experience, was arrogant and intense. He probably still is. (People who know me would suggest that I am the pot calling the kettle black.) However, Richard Clarke also is a competent professional who has served faithfully with Democratic and Republican administrations since the 1970s.
My first contact with Mr. Clarke came during January of 1991 in the operations center at State Department. Clarke, who was the assistant secretary of state for political military affairs, had been denied space in the task force area, and my boss, State Counterterrorism Chief Morris Busby, interceded for Clarke and carved out space for his PM unit. Our two groups shared space in the back rooms of the task force area.
In 1992, Clarke was exiled to the National Security Council over a flap involving Israel. I was told at the time that this move was intended to get rid of him. Those who hoped that banishing Clarke to the National Security Council would lead to his dismissal from government did not understand what a formidable professional he was.
I left government service in 1993 but continued to keep tabs on Clarke's counterterrorism activities through friends and former colleagues in the various policy and intelligence bureaucracies. Some close friends complained (and still do) that Richard was too alarmist and too pushy on some issues.
While some can quibble about his personality, there should be no dispute that Richard Clarke was an aggressive advocate for a tough response to terrorism. Unfortunately, politicians in both parties chose to ignore him on key issues. President Clinton, for example, sat on the Presidential Decision Directive 39, which laid out his administration's plan for fighting terrorism, for 28 months after taking office in January of 1993. Clinton finally signed the document after the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995. Clarke pushed to get it done sooner but ran up against political apathy in the early days of the Clinton administration.
Clarke was just as pushy with the Bush administration. In the first months of the Bush presidency a terrorism issue unrelated to Al Qaeda, which first surfaced during the Clinton administration, came to the front burner. Four U.S. oil workers were being held by individuals tied to Colombian terrorists in the jungles of Ecuador. The U.S. Embassy requested the deployment of U.S. counterterrorism forces (civilian and military) to Ecuador to help find and rescue the workers. Clarke chaired a meeting of the Counter Terrorism Support Group (CSG) at the Old Executive Office Building to consider the matter. He wanted to grant the request and was backed by the Department of State, the CIA and the FBI. The Department of Defense, however, balked. At the end of the day, the Bush administration, against Clarke's recommendation, chose to treat terrorism in Ecuador as criminal matter rather than a military issue. U.S. military forces stayed at home.
Clarke has told the uncomfortable truth in his book, and now finds himself the target of the full fury of angry Bush partisans, who insist that fighting terrorism was Bush's highest priority. The evidence shows otherwise. For starters, Clarke presented a memo to Condi Rice outlining the URGENT (this tag is on the document) threat presented by Al Qaeda in January 2001. While Dr. Rice insists she made terrorism a top priority, one of her first decisions in the early days of 2001 was to downgrade Clarke's position as the National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism. How is that making terrorism an elevated priority? It is not. Richard Clarke also requested in January 2001 that President Bush convene a meeting of principal Bush officials (e.g., the secretary of state, secretary of defense and the attorney general) but this meeting was postponed by Dr. Rice until Sept. 4, 2001. That seven-month gap represents time that, in retrospect, could have been used to prevent the 9/11 attacks.
The Clarke bashers also insist that that no more could have been done before 9/11 than what was done during the first eight months of the Bush presidency. Oh? If that was the case, then why did Bush direct the airlines to lock cockpit doors after 9/11? Why did the Bush administration decide to arm pilots, put more air marshals on planes and federalize the security force doing screening at airports? Why did the Bush administration order attacks on Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan if, in the words of the Bush spinners, "we did all that we could do prior to 9/11"? Why did Bush officials establish emergency financial task forces comprised of intelligence and law enforcement officials to hunt down the trails of terrorist financing if all had been done prior to 9/11? The uncomfortable facts show that Richard Clarke proposed many of these measures in the early days of the Bush presidency. Action was taken only in the aftermath of 9/11.
Here is the bottom line—Richard Clarke was right, and the Bush administration and the people of the United States would have been better off if his warnings in the early days of 2001 had been heeded. Rather than attack Richard Clarke's character, Republican operatives should focus their venom on the terrorists who killed Americans in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. George W. Bush should set the tone and thank his former terrorism chief, apologize for this week's ugliness, and focus on getting Osama Bin Laden. As one American, I say thank you, Richard Clarke.
[i][b]Larry C. Johnson is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He served with the CIA from 1985 through 1989 and worked in the State Department's office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 through 1993. He also is a registered Republican who contributed financially to the Bush Campaign in 2000[/b][/i]. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...
|
|
|
| |
| 49 RET. MILITARY TOP BRASS TELL DUBYA: STOP WASTING MONEY ON PHONY 'MISSILE DEFENSE'!!!!! |
| 03.29.04 (5:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dubya has been neo-con[i] conning, scamming and swindling [/i]the American taxpayers ([i]yes, with immoral and criminal tax cuts for corporations and the rich, but also[/i] ...) with awarding insane, obscenely costly no-bid, no-audit, no-accountability 'contracts' for outrageous weapons systems boondoggles ([i]that don't even work[/i]) to his corrupt corporate campaign contributors in the rapacious Military Industrial Complex ...[/b]
Already it is [i]well-documented [/i]that vile [i]war-profiteers-cum-tra itors[/i] at Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, Unocal, Big Oil, and the ghoulish Defense Contractors, are gluttonously helping themselves to the[i] 'spoils-of-looting'[/i] engineered via their vicious[i], illegal and immoral war-mongering in Iraq[/i], in order to steal and embezzle vast riches from the American taxpayers, while our U.S. Soldiers and Innocent Iraqi Civilians are 'cannon-fodder' [i]taking the hit [/i]for these blood-thirsty War Criminals ...
"We the People" should support the surprising, but welcome request by 49 Retired Military Top Brass, asking Dubya to [i]stop scamming Americans [/i]while we are at war ([i]of the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's making[/i]) and in the record-level deficit disaster heading for an economic train-wreck ([i]of the neo-con, neo-fascist Bush regime's making, too[/i]) not seen since the Great Depression ...
P.S. The phony 'Defense Shield' is a "perpetual money-making machine" for greedy and traitorous Corporate Top Dogs & Fat Cats ... [i]The damn thing doesn't even work[/i]! http://www.tompaine.com/featu...
Consider "[b]Retired top brass say [i]no[/i] to 'missile shield'[/b]" by [i]Bryan Bender[/i], The Boston Globe, on http://www.independent-media....%20Reported :
Forty-nine retired generals and admirals yesterday urged President Bush to suspend plans for a national missile shield and instead use the money to secure nuclear materials abroad and ports and borders at home.
The Bush administration plans to field a nationwide defense system in September to shoot down missiles armed with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and has budgeted $3.7 billion this year for the project.
Lexington, Mass.-based Raytheon is one of the main government contractors and is developing the missile interceptor and most of the radar technology.
But the 49 former senior military leaders contend that the system remains unproven. They also said it is more likely that terrorists would smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States than a country would launch a missile at the United States, risking a devastating retaliatory strike.
"As you have said, Mr. President, our highest priority is to prevent terrorists from acquiring and employing weapons of mass destruction," wrote the former officers, including retired Admiral William J. Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired General Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the US Central Command.
The retired officers added that "the militarily responsible course of action" is to use the funding for the missile shield "to secure the multitude of facilities containing nuclear weapons and materials and to protect our ports and borders against terrorists who may attempt to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States."
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, recently concluded that only two of the antimissile system's 10 key technologies have been fully tested. Meanwhile, to make the September deadline, the Pentagon has waived some operational testing requirements. The military's top weapons tester stated earlier this month that such testing is not planned "for the foreseeable future."
The letter calls on the president to "postpone operational deployment of the expensive and untested" system.
It is one element of a larger missile defense effort -- estimated to cost $53 billion over the next five years -- that will use ships at sea and other methods to track and deflect missile launches. Navy Secretary Gordon England announced Monday that a specially equipped Aegis destroyer will be positioned this fall in the Sea of Japan, where it will be an alert for North Korean missile launches.
Raytheon builds the "kill vehicle" designed to destroy an incoming missile. The firm also makes many of the system's radars, including ones positioned on Cape Cod, the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, and the Pacific island of Kwajalein.
[u]Retired Top Military Brass Urges Dubya To Stop Scamming American Taxpayers [/u]..., http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| 9/11 FAMILIES PRAISE TRUTHFUL RICHARD CLARKE & PROTEST THE LIARS RICE & BUSH |
| 03.29.04 (7:22 am) [edit] |
[b]Family Affair
[i]After a charged hearing, 9-11 families praised Richard Clarke, protested Condoleezza Rice, and demanded the resignation of the commission's director[/i][/b]
Inside the sleek wooden walls of a Hart Senate Office Building hearing room, where the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States held two days of hearings, GOP commissioners subjected former counterterrorism official Richard Clarke to sharp questioning during a charged and emotional hearing Wednesday. But while Clarke deftly parried charges about potential partisanship -- asserting, under oath, that he has no interest in ever joining a John Kerry administration, "should there be one" -- the pointed questions highlighted another fault line that may widen as the political season progresses: a divide between the GOP commissioners and the family members of victims of September 11.
Clarke began his testimony by offering the victims' family members a sincere and moving apology. "Those entrusted with protecting you, failed you," he said, his voice husky with emotion. "And I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't matter because we failed. I would ask, once all the facts are out, for your understanding and for your forgiveness."
He then proceeded to charge the Bush administration with failing, during its first nine months, to treat the terrorist threat as "urgent," despite repeated warnings. For many family members, it was as if a dam was finally bursting.
"This is the best testimony ever!" exclaimed an emphatic, limping April Gallop after Clarke's testimony. A petite former EF4 Specialist at the Pentagon, she was medically retired after being injured in the attack on the Pentagon. "He was honest. He admitted it! He apologized -- something nobody has done since 2001. That's a real leader.
"It closes the wound a little bit," she added. "There's an open wound there."
Rosemary Dillard, who wore a red "AA77" pin to memorialize the American Airlines flight her husband, Eddie Dillard, was on when he died, was also satisfied. "I thought it was excellent, even when they tried to browbeat [Clarke] down," she said. "And now we're leaving. All the families are leaving….Condoleezza Rice not coming, it's disrespectful."
At the end of Clarke's testimony, the families walked out in a spontaneous protest of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who had declined to testify under oath before the panel. The administration deputized Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage to speak in her stead. The protest was hastily decided on by the families during the brief lunch break between the end of former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's testimony and the beginning of Clarke's, said several family members. And so they picked up their heavy winter overcoats and their wheeled suitcases -- many were heading straight back to New York after the hearings -- and walked out en masse.
"The family members got up as a group and left today because Condoleezza Rice didn't testify," said Kristin Breitweiser, the articulate head of the September 11th Advocates, whose husband, Ronald, died in the World Trade Center. "The White House lawyers have decided it is better to take the heat for not testifying than [for her] to come down and take an oath and testify."
Breitweiser's advocacy, along with that of other widows from New Jersey, helped lead to the creation of the commission.
"We've all been so frustrated by Condi Rice," said Patricia Casazza, whose husband, John, perished along with many other Cantor Fitzgerald employees at the World Trade Center on 9-11. Having Armitage testify in lieu of Rice, she added, was "totally unacceptable."
"In the middle of our grief, we had to drag ourselves down to D.C. for a whole year, begging for this investigation," said Casazza. "This is not supposed to be about politics; this is supposed to be about preventing this [kind of] tragedy from happening going forward."
And going forward, the some families say, the Bush administration has stalled and dragged its feet at every possible turn. "This administration has not fully cooperated with the 9-11 commission," charged the Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 commission, a nonpartisan umbrella group that lobbyied for the commission's creation. "President Bush opposed the creation of the 9-11 commission, and his administration has set up roadblocks that have inhibited the commission's progress," the committee said on March 8.
On Saturday, the committee sent a letter to the commissioners demanding the resignation of the commission's staff director, Philip Zelikow, after information surfaced in The New York Times and during testimony that Zelikow was a participant in briefings on the al-Qaeda threat that Clarke gave to the Bush transition team. Zelikow, a long-time colleague of Rice's and co-author of a book with her, has recused himself from all aspects of the investigation that cover the month he served on the transition team.
"It is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the source of failures," the families wrote in the letter, as reported by Government Executive. "We can now see that trail would lead directly to the staff director himself."
"It is the families' opinion that the staff director has a stark conflict of interest," said Breitweiser at an impromptu press conference Wednesday after walking out of the hearings. "In addition to resigning, we would like the staff director to testify" under oath. Zelikow has testified in executive session but not publicly or under oath. Rice has met with the commission privately for four hours but has refused to testify in open session.
A spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, said earlier in the week that the commissioners felt Zelikow's recusal was an adequate response. But that response, coupled with the sharp questioning of Clarke's credibility by the GOP commissioners, has caused some of the family members to worry that the GOP commissioners -- through their insinuations that those critical of Bush are partisans -- will themselves be hijacking the commission for partisan electoral purposes as the year progresses.
"Certain people on the commission need to determine who they are representing," said Breitweiser. "Are they representing the lives of the 3,000 lost or are they representing people in Washington?"
[i][b]By Garance Franke-Ruta is a Prospect senior editor. The American Prospect[/b][/i], http://www.prospect.org/webfe...
|
|
|
| |
| A FADING AMERICAN CONSCIENCE? ... BUSH'S NEOCON PARTY OF HATE |
| 03.29.04 (7:20 am) [edit] |
[b]A Fading American Conscience?[/b]
As Americans get drawn into the presidential elections process to pick their new leader some months from now, how many will pause to give thought to the events of the past 18 months, events that have led to the death of over 13,000 civilians and hundreds of American soldiers.
It was back in October 2002, at the United Nations, that their president boldly claimed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a faraway country — a country armed and ready to fire into the heartland of America. And to bolster his claim, he even managed to bring on stage a metal pipe supposedly housing the tools of an evil intent.
His alarm rang in a chorus of similar threatening notes, from Dick Cheney to Colin Powell, from Condoleezza Rice to Paul Wolfowitz, all nodding in agreement, and all actively engaging the American public in a doomsday scenario. Meanwhile, his man of war, Donald Rumsfeld, was busily oiling the machinery that would deliver Mr. Bush’s “democratic” message.
Despite calls of caution from the US Congress, which passed a resolution stating “Congress and the American people are increasingly concerned that the president is prepared to use armed force against Iraq without broad support by the international community, and without making a compelling case that Iraq presents such an imminent threat to the national security of the United States that unilateral action is justified,” Mr. Bush autocratically went ahead.
Today, in a torn and twisted nation where death has become a daily way of life, where basic services are no better than they were before this invasion, where refugees are an instant byproduct as factions fight for power, America has spawned a new Vietnam. And their presence there has not been welcomed with garlands of flowers.
The agenda for his war is slowly unraveling today. As US officials scurry about to avoid being trapped into admissions of lying and misleading, the truth is beginning to emerge. Charges that this administration was aware of the threats that led to the carnage on that fateful Sept. 11 are adding to the deceit. The world is certainly no safer today.
When Americans decide on their future leadership early November, they will have an option: A choice to preserve what was once a universally admired conscience, or to cave in to this dubious administration.
And when conscience begins to fade, immorality waits impatiently at the corner, eager to usurp its place.
[i][b]By Tariq A. Al-Maeena[/b][/i], http://www.aljazeerah.info/29...%20Fading%20American%20Co nscience%20Tariq%20A.%20Al-Maeena.htm
|
|
|
| |
| AGAINST ALL ENEMIES: READ IT, AND WEEP ... |
| 03.29.04 (6:10 am) [edit] |
[b]AGAINST ALL ENEMIES: Read it, and weep ... [/b]
It isn't just politics that has driven Richard Clarke's [i]Against All Enemies [/i]to number one on the bestseller list: this is one rip-roaring story, and it opens with a bang. It's September 11, 2001, and Richard A. Clarke, counter-terror "czar," is right at the center of the action. While POTUS is in flight from Washington, and the Vice President is secured in his bunker, Clarke sits in session with his counter-terrorism team, directly managing the crisis. Evacuate the White House. Ground air traffic. Secure landmarks: Sears Tower, Disney World, the Golden Gate Bridge. Oh, and don't forget the Liberty Bell. It is all the more gripping because we know it's real: and, in reading this account, the reader relives those moments from inside the kernel of power. It's quite a view.
Clarke gets to say stuff like "over and out," and his team of tough-talking counter-terror experts is straight out of Central Casting: Bob Cressey, who once "drove the darkened streets of Mogadishu at night in a pick-up truck with a 9 mm strapped to his hip, listening to the gunfire rippling around town"; Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, a stylish can-do blonde whose knowledge of WMD and training with Navy Seals and Delta Force owes more to Hollywood than the Department of Energy. Cofer Black is especially good as "a hard-charging, get-it-done kind of CIA officer who had proved himself in the back alleys of unsavory places." The tragic hero is played by John O'Neill, Clarke's closest friend in the FBI: obsessed by Al Qaeda and driven out because he didn't fit the "narrow little mold that Director Louis Freeh wanted for his agents," O'Neill became security director of the World Trade Center and died in the cataclysm he had long feared.
At the center of it all stands the somewhat alienated, slightly obsessive Clarke, whose early interest in Osama bin Laden becomes a fixation. In the events of the past decade, seen through the author's eyes, the pattern of terror slowly materializes out of the intelligence mist. Clarke and his colorful counter-terrorist crew begin to develop a comprehensive overview of the threat posed by the Al Qaeda network long before the rest of the government catches on.
It is shocking to read that, before 9/11, the counter-terrorist chief had never been allowed to brief President George W. Bush on the threat posed by Bin Laden. His proposed presidential directive to "eliminate" Al Qaeda had been stuck in the labyrinthine halls of the national security bureaucracy, disdained by neocons so focused on Iraq that even in the wake of 9/11 they complained, as Paul Wolfowitz put it to Clarke, "I just don't understand why we're beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden."
It didn't help when Clarke explained that these were the bad guys behind 9/11. Wolfowitz would have none of it. To Clarke's incredulous horror, Wolfowitz gave a spiel touting the crackpot theories of Laurie Mylroie. A writer, Ms. Mylroie maintains that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, as well as the Oklahoma City bombing, and – who knows? – maybe even global warming. 9/11 couldn't have occurred without a state sponsor, averred Deputy Defense Secretary with his usual air of smug certitude, and that would have to be Iraq.
We're in for another shock as Clarke relates how quickly the focus turned away from Bin Laden and toward Saddam Hussein. By the morning of 9/12 Wolfowitz was arguing that Iraq, and not Al Qaeda, was the main enemy and the probable perpetrator of the terrorist attacks, while all credible intelligence pointed to Bin Laden.. "By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and 'getting Iraq.'" Shoot, Rummy bawled, "there's no decent targets in Afghanistan!"
Surely he's joking, thought Clarke. But nobody was laughing, least of all the President, who agreed that we needed "regime change" in Afghanistan as a "first stage." The second stage, however, was conceived by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and in the presidential imagination at that same moment, shortly after the second airliner hit the twin towers, and well before they both collapsed. Iraq was next.
Clarke was incredulous. Such a course, he writes, "would be like our invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor" – not merely counterintuitive but downright nonsensical, and dangerously contrary to American interests.
But by the time 9/11 rolled around, the already dispirited Clarke had long since given up on convincing the Bush administration to take the fight against terrorism seriously enough to home in on Bin Laden and his allies worldwide. From that moment of incredulity, as he contemplated the ideologically-driven blindness of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, the author flashes back two decades to the real beginning of the story.
Clarke's chapter on the history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, from Reagan on, illustrates the principle of what Chalmers Johnson has deemed foreign policy "blockback." He illustrates the unintended consequences of blocking with Iraq against Iran, tilting toward Israel, and, most fatally of all, creating and supporting the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, who would later evolve into Al Qaeda. Although Clarke says that he thinks Reagan was right to intervene, he refutes himself in his subsequent analysis of the massive problems created by our strategy of "rollback"
Clarke traces the trail of terror through the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City terror attack, the Khobar Towers blast, the downing of TWA flight 800, the Atlantic Olympics bombing, the attacks on U.S. military trainers in Riyadh, and a failed plot to take out New York landmarks, as the shadow of Al Qaeda lurks in the background. When Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia and takes up residence in Sudan, the Balkans become the worldwide rallying point of a burgeoning Islamo- terrorist movement: "What we saw unfold in Bosnia," reveals Clarke, "was a guidebook to the Bin Laden network, though we didn't recognize it as such at the time." With the complicity of Bosnia's Muslim government, Iranian arms and Osama bin Laden's legions poured into the Euro-Muslim sanctuary: President Alija Izetbegovic was reluctant to expel them even after agreeing to do so under pressure from his American patrons. As Kosovo re-ignites, the context provided by Clarke leads one to wonder what is really going on there: more blowback from yet another heedless intervention?
While a small group, including Clarke, Sandy Berger, and a few others, are convinced early on of Bin Laden's significance as the epicenter of a terrorist conspiracy against America, it isn't until the summer of 1995, when OBL denounces the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, that Washington begins to recognize Al Qaeda as a distinct threat. Clarke's bitterness comes through loud and clear in his condemnation of some in the CIA, who were "pathetically unable to accomplish the mission" when it came to Al Qaeda. And, in the end, when the U.S.S Cole was attacked and there was no retaliation, the Clintonites just didn't get it. "Does Al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention" remarked a prescient State Department counter-terrorism official. Apparently so.
Clearly, however, the Clinton administration, for all its operational incompetence, had a far better handle on the nature and extent of the problem than Team Bush. Of the Bush II principals, only Colin Powell ever exhibited any pre-9/11 interest in Al Qaeda. Cheney and the neocons were focused almost exclusively on Iraq: Wolfowitz was actively hostile to the focus on Al Qaeda, and Clarke notes that when our ambassador to Indonesia began making "too much noise" about OBL & Co., Wolfowitz had him fired.
Ms. Rice, who had never even heard of Al Qaeda, is portrayed here as genuinely annoyed that Clarke was bringing this bothersome subject up when there were so many other important items on her agenda. Counter-terrorism? We don't do "operational" stuff here at the National Security Council, Condi informed him, and Clarke was just going to have to move all that out of the NSC structure, while the whole business was downgraded.
By late June, 2001, Clarke and CIA Director Tenet were convinced that "a major series of attacks" was on the horizon. In July, speaking at a counter-terrorism task force meeting, Clarke notes intelligence pointing to an attack overseas, "in Israel or Saudi Arabia. Maybe. But maybe it will be here." After finagling for the better part of a year to convene a high-level national security briefing focused on Al Qaeda, Clarke finally gets his wish, on September 4, 2001, and makes his case to the overlords of Washington that they are living in a fool's paradise. Rumsfeld looks distracted, and keeps bringing up Iraq. Clarke's proposal to send an armed Predator drone after Bin Laden is vetoed.
Clarke is ambivalent about the possibility that 9/11 might have been stopped, at that point. But he does note that the FBI and the CIA "had specific information about individual terrorists from which one could have deduced what was about to happen." After years of sounding the alarm, Clarke is too saddened and weary to take any comfort in his prescience. He doesn't have to say "I told you so," because the rest, as they say, is history.
When it comes to the Iraq war, Clarke's blues turn to white-hot anger. Short of opening Al Qaeda recruitment centers, the U.S. couldn't have come to Bin Laden's aid more effectively than by invading and occupying an oil-rich Middle Eastern country that represented no threat to us. "It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'Invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq.'"
This administration, says Clarke, is fighting the wrong war, the wrong way, for the wrong reasons: even the Afghan war was "treated as a regime-change rather than a search-and-destroy against terrorists." The pinpoint strategy – pin down and destroy the Al Qaeda network – favored by Clarke, versus the broad "drain-the-swamp" social engineering scheme envisioned by the neocons, is what the debate engendered by this book is really all about. It was pragmatism versus ideology in the Bush administration, and the latter won out: now Clarke is taking his pragmatic results-oriented approach to fighting terrorism to the public, and odds are they'll buy it more easily than a crusade to "end evil," as the neocons would have it.
Early in the text, as Clarke is walking through an eerily empty West Wing on 9/11, he thinks to himself that, finally, the administration would be forced to move against the Afghan camps which were no doubt as bereft of human beings in that moment as the White House: "We would begin a long fight against al Qaeda, with no holds barred. But it was too late."
If Clarke is right about that, then God help us. If he's wrong, then [i]Against All Enemies [/i]may have been published just in time to save us from losing the fight of our lives.
– [i][b]Justin Raimondo[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/justin/?ar...
|
|
|
| |
| IRAQIS FURIOUS AS U.S. OCCUPATION SHUTS BAGHDAD NEWPAPER |
| 03.29.04 (6:05 am) [edit] |
[b]G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Accused of Lies[/b]
American soldiers shut down a popular Baghdad newspaper on Sunday and tightened chains across the doors after the occupation authorities accused it of printing lies that incited violence.
Thousands of outraged Iraqis protested the closing as an act of American hypocrisy, laying bare the hostility many feel toward the United States a year after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
"No, no, America!" and "Where is democracy now?" screamed protesters who hoisted banners and shook clenched fists in a hastily organized rally against the closing of the newspaper, Al Hawza, a radical Shiite weekly.
The rally drew hundreds and then thousands by nightfall in central Baghdad, where masses of angry Shiite men squared off against a line of American soldiers who rushed to seal off the area.
The closing of the newspaper illustrated the quandary Americans faced in trying to strike a balance between their two main goals — encouraging democracy while maintaining stability. But as the days wind down to the June 30 target date for handing sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, security seems increasingly elusive.
On Sunday, the Iraqi public works minister narrowly escaped an assassination attempt in the northern city of Mosul, and two foreign workers were shot to death nearby in front of a power plant.
Many Iraqis said closing down a popular newspaper at such a crucial time would not curtail anti-occupation feelings but only inflame them.
"When you repress the repressed, they only get stronger," said Hamid al-Bayati, a spokesman for the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a prominent Shiite political party. "Punishing this newspaper will only increase the passion for those who speak out against the Americans."
The American authorities said Al Hawza could reopen in 60 days. The paper's editors, however, said they had been put out of business.
"We have been evicted from our offices, and we have no jobs," Saadoon Mohsen Thamad, a news editor, said as he stared at a large padlock hanging from the front gate. "How are we going to continue?"
Among Iraqi journalists, Al Hawza was known for printing wild rumors, especially anti-American ones. A broadsheet of about eight pages, the paper is considered a mouthpiece for Moktada al-Sadr, a fiery young Shiite cleric and one of the most outspoken critics of the Americans.
The letter ordering the paper closed, signed by L. Paul Bremer III, the top administrator in Iraq, cited what the American authorities called several examples of false reports in Al Hawza, including a February dispatch that said the cause of an explosion that killed more than 50 Iraqi police recruits was not a car bomb, as occupation officials had said, but an American missile.
Many newspapers and television stations have sprouted in Iraq since the fall of the Hussein government. But under a law passed by the occupying authorities in June, a news media organization must be licensed, and that license can be revoked if the organization publishes or broadcasts material that incites violence or civil disorder or "advocates alterations to Iraq's borders by violent means."
But the letter outlining the reasons for taking action against Al Hawza did not cite any material that directly advocated violence. Several Iraqi journalists said that meant there was no basis to shut Al Hawza down.
"That paper might have been anti-American, but it should be free to express its opinion," said Kamal Abdul Karim, night editor of the daily Azzaman.
Omar Jassem, a freelance reporter, said he thought that democracy meant many viewpoints and many newspapers. "I guess this is the Bush edition of democracy," he said.
Tom Rosenstiel, vice chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, said there was a basic irony in Americans' practicing censorship in Iraq.
"If you're trying to promote democracy in a country that has never had it, you have to lead by example," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "I'm not in Iraq. But it's hard for me to see how the suppression of information, even false information, is going to help our cause."
Many Iraqi journalists said they feared that closing Al Hawza would only increase the support for Mr. Sadr, the 31-year-old son of a revered Shiite cleric who was assassinated in 1999 by hit men working for Mr. Hussein. In the prelude to the June 30 transfer of power, Mr. Sadr has been increasingly abrasive, issuing statements denouncing Americans and any Iraqis who work with them. Thousands of his followers can be summoned to the streets at the snap of a finger, as demonstrated Sunday.
Unlike Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the influential Shiite cleric who has also criticized the occupation but not in militant terms, Mr. Sadr has threatened to form his own militia.
The American authorities said that before they decided to close Mr. Sadr's newspaper, they weighed the risks of further provoking him.
"But we basically concluded that we couldn't afford to wait for another issue to hit the streets," said Al Elsadr, the media liaison for the occupation government. "The false information in that paper was hurting stability. It was stirring up a lot of hate. It was making people think we were out to get them."
Mr. Elsadr said that incitement of violence could come in many forms and that it did not have to be direct to be considered a violation of the administrative law.
"If people actually believed that coalition forces were slaughtering civilians," he said, "it could be real dangerous. That's incitement."
Mr. Elsadr said the occupation authorities had invited the paper's editors to discuss with them what had been printed, but it was unclear if the paper would be able to appeal the closing order.
In July, the American authorities permanently closed down another newspaper for similar reasons, provoking similar demonstrations. An Arabic television network was suspended from broadcasting in Iraq for 30 days after coverage that was considered irresponsible.
The protests outside the Hawza offices on Sunday faded with the day's light. After the brief but tense standoff with American forces, Mr. Sadr's followers rolled up their flags and climbed back into their buses. No injuries or property damage were reported.
Earlier on Sunday, the public works minister, Nasreen Barwari, was attacked by gunmen while her convoy was speeding through Mosul, an increasingly dangerous city. A spokeswoman for the occupation authorities said that a driver and a guard had been killed, but that the minister had not been hurt. Two other people were wounded.
"It was a close call," the occupation spokeswoman said.
Not far away, gunmen shot to death two foreign security staff members outside an East Mosul power plant. The two guards, one from Britain and the other from Canada, were killed while trying to protect a team of engineers working for General Electric.
Later on Sunday, and also in Mosul, American soldiers got into a shootout with a band of armed men. Two Americans were wounded, and four Iraqis were killed.
[i][b]By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN, N.Y. TIMES[/b][/i], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| CLARKE URGES TERRORISM TESTIMONY TO BE MADE PUBLIC |
| 03.29.04 (6:01 am) [edit] |
[b]Clarke Urges Terrorism Testimony to Be Made Public[/b]
Former U.S. counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke on Sunday called on the White House to make public his own testimony to Congress as well as other statements, e-mails and documents about how the Bush administration handled the threat of terror.
Clarke, center of a firestorm over the level of engagement of President Bush in the issue before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was responding to Republican allegations that his earlier testimony to Congress contradicted statements he made last week that criticized Bush.
"I would welcome it being declassified, but not just a little line here or there. Let's declassify all six hours of my testimony," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, slamming Clarke on Friday, called for declassifying Clarke's July 2002 testimony to a joint hearing by the Senate and House of Representatives Intelligence committees.
Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said Clarke's words then, when, as a member of Bush administration he defended its policies, conflicted with last week's sworn public testimony before the bipartisan commission investigating the attacks, known popularly as the 9/11 Commission.
Clarke said he supported having that testimony declassified and also wanted testimony given in private to the commission by Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made public.
He said he wanted everything out in the open. "The White House is selectively now finding my e-mails, which I would have assumed were covered by some privacy regulations, and selectively leaking them to the press.
"Let's take all of my e-mails and all of the memos that I sent to the national security adviser and her deputy from January 20th to September 11th, and let's declassify all of it," he said.
"The (9-11) victims' families have no idea what Dr. Rice has said," Clarke said. Rice has been criticized for appearing extensively on television but not in public before the panel.
Clarke rejected accusations by Republicans that he was speaking out for political reasons eight months before presidential elections.
A career government official, Clarke said he was not part of the campaign of Bush's rival, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry, and had no ambition to work in any administration of either party.
Clarke says many of his recommendations were ignored or downplayed by the Bush administration, and that he was marginalized when he urged the White House not to retaliate against Iraq for attacks by the al Qaeda network.
([i][b]Reuters[/b][/i]) - http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;jsessionid=LQL1JEBZRVKFE CRBAE0CFEY?type=topNews&s toryID=4679259§ion=ne ws
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL'S ISOLATION - AND AMERICA'S |
| 03.29.04 (5:58 am) [edit] |
[b]Israel's Isolation – and America's [/b]
"Israel has a right to defend itself," said President Bush. And against whom was Israel defending itself at dawn on Monday?
A half blind and deaf paraplegic being wheeled out of a mosque after prayers, Sheik Ahmed Yassin was struck by missiles that blew him to pieces. In carrying out the assassination of the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Ariel Sharon used a U.S. Apache helicopter gunship. Thus, in Islamic eyes, we are passive accomplices in the killing.
Instantly, protests erupted in Mosul and Basra. Ayatollah al-Sistani, the Shi'ite leader on whom we depend for a peaceful transfer of power in Iraq, was enraged: "(T)his morning, the occupying Zionist entity committed an ugly crime against the Palestinian people by killing one of their heroes, scholar-martyr Ahmed Yassin."
Sharon's defenders say the sheik had sanctioned terror attacks on innocent Israelis. But why did Israel not then seize him, expose his complicity in murder, and put him in prison, as Israel had before? Why convert this crippled old sheik into a martyr-saint? Why enhance the prestige of Hamas?
Has the killing made Israel more secure? If so, why were Israeli buses deserted all week? Has it made us more secure? Why then were the travel advisories issued to Americans in the Middle East? Why are U.S. embassies shutting down? How does inflaming the Islamic world against us advance the president's goal of persuading the world that Islam is not America's enemy?
President Bush must begin to realize that his blind solidarity with Sharon, who has shown himself contemptuous of America's interests in the larger region, is among the greatest crosses we have to bear in the war on terror.
A year after the fall of Baghdad, Bush's men are boasting of his triumphs – the overthrow of the Taliban, the liberation of Iraq, not one act of terror on U.S. soil in two years. But consider the war from bin Laden's vantage point.
The murderous strike of 9-11 electrified America-haters, but produced blowback and near total disaster for bin Laden. In weeks, Bush had united a great coalition, smashed the Taliban and almost finished Osama himself at Tora Bora. Then came Iraq.
Here Bush played straight into bin Laden's hand. By attacking a prostrate Arab nation that played no role in 9-11, we united Arab and Islamic peoples in hatred of America. We shattered alliances and ignited a guerrilla war.
According to a Pew poll, U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has never been lower. Bush is widely detested. In Pakistan, 65 percent of the people hold Osama in high regard, while 8 percent are positive on Bush. We are losing the hearts and minds of the Islamic young, creating a spawning pool out of which future terrorists will emerge.
Now, an attack in Madrid has left 200 dead and blown a hole in our coalition. A socialist has come to power who intends to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Poland, too, has begun to waver
As Bush wins battles, Osama advances toward his strategic goals: Demonization of America as the enemy of Islam, isolation of America as an imperialist aggressor against Arab nations and the enabler of Sharon, and unification of Islam's young behind bin Laden's ultimate war aim: the expulsion of America from all Muslim lands.
The legendary Col. John Boyd described strategy as appending to oneself as many centers of power as possible, while isolating one's enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
Bush I did this brilliantly in the Gulf War, isolating Saddam. Bush II did it brilliantly in the Afghan war, isolating the Taliban. Now Bush has fallen into the trap his father avoided. He is letting Ariel Sharon create the perception that America's war and Israel's war are one and the same.
In the Middle East, Sharon has no friends. He does not care whom he alienates. But we are a world power with friend, allies and interests in 22 Arab and 57 Muslim countries.
To protect our interests, to win our war on Al Qaeda, it is imperative that we not let ourselves become as isolated as Israel is today.
Between America and Israel there are thus common interests and a collision of interests. Sharon does not want us to confine our war on terror to those who attacked us on 9-11. He wants us to expand our list of enemies to include his list of enemies: Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. He wants us to escalate "the firemen's war" into an American war on Israel's enemies, so, together, we can establish joint hegemony in the Middle East.
If Sharon and his acolytes in the Bush administration succeed in conflating Sharon's war with America's war, we could lose our war. Why cannot the president see what is going on?
[i][b]By Patrick J. Buchanan[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/pat/?artic...
|
|
|
| |
| 9/11 FAMILIES ANGRY WITH BUSH, RICE AND THEIR NEOCON CRIMINAL WHITEWASH |
| 03.28.04 (8:52 pm) [edit] |
[b]White House Whitewash
[u]A conflict of interest at the heart of the US 9/11 Commission hearings has been exposed by the families of the Twin Towers victims[/u][/b]
ANDREW Rice is angry with George Bush. His brother David was 31 years old when he died as United Airlines Flight 175 ploughed into the south tower of the World Trade Center where David worked as a financier with the investment firm Sandler O'Neill.
Andrew doesn't buy the rhetoric from the White House that Bush is a great war president who can make America stronger and safer. To Andrew, Bush is a charlatan making a mockery out of the deaths of his brother and the some 3000 other men, women and children who died on September 11, 2001.
You'd be forgiven for thinking that Andrew Rice might then be glad to see the bloody battering that the Bush administration took this week during the ongoing commission hearings in Washington into whether or not the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented.
Bush and his team were painted as a feckless, lazy and ill-informed bunch who had little clue about al-Qaeda, and were fixated on Iraq. Security seemed far from the top of their agenda while an ideological obsession with taking out Saddam appeared to obscure the real dangers posed by Osama bin Laden's network of fundamentalist killers.
But the hammering that Bush took during the hearings did little to appease Rice and other family members like him. To Rice, who chairs the 9/11 Commission Committee of the September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows organization, the whole inquiry is one big fix that will do everything it can to hide the truth of what the US president and his closest advisors knew about the attacks.
Last week saw Dick Clarke, the former White House anti-terrorism chief under Bush and Bill Clinton, give evidence before the inquiry. Most of America already knew what he was going to say as they'd read it in his bestseller Against all Enemies where he claimed that the Bush administration ignored mounting warnings of a coming terror attack. Clarke said that when 9/11 did happen the Bush inner circle was desperate to link it to Saddam .
Clarke also said that Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, who has refused to testify before the 9/11 Commission under oath, didn't seem to know what al-Qaeda was. Rice gave Clarke the brush-off when he warned Bush officials in a January 2001 memo about the growing al-Qaeda threat. Dilatory plans by the Bush administration to deal with al-Qaeda, which weren't finalized until a week before the 9/11 attacks, were scorned by commission member Bob Kerry, who said he'd seen the document and it contained "nothing new whatsoever".
While Democrats might be whooping it up at the expense of Bush, Andrew Rice and many other families of 9/11 victims see these events as nothing more than political point-scoring. They don't care which politician comes off best, what they care about is the truth and they are sure that they are not going to get it.
You can hardly blame Rice for his pessimism. Many family members believe the "fix was in" from the very beginning and cite the appointment of Philip Zelikow as the commission's executive director as proof positive.
Zelikow was a Bush-appointee who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; he worked under Jim Baker, the former US secretary of state under George Bush Sr; spent three years on the first President Bush's National Security Council and, as well as working with Condoleezza Rice, wrote two books with her as well.
Zelikow supported the White House when the administration said it would only release the president's daily briefings (PDB), prepared by the CIA, to the commission once they had been edited. Zelikow said: " The notion that the commission should want to read PDB articles that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda would be a novel suggestion."
One Democrat on the commission, Timothy Roemer, said agreeing to the White House demands would remove the context in which intelligence was presented and allow any "smoking guns" to be hidden from public scrutiny.
The White House acknowledged back in 2002 that a copy of the PDB in August 2001 noted that al-Qaeda might use hijacked planes in an attack on the USA. The commission has designated four members to read the reports. They will be allowed to take notes, but the White House can edit their notes to remove anything deemed sensitive.
Family members believe Zelikow's key conflict of interest stems from his role in the transition period between the Clinton and Bush presidencies. It was then that Zelikow worked on Bush's team to smooth the handover in terms of intelligence and to help formulate national security policy.
The Clinton administration has claimed that al-Qaeda was a top security priority. Zelikow would know, therefore, just how much importance both the Clinton and Bush governments placed on al-Qaeda. He would also have had a role in fine-tuning the Bush policy on al-Qaeda.
Clarke says he clearly and bluntly warned Bush officials about the risk of al-Qaeda when they took office. "It was very explicit," he said. "Rice was briefed ... and Zelikow sat in." Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, said there was no question of any conflict of interests regarding Zelikow.
Andrew Rice seethes over information like this. "I've contacted the commission to say that it's laughable that Zelikow was appointed to such a position. I have big problems with the White House editing the PDBs, but Zelikow defended the decision. He worked with these people and now he is defending them.
"This commission was created by the establishment and the friends of the establishment are now part of the commission. Is it really an investigation? Zelikow is a symbol of the way this inquiry has been constructed. As far as the Clinton and Bush administrations being held to account - we won't hear about it. It is not about transparency, it is just there to appease the public.
"But it won't appease me or many other family members. We need a truly independent commission that is outside the realm of government. Zelikow should never have been in this in the first place. Aren't there other and better people out there who didn't work with Condoleezza Rice?
"The worst case scenario is that I fear this could be a whitewash and a cover-up. We know these people were obsessed with Iraq and not al-Qaeda - and that could ruin the administration. We also know the administration had strong ties to the Saudis.
"Bush only wants to be re-elected. It is so disingenuous of him to portray himself as the 9/11 president. He doesn't want people to look at all the dirty relationships."
The commission findings won't be published until April 2005 - after the presidential election in November. "We know the commission's findings can't affect the election, so why don't we push back the deadline further and get a new guy in?" asks Rice.
" No-one at any level of government - from a security guard at an airport to the President - has been held accountable for the biggest security failure in the history of this country."
Rice suspects that at the end of the inquiry a "figure like Ollie North will take the spear in the chest, while the rest will all be protected".
"In a situation like this, there is so little I can do," he adds. "I'm as powerless as when I watched my brother murdered on TV. We have so little recourse to find out who is responsible, who, by their mistakes and incompetency, helped this happen.
" My brother's death will not be in vain. I have to work hard to illuminate the hypocrisy of politicians who want to benefit from these tragedies while not caring about transparency.
"There is such a lack of humility. Bush runs ads draping himself in this tragedy. My brother wouldn't have wanted that. If we want to be secure then we need to know the full truth."
When Clarke told the September 11 families crowded into the commission chamber that he was sorry, that "the government failed you and I failed you", they got to their feet, with tears in their eyes, and cheered and clapped him. Why the outpouring of thanks and sadness? Simple, says Kirsten Breitweiser, a 9/11 families spokeswoman: "It was the first time we received an apology, or any acknowledgement of mistakes."
[i][b]By Neil Mackay, Sunday Herald[/b][/i], http://www.commondreams.org/h...
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE IS TELLING THE TRUTH - REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM LIES DON'T MATTER! |
| 03.28.04 (8:03 pm) [edit] |
[b]Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
[u]Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism[/u][/b]
I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence.
First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.
Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.
Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.
The key thing, though, is this: Both sets of traits tell me he's too shrewd to write or say anything in public that might be decisively refuted. As Daniel Benjamin, another terrorism specialist who worked alongside Clarke in the Clinton White House, put it in a phone conversation today, "Dick did not survive and flourish in the bureaucracy all those years by leaving himself open to attack."
Clarke did suffer one setback in his 30-year career in high office, though he doesn't mention it in his book. James Baker, the first President Bush's secretary of state, fired Clarke from his position as director of the department's politico-military bureau. (Bush's NSC director, Brent Scowcroft, hired him almost instantly.) I doubt we'll be hearing from Baker on this episode: He fired Clarke for being too close to Israel—not a point the Bush family's political savior is likely to make in an election season. (For details on this unwritten chapter and on why Clarke hasn't talked to me for over 15 years, click here.)
But on to the substance. Clarke's main argument—made in his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, in lengthy interviews on CBS's 60 Minutes and PBS's Charlie Rose Show, and presumably in his testimony scheduled for tomorrow before the 9/11 Commission—is that Bush has done (as Clarke put it on CBS) "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. Specifically: In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. This move not only distracted us from the real war on terrorism, it fed into Osama Bin Laden's propaganda—that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country—and thus served as the rallying cry for new terrorist recruits.
Clarke's charges have raised a furor because of who he is. In every administration starting with Ronald Reagan's, Clarke was a high-ranking official in the State Department or the NSC, dealing mainly with countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Under Clinton and the first year of George W. Bush, he worked in the White House as the national coordinator for terrorism, a Cabinet-level post created specifically for his talents. When the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, Condi Rice, Bush's national security adviser, designated Clarke as the "crisis manager;" he ran the interagency meetings from the Situation Room, coordinating—in some cases, directing—the response.
Clarke backs up his chronicle with meticulous detail, but the basic charges themselves should not be so controversial; certainly, they're nothing new. According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's account in Ron Suskind's* The Price of Loyalty, Bush's top officials talked about invading Iraq from the very start of the administration. Jim Mann's new book about Bush's war Cabinet, Rise of the Vulcans, reveals the historic depths of this obsession.
Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded." (For more about Beers, including his association with Clarke and whether there's anything pertinent about his current position as a volunteer national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, click here.)
Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider—as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.
To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.
Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies—again, contrary to the book—that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."
Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.
Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)
The White House talking-points paper is filled with these sorts of distortions. For instance, it notes that Bush didn't need to meet with Clarke because, unlike Clinton, he met every day with CIA Director George Tenet, who talked frequently about al-Qaida.
But here's how Clarke describes those meetings:
[i][Tenet] and I regularly commiserated that al Qaeda was not being addressed more seriously by the new administration. ... We agreed that Tenet would ensure that the president's daily briefings would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda[/i].
The problem is: Nothing happened. (It is significant, by the way, that Tenet has not been recruited—not successfully, anyway—to rebut Clarke's charges. Clarke told Charlie Rose that he was "very close" to Tenet. The two come off as frustrated allies in Clarke's book.)
The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."
Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:
[i]President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed[/i].
The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:
[i]In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI. ... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance[/i].
That's what Clarke says is the tragedy of Bush's inaction, and nobody in the White House has dealt with the charge at all.
[i][b]By Fred Kaplan, Slate [/b][/i]- http://slate.msn.com/id/20976...
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA'S VILE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD CLARKE NOT WORKING! |
| 03.28.04 (11:38 am) [edit] |
[b]DUBYA'S VILE CHARACTER ASSASSINATION OF RICHARD CLARKE IS NOT WORKING. MAYBE THEY SHOULD TRY FACTS! OOOPPPSSS, THE PROBLEM IS THAT RICHARD CLARKE IS RIGHT ON THE FACTS AND THE BUSHITES ARE LIARS![/b]
[u][b]Bush hurt by Clarke controversy: Poll[/b][/u]
Voter approval of President George W. Bush's handling of terrorism dropped from 65 percent to 57 percent in the week since a former White House counterterrorism expert triggered the controversy, a new opinion poll said Saturday.
Richard Clarke published a book and testified before a national commission investigating the September 11, 2001 , terrorist attacks on the United States . He said the Bush administration had not treated the threat from al-Qaeda's terror network as an urgent matter prior to September 11.
But the survey conducted by Newsweek magazine showed that voters are also inclined to blame the former administration of Democrat Bill Clinton for giving terrorism short shrift.
Sixty-five percent of those polled said Clinton and his administration had not taken the threat of global terrorism seriously enough, while 61 percent said the Bush administration has.
Forty-three percent said both administrations are equally to blame for not having prevented the September 11 attacks.
A 65 percent majority said Clarke's testimony before the September 11 commission last week had not affected their opinion of Bush, the survey indicated.
Bush's overall approval rating had risen slightly, to 49 percent from 48 percent, in last week's Newsweek poll.
Only 45 percent of registered voters said they would like to see him re-elected, however, while 50 percent said they would not.
If presidential elections were held today, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry would narrowly defeat Bush in a two-way matchup by 48 percent to 47 percent among registered voters, the Newsweek poll showed.
But in a three-way race with independent Ralph Nader, Bush would defeat Kerry by 45 percent to 43 percent.
Nader would get five percent of the vote in such a race, according to the survey.
The poll of 1,002 adults was taken March 25-26 and had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.
([i][b]AFP[/b][/i]), http://timesofindia.indiatime...
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. CRITICISED FOR BLOCKING ACCORD |
| 03.28.04 (8:25 am) [edit] |
[b]US criticised for blocking accord[/b]
Palestinian leaders criticised an American veto blocking a United Nations resolution that would have condemned Israel for killing Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
In the American rejection, Palestinian officials said they saw a green light for Israel to continue targeting militants in air strikes that have also killed innocent bystanders.
Hamas yesterday delivered new threats of revenge for the assassination of its founder and spiritual leader, but had trouble carrying them out. Soldiers foiled a seaborne attack on a Jewish settlement in Gaza, shooting dead two attackers in wetsuits and flippers. And in the West Bank, a militant was ripped apart when explosives blew up prematurely in his car.
At a Gaza City rally that drew thousands of supporters and gunmen on Friday night, Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Sheikh Yassin, said that with the veto at the UN, America showed it had the Hamas leader's blood on its hands.
"This is proof that the United States was involved in shedding the blood of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin," Mr Haniyeh said. "The Israeli enemy is practising terrorism and the United States is giving it continuous support."
Thousands of supporters of the radical Islamic group also marched in two West Bank cities, threatening revenge for Monday's assassination as Sheikh Yassin was pushed out of a mosque in his wheelchair.
- [i][b]Reuters, (AP) [/b][/i]- http://www.theage.com.au/arti...
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST DUBYA'S DIRTY TRICKS |
| 03.28.04 (8:24 am) [edit] |
[b]DE-CLASSIFY THE NATIONAL SECURITY AMATEUR'S CONDI RICE'S TESTIMONY.
CONDI RICE IS THE LIAR, INCOMPETENT AND FRAUD.
RICHARD CLARKE IS CREDIBLE.[/b]
[u][b]Clarke fends off White House dirty tricks[/b][/u]
After a week of relentless attacks on its credibility, the White House is desperate to muzzle Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism chief who claims that the Bush administration was too preoccupied with Iraq even in its first months in office to pay proper attention to the most immediate threat to national security.
Shutting him up, though, is not proving easy. None of the usual attack-dog techniques - character assassination, intimidation and reciprocal mud-slinging - has entirely worked on Mr Clarke, though it has not been for want of trying. His testimony before the committee investigating the 11 September attacks last week not only shook received wisdom about the Bush administration's "war on terror", it also upstaged every other contribution so far through the simple act of Mr Clarke's apologising to relatives of the victims for letting them down.
His book, Against All Enemies, has become a sensation and is already in its fifth printing. The earthquake rumbling through Washington and beyond has not been deterred by Vice-President Dick Cheney's attempts to depict him as a disgruntled bureaucrat left "out of the loop" - a peculiar description of the man in charge of the counter-terrorism effort in the immediate wake of 11 September.
It was not deterred when the White House chose to put a background press briefing of Mr Clarke's on the record, 18 months after the fact, in an effort to show he was really much more in favour of the administration's policies than he now claims. Mr Clarke explained, fairly plausibly, that at the time he was merely doing his job as an administration official, which required him to put the best possible spin on the facts.
The Republicans' latest attempt came on Friday when Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, pushed to declassify a briefing Mr Clarke gave to the congressional joint intelligence committee in July 2002, insinuating that he might be accused of lying under oath because of inconsistencies with his present account. Mr Frist accused Mr Clarke of being "consumed with the desire to dodge any blame" for the 11 September atrocities and called him "self-serving".
This new initiative seems no more promising. Bob Graham, the leading Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said he could recall no inconsistencies between the 2002 briefing and the latest testimony. He had no objections to declassifying the briefing, he said, as long as it was not done selectively.
One major reason the administration and its supporters are having such difficulty in discrediting Mr Clarke is that, aside from the authority he brings as a counter-terrorism expert who has served four presidents - three of them Republican - his allegations are remarkably consistent with those of previous whistle-blowers and officials speaking off the record to the press.
As early as May 2002, Newsweek magazine described a handover meeting at the start of the Bush administration in which President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, briefed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, in detail about Osama bin Laden and said: "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other."
By the end of April 2001 - only three months later - the first annual terrorism report issued by the Bush administration made scant mention of al-Qa'ida. A senior State Department official told CNN at the time that the Clinton administration "made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden".
[i][b]By Andrew Gumbel, Independent UK[/b][/i], http://news.independent.co.uk...
|
|
|
| |
| NEW POLL: BLOW FOR DUMB-BELL DUBYA |
| 03.28.04 (8:22 am) [edit] |
[b]Blow For Bush[/b]
[i][b]Public confidence in the president’s handling of homeland security has been damaged by the testimony of former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to the 9/11 panel this week, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll[/b][/i].
Richard Clarke’s charge that George W. Bush largely ignored the Al Qaeda threat before the September 11 attacks has dealt a sharp blow to the president’s ratings on a crucial issue. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago. The survey was conducted after Clarke, a former counterterrorism chief in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, testified to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday. Still, the president’s overall approval rating remains steady at 49 percent and Bush remains neck and neck with presumptive Democratic Party nominee Senator John Kerry.
It was a week of difficult news for the Bush campaign: Gasoline prices hit a record high; stocks plummeted; predictions about Medicare's future were bleak; Washington’s tepid response to Israel’s killing of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin drew international fire and prompted fears of anti-U.S. retaliation. Then Clarke, whose book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror,” accuses the Bush administration of not treating terrorism as an urgent priority before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, repeated his charges in testimony before the commission investigating them. With the president’s leadership in the war on terror the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, Bush saw drops in his approval ratings on both terrorism and Iraq. According to the poll, 44 percent of all voters approve of his handling of the war, whereas 50 percent disapprove (up from 39 percent disapproving at the end of last year). And more voters say Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq makes them less likely to vote for him (42 percent) than say it makes them more likely to support him (34 percent).
Although exactly half of the American public has paid at least some attention to Clarke’s allegations, only a quarter of those who have been following the story say they see Clarke as a selfless public servant. Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda, while another 25 percent don’t know what to make of his accusations. By a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers are the reverse for Bush’s predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat. Reaction to Clarke was split along party lines with a vast majority of Republicans (84 percent) rejecting the idea that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of terror as seriously as they should have. Fifty-eight percent of registered Democrats believe the Bush administration has not done everything it should have. Overall, 17 percent of Americans said that the Clarke testimony has made them feel less favorable towards the president and nearly half (44 percent) of them feel that he should testify in public. When asked to consider the alternative to Bush, voters were unsure if Kerry was someone they could trust to make the right decisions in an international crisis: 43 percent say yes, 39 percent no, 18 percent aren’t sure.
Bush’s overall approval rating remain statistically unchanged at 49 percent and in a three-way hypothetical election between Bush, Kerry and independent candidate Ralph Nader, the results were the same as in last week’s NEWSWEEK poll: 45 percent for Bush, 43 percent for Kerry and 5 percent for Nader. If Nader is removed from the picture, the race remains a statistical tie, with 48 percent for Kerry, 47 percent for Bush. With Kerry campaigning in Michigan and Bush promoting tax cuts this week, the race also focused more on the economy—a crucial issue on which more than half (54 percent) of Americans now disapprove of Bush’s performance. Bush is weak overall on domestic issues: 60 percent disapprove of his performance on “jobs and foreign competition” (just 28 percent approve); 58 percent disapprove of his handling of Medicare (up from 50 percent in February); 49 percent disapprove of his tax policies (43 percent approve); and on education 47 percent approve (41 percent disapprove).
[i][b]MSNBC - For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,002 adults aged 18 and older March 25 and March 26 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points[/b][/i]. - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/46148...
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. CRITICISED FOR BLOCKING ACCORD |
| 03.28.04 (8:20 am) [edit] |
[b]US criticised for blocking accord[/b]
Palestinian leaders criticised an American veto blocking a United Nations resolution that would have condemned Israel for killing Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
In the American rejection, Palestinian officials said they saw a green light for Israel to continue targeting militants in air strikes that have also killed innocent bystanders.
Hamas yesterday delivered new threats of revenge for the assassination of its founder and spiritual leader, but had trouble carrying them out. Soldiers foiled a seaborne attack on a Jewish settlement in Gaza, shooting dead two attackers in wetsuits and flippers. And in the West Bank, a militant was ripped apart when explosives blew up prematurely in his car.
At a Gaza City rally that drew thousands of supporters and gunmen on Friday night, Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Sheikh Yassin, said that with the veto at the UN, America showed it had the Hamas leader's blood on its hands.
"This is proof that the United States was involved in shedding the blood of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin," Mr Haniyeh said. "The Israeli enemy is practising terrorism and the United States is giving it continuous support."
Thousands of supporters of the radical Islamic group also marched in two West Bank cities, threatening revenge for Monday's assassination as Sheikh Yassin was pushed out of a mosque in his wheelchair.
- [i][b]Reuters, (AP) [/b][/i]- http://www.theage.com.au/arti...
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE DEFENDS HIMSELF AGAINST DUBYA'S DIRTY TRICKS |
| 03.28.04 (8:12 am) [edit] |
[b]DE-CLASSIFY THE NATIONAL SECURITY AMATEUR'S CONDI RICE'S TESTIMONY.
CONDI RICE IS THE LIAR, INCOMPETENT AND FRAUD.
RICHARD CLARKE IS CREDIBLE.[/b]
[u][b]Clarke fends off White House dirty tricks[/b][/u]
After a week of relentless attacks on its credibility, the White House is desperate to muzzle Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism chief who claims that the Bush administration was too preoccupied with Iraq even in its first months in office to pay proper attention to the most immediate threat to national security.
Shutting him up, though, is not proving easy. None of the usual attack-dog techniques - character assassination, intimidation and reciprocal mud-slinging - has entirely worked on Mr Clarke, though it has not been for want of trying. His testimony before the committee investigating the 11 September attacks last week not only shook received wisdom about the Bush administration's "war on terror", it also upstaged every other contribution so far through the simple act of Mr Clarke's apologising to relatives of the victims for letting them down.
His book, Against All Enemies, has become a sensation and is already in its fifth printing. The earthquake rumbling through Washington and beyond has not been deterred by Vice-President Dick Cheney's attempts to depict him as a disgruntled bureaucrat left "out of the loop" - a peculiar description of the man in charge of the counter-terrorism effort in the immediate wake of 11 September.
It was not deterred when the White House chose to put a background press briefing of Mr Clarke's on the record, 18 months after the fact, in an effort to show he was really much more in favour of the administration's policies than he now claims. Mr Clarke explained, fairly plausibly, that at the time he was merely doing his job as an administration official, which required him to put the best possible spin on the facts.
The Republicans' latest attempt came on Friday when Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, pushed to declassify a briefing Mr Clarke gave to the congressional joint intelligence committee in July 2002, insinuating that he might be accused of lying under oath because of inconsistencies with his present account. Mr Frist accused Mr Clarke of being "consumed with the desire to dodge any blame" for the 11 September atrocities and called him "self-serving".
This new initiative seems no more promising. Bob Graham, the leading Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee, said he could recall no inconsistencies between the 2002 briefing and the latest testimony. He had no objections to declassifying the briefing, he said, as long as it was not done selectively.
One major reason the administration and its supporters are having such difficulty in discrediting Mr Clarke is that, aside from the authority he brings as a counter-terrorism expert who has served four presidents - three of them Republican - his allegations are remarkably consistent with those of previous whistle-blowers and officials speaking off the record to the press.
As early as May 2002, Newsweek magazine described a handover meeting at the start of the Bush administration in which President Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, briefed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, in detail about Osama bin Laden and said: "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other."
By the end of April 2001 - only three months later - the first annual terrorism report issued by the Bush administration made scant mention of al-Qa'ida. A senior State Department official told CNN at the time that the Clinton administration "made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden".
[i][b]By Andrew Gumbel, Independent UK[/b][/i], http://news.independent.co.uk...
|
|
|
| |
| NEW POLL: BLOW FOR DUMB-BELL DUBYA |
| 03.28.04 (8:02 am) [edit] |
[b]Blow For Bush[/b]
[i][b]Public confidence in the president’s handling of homeland security has been damaged by the testimony of former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke to the 9/11 panel this week, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll[/b][/i].
Richard Clarke’s charge that George W. Bush largely ignored the Al Qaeda threat before the September 11 attacks has dealt a sharp blow to the president’s ratings on a crucial issue. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, the percentage of voters who say they approve of the way the president has handled terrorism and homeland security has slid to 57 percent, down from a high of 70 percent two months ago. The survey was conducted after Clarke, a former counterterrorism chief in both the Bush and Clinton administrations, testified to the 9/11 commission on Wednesday. Still, the president’s overall approval rating remains steady at 49 percent and Bush remains neck and neck with presumptive Democratic Party nominee Senator John Kerry.
It was a week of difficult news for the Bush campaign: Gasoline prices hit a record high; stocks plummeted; predictions about Medicare's future were bleak; Washington’s tepid response to Israel’s killing of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin drew international fire and prompted fears of anti-U.S. retaliation. Then Clarke, whose book “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror,” accuses the Bush administration of not treating terrorism as an urgent priority before the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, repeated his charges in testimony before the commission investigating them. With the president’s leadership in the war on terror the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, Bush saw drops in his approval ratings on both terrorism and Iraq. According to the poll, 44 percent of all voters approve of his handling of the war, whereas 50 percent disapprove (up from 39 percent disapproving at the end of last year). And more voters say Bush’s handling of postwar Iraq makes them less likely to vote for him (42 percent) than say it makes them more likely to support him (34 percent).
Although exactly half of the American public has paid at least some attention to Clarke’s allegations, only a quarter of those who have been following the story say they see Clarke as a selfless public servant. Fifty percent suspect Clarke has some personal or political agenda, while another 25 percent don’t know what to make of his accusations. By a margin of 61 percent to 34 percent, Americans feel that, overall, the Bush administration has taken the terror threat seriously. The numbers are the reverse for Bush’s predecessor: 65 percent are critical of how seriously they believe the Clinton administration took the threat. Reaction to Clarke was split along party lines with a vast majority of Republicans (84 percent) rejecting the idea that the Bush administration failed to take the threat of terror as seriously as they should have. Fifty-eight percent of registered Democrats believe the Bush administration has not done everything it should have. Overall, 17 percent of Americans said that the Clarke testimony has made them feel less favorable towards the president and nearly half (44 percent) of them feel that he should testify in public. When asked to consider the alternative to Bush, voters were unsure if Kerry was someone they could trust to make the right decisions in an international crisis: 43 percent say yes, 39 percent no, 18 percent aren’t sure.
Bush’s overall approval rating remain statistically unchanged at 49 percent and in a three-way hypothetical election between Bush, Kerry and independent candidate Ralph Nader, the results were the same as in last week’s NEWSWEEK poll: 45 percent for Bush, 43 percent for Kerry and 5 percent for Nader. If Nader is removed from the picture, the race remains a statistical tie, with 48 percent for Kerry, 47 percent for Bush. With Kerry campaigning in Michigan and Bush promoting tax cuts this week, the race also focused more on the economy—a crucial issue on which more than half (54 percent) of Americans now disapprove of Bush’s performance. Bush is weak overall on domestic issues: 60 percent disapprove of his performance on “jobs and foreign competition” (just 28 percent approve); 58 percent disapprove of his handling of Medicare (up from 50 percent in February); 49 percent disapprove of his tax policies (43 percent approve); and on education 47 percent approve (41 percent disapprove).
[i][b]MSNBC - For the NEWSWEEK poll, Princeton Survey Research Associates interviewed 1,002 adults aged 18 and older March 25 and March 26 by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points[/b][/i]. - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/46148...
|
|
|
| |
| BERGER DIDN'T LET AIRPLANES SLAM INTO WTC KILLING OVER 3,000 AMERICANS & LIE ABOUT IT: RICE DID! |
| 03.27.04 (3:47 pm) [edit] |
[b]Why Is Condi Rice NSA?[/b]
Brad Delong quotes some of Ghost Wars to make a long time favorite point of mine. Leaving aside (this is hard to do, I know) all the various debates one could have about the merits of George W. Bush's foreign policy, Condoleezza Rice is -- and pretty clearly always was, but especially clearly after 9/11 -- simply not qualified to hold her job.
Condi Rice has a fairly distinguished record both in academia [Kenny-boy (Enron) Lay has a PhD. So what!] and in the public sector in dealing with issues related to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe [So did Henry (War Criminal) Kissinger. So what!]. This makes her more than qualified to be running America's policies toward those areas (a job she held on the NSC staff during the Bush I administration) and it would have qualified her to be NSA were the cold war still under way. But it isn't. Now arguably before 9/11 it really wasn't clear what the priority area for US policy was, but there were some plausible candidates (trade, rogue states, Asia, terrorism, WMD proliferation, Latin America) and Russia was not among them.
Either way, it was utterly clear after 9/11 that the focus on US policy was going to be on the Middle East and Central Asia, with North Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia also forming important priorities. Bush decided at some point not long after 9/11 that the centerpiece of his strategy for countering terrorism would be some kind of attempt at Middle East transformation. Now ask yourself -- is it appropriate for a Sovietologist to be running the interagency process for a foreign policy aimed at transforming the Middle East? No more so than it would have been appropriate to have an expert on Arab reform serve as National Security Advisor at the height of the Cold War.
But Bush likes Rice, and feels that she can explain the issues to him in a way that he's comfortable with. Either that, or he liked Rice and now knows he can't afford to piss her off too much (much as he can't afford to piss off any of his important foreign policy people) because she knows where too many bodies are buried.
[b]OR PERHAPS RICE DOES FOR BUSH, WHAT LEWINSKY DID FOR CLINTON?[/b]
[b]Matthew Yglesias[/b], http://www.matthewyglesias.co...
|
|
|
| |
| BUSH JUST LOOKS THE PART OF A CONGENITAL IDIOT AND ACTS THE PART OF A CRIMINAL |
| 03.27.04 (1:54 pm) [edit] |
[b]The Know-nothing Presidency
There's a Chill Over the Country[/b]
[i]We dance around in a ring and suppose,
But the secret sits in the middle and knows[/i]
-- [u]Robert Frost[/u], "The Secret Sits"
Shhh. That's the mantra of George W. Bush. He can pronounce it correctly [one of the few words, Bush can pronounce correctly!], it keeps the citizenry from knowing things he thinks it has no need to know and what the citizenry doesn't know, therefore, won't play a part in what it thinks. Two examples of its operation were presented during the week of March 14, 2003. The first pertained to Medicare.
Applying shhh to the proposed law, the Bush administration deceived Congress by refusing to inform it about the actual cost of the new law. When Congress was considering the legislation, the administration knew that its cost would be $534 billion. It also knew that if members of Congress found out, passage of the law would be imperilled. The administration's interest in enactment being greater than its interest in integrity, it kept that information from a Congress that had been told the new law would cost approximately $400 billion.
In June, 2003, prior to the law's enactment, Mr. Foster received a request from a Republican for information and two requests from Democrats about the legislation. Before responding Mr. Foster sent an e-mail to Medicare Administrator Thomas A. Scully seeking permission to answer the questions that he described as questions that "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information that would be useful in assessing drug and competition provisions in the House reform packages." Jeffrey Flick, Mr. Scully's assistant told Mr. Foster he could answer the Republican's question but told him not to disclose answers to the questions posed by the Democrats "with anyone else until Tom Scully explicitly talks with you authorizing the release of the information." Lest there be any misunderstanding he added: "The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe." In his testimony before Congress on March 25 Mr. Foster testified that he had evidence Mr. Scully was following White House orders in refusing to disclose information.
Mr. Scully who is no longer with the agency and was never a constitutional scholar, justified his successful ploy at deceiving members of Congress by saying that he and Mr. Foster disagreed over how much help the executive branch needed to provide to Congress. He reportedly described it as a "separation of powers issue."
Deceiving Congress is not the only deception being practiced by the Bush administration. It also took steps to deceive the public. On March 18 it was disclosed that some National Park superintendents were being told to cut back on services but shhh. In February a memo was e-mailed to park superintendents in the Northeast from the Park Service's Boston office. The memo made a number of suggestions about how the various parks could save money. Among the suggestions made were closing visitor centers on holidays, eliminating life guard services at some guarded beaches, eliminating guided ranger tours and closing parks on Sundays and Mondays.
The Boston office did not want to be perceived by the public as curmudgeonly. Accordingly, it not only suggested ways that parks could save money. It suggested ways the park service could avoid bad publicity. That could be done, the office suggested, by using discreet language in disclosing the cuts. Chrysandra Walter, the Park Service's deputy director for the Northeast region, said in her e mail that:
"[i]We will need to be sure that adjustments are taken from as many areas as is possible so that it won't cause public or political controversy. If you think that some of your specific plans will cause a public or political controversy, Marie [Marie Rust, Park Service director for the Northeast region] and I need to know which ones are likely to end up in the media or result in a congressional inquiry. . . . Randy [Deputy Director Randy Jones] felt that the issuance of a press release was the most problematic. He suggested that if you feel you must inform the public through a press release . . . that you not . . . directly indicate that 'this is a cut' in comparison to last year's operation. If you are personally pressed by the media . . . we all agreed to use the terminology of 'service level adjustment' due to fiscal constraints as a means of describing what actions we are taking. . . . Please send . . . a bulleted list of 'service level adjustments' you plan to make . . . so Marie and I can review and send on to Washington those we feel will get media or congressional attention[/i]."
A former park superintendent Denny Huffman said: "Make no mistake about it. There is a chill over the National Park Service today." There's a chill over the country. Secrecy and the threat to punish those who fail to honor its mandate have that effect.
[i][b]Christopher Brauchli is a Boulder, Colorado lawyer. His column appears weekly in the Daily Camera. He can be reached at: brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu[/b][/i] http://www.counterpunch.com/b...
|
|
|
| |
| CAN THE U.S.A. SURVIVE THE CORPORATE FASCISTS BUYING TRAITOR BUSH? |
| 03.27.04 (6:49 am) [edit] |
[b]CAN THE U.S.A. SURVIVE THE CORPORATE FASCISTS BUYING TRAITOR BUSH?
BUSH WAGES ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL WARS...
BUSH GIVES MASSIVE TAX CUTS TO CORPORATE CRONIES...
THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF THE CORPORATE FASCISTS SCAMMING THE AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE[/b]:
[u][b]BUSH TOP CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS[/b][/u]: http://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
Merrill Lynch
$458,204
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$431,800
UBS Americas
$358,850
MBNA Corp
$337,750
Lehman Brothers
$288,559
Goldman Sachs
$282,725
Credit Suisse First Boston
$257,750
Bear Stearns
$240,250
Ernst & Young
$234,655
Blank Rome LLP
$207,400
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
$207,050
Citigroup Inc
$196,000
Southern Co
$182,247
Morgan Stanley
$177,075
Microsoft Corp
$160,850
Union Pacific Corp
$160,000
Haynes & Boone
$157,650
Winston & Strawn
$156,450
Ameriquest Capital
$152,800
SBC Communications
$150,350
[b]THIS IS THE [u]TIP-OF-THE-ICEBERG[/u] ! WHAT ARE THE OIL INDUSTRY, INSURANCE, PHARMACEUTICALS, MILITARY/DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, AND OTHER WHOREMONGER BUSH PIMPS ILLEGALLY FUNNELLING TO BUSH CAMPAIGN VIA THE CARLYLE GROUP AND OTHER BACK-DOOR SCAMS? WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE OF SAUD WHO ILLEGALLY FUNNELS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO BUY [u]BUSH WHO BETRAYS OUR NATION IN RETURN FOR BRIBES[/u][/b].
|
|
|
| |
| CONDI RICE LIES AND TRIPS OVER OWN WORDS TO 'DEFEND' INCOMPETENCE & CORRUPTION |
| 03.27.04 (6:11 am) [edit] |
[b]In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words [/b]
This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held open hearings this week. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, said: "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack defended many of Rice's assertions, saying that she had been more consistent than Clarke.
Rice so far has refused to provide testimony under oath to the commission that could possibly resolve the contradictions. Wednesday night, she told reporters, "I would like nothing better in a sense than to be able to go up and do this, but I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."
The White House, reacting to the public relations difficulties caused by the refusal to allow Rice's testimony, asked the commission Thursday to give Rice another opportunity to speak privately with panel members to address "mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions."
Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.
In an op-ed essay Monday in the Washington Post, Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate" al Qaeda that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces.
But Armitage, testifying this week as the White House representative, said the military part was not in the plan before Sept. 11. "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11," he said. McCormack said Rice's statement was accurate because the team had discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up.
In the same article, Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."
But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that ... Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn't follow them up."
Asked about this apparent discrepancy, McCormack pointed a reporter to a Clarke background briefing in 2002 in which the then-White House aide was defending the president's efforts in fighting terrorism.
[i][b]San Francisco Gate[/b][/i], http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
|
|
|
| |
| COALITION 'MISANALYSED' (IN OTHER WORDS, LIED) IRAQ MOOD |
| 03.27.04 (6:09 am) [edit] |
[b]Coalition 'misanalysed' Iraq mood[/b]
Britain's special representative to Iraq has admitted the coalition forces "misanalysed" the situation in the country both before and during the war.
In a[i] BBC[/i] interview Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who ends his role on Saturday, also warned there would be no easy route to lasting peace in Iraq.
He admitted the process of transition from occupation to Iraqi sovereignty had not gone perfectly to plan.
But he insisted democracy remained "a distinct possibility".
[b]Securing disarmament [/b]
Sir Jeremy told the [i]BBC's [/i]correspondent in Baghdad, Caroline Hawley: "We misanalysed at the beginning, both before and during the conflict."
He had always championed the need to bring affairs in Iraq back to the control of Iraqis as soon as that was sustainable.
Before leaving for Iraq just over six months ago, Sir Jeremy said he saw his role as supporting that of US administrator Paul Bremer.
He had agreed to take on the job after his formal retirement at the age of 60 from the Foreign Office,
In his previous role, as the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy issued the statement in March 2003 ruling out a further resolution on military action in Iraq.
[i][b]BBC NEWS[/b][/i], http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. TROOP DEATHS IN BUSH'S ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR AGAIN RISING |
| 03.27.04 (6:07 am) [edit] |
[b]U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq Again Rising[/b]
After a marked decline in U.S. troop deaths in Iraq in February, the toll is again escalating.
So far this month 38 U.S. troops and two Department of the Army civilians have died, according to the Pentagon's count. The two civilians, Fern L. Holland and Robert J. Zangas, were the first Pentagon civilians to be killed in Iraq. They were slain by Iraqi policemen on March 9.
The Pentagon's count does not include a Marine who was reported killed Friday in heavy fighting in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad. The Marine's name has not been released so he is not yet on the Pentagon list.
On Thursday another Marine, Lance Cpl. Jeffrey C. Burgess, 20, of Plymouth, Mass., was killed near Fallujah. This week, the Marines took over authority in Fallujah and surrounding areas from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. The city is situated in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where support for Saddam Hussein was strong and rebel attacks on American forces are frequent.
Homemade bombs continue to cause U.S. casualties. On Friday the Pentagon announced that Spc. Adam D. Froehlich, 21, of Pine Hill, N.J., died Thursday in Baqubah from injuries sustained when his patrol was hit by such a bomb, which the military calls an improvised explosive device.
The Pentagon also announced Friday that Lance Cpl. James A. Casper, 20, of Coolidge, Texas, died Thursday due to a non-combat-related incident at Al Asad.
Mid-March saw the heaviest death toll for any 10-day period since November, which was the deadliest month of the war so far.
Pentagon records say 24 American troops died in the March 13-22 period, including the first Marines to be killed in action in Iraq since last June 1, although six other Marines died last summer of non-hostile causes. The Marine Corps left Iraq last summer and returned just this month.
As of Friday, 586 U.S. service members - not including the two civilians - have died since military operations in Iraq began March 20, 2003, according to the Defense Department.
The death toll has followed an irregular pattern during the course of the war. The lowest monthly total was February's 21; the highest was November's 82. Even though February showed improvement, it was one of the deadliest months for Iraqi civilians.
In addition to deaths from a range of hostile action, including Friday's fighting in Fallujah, there have been an unusually large number of non-hostile deaths this month. They include Spc. Clint Richard Matthews, 31, of Bedford, Pa., who died March 19 from injuries sustained when his Bradley troop carrier went over a 60-foot embankment and flipped over on March 17.
Also, 1st Lt. Michael R. Adams, 24, of Seattle, Wash., died March 16 when he was struck by the barrel of the .50-caliber weapon mounted on his armored vehicle. Pvt. Dustin L. Kreider, 19, of Riverton, Kan., died March 21 during what the military described as a "weapon test-firing incident."
Pfc. Ernest Harold Sutphin, 21, of Parkersburg, W.Va., died March 18 from injuries sustained in a vehicle accident a week earlier.
The deaths in March included one of the oldest troops to have died so far in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Army National Guard Master Sgt. Thomas R. Thigpen, 52, of Augusta, Ga. He died March 16 at a support base in Kuwait of non-combat-related injuries. Details were not made public.
[i][b]ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer[/b][/i], http://www.houmatoday.com/app...
|
|
|
| |
| CONDI RICE LIES AND TRIPS OVER OWN WORDS TO 'DEFEND' INCOMPETENCE & CORRUPTION |
| 03.27.04 (6:03 am) [edit] |
[b]In rush to defend White House, Rice trips over own words [/b]
This week's testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The refusal by President Bush's top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held open hearings this week. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, said: "I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public."
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before Sept. 11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban. The CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats. And Rice's assertion this week that Bush had told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she had retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.
National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack defended many of Rice's assertions, saying that she had been more consistent than Clarke.
Rice so far has refused to provide testimony under oath to the commission that could possibly resolve the contradictions. Wednesday night, she told reporters, "I would like nothing better in a sense than to be able to go up and do this, but I have a responsibility to maintain what is a long-standing constitutional separation between the executive and the legislative branch."
The White House, reacting to the public relations difficulties caused by the refusal to allow Rice's testimony, asked the commission Thursday to give Rice another opportunity to speak privately with panel members to address "mischaracterizations of Dr. Rice's statements and positions."
Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed this week that Rice had asked, in her private meetings with the commission, to revise a statement she made publicly that "I don't think anybody could have predicted that those people could have taken an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile." Rice told the commission that she had misspoken; the commission has received information that prior to Sept. 11, U.S. intelligence agencies, and Clarke, had talked about terrorists using airplanes as missiles.
In an op-ed essay Monday in the Washington Post, Rice wrote that "through the spring and summer of 2001, the national security team developed a strategy to eliminate" al Qaeda that included "sufficient military options to remove the Taliban regime" including the use of ground forces.
But Armitage, testifying this week as the White House representative, said the military part was not in the plan before Sept. 11. "I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11," he said. McCormack said Rice's statement was accurate because the team had discussed including orders for such military plans to be drawn up.
In the same article, Rice belittled Clarke's proposals by writing: "The president wanted more than a laundry list of ideas simply to contain al Qaeda or 'roll back' the threat. Once in office, we quickly began crafting a comprehensive new strategy to 'eliminate' the al Qaeda network." Rice asserted that while Clarke and others provided ideas, "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." That same day, she said most of Clarke's ideas "had been already tried or rejected in the Clinton administration."
But in her interview with NBC two days later, Rice appeared to take a different view of Clarke's proposals. "He sent us a set of ideas that would perhaps help to roll back al Qaeda over a three- to five-year period; we acted on those ideas very quickly. And what's very interesting is that ... Dick Clarke now says that we ignored his ideas, or we didn't follow them up."
Asked about this apparent discrepancy, McCormack pointed a reporter to a Clarke background briefing in 2002 in which the then-White House aide was defending the president's efforts in fighting terrorism.
[i][b]San Francisco Gate[/b][/i], http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
|
|
|
| |
| COALITION 'MISANALYSED' (IN OTHER WORDS, LIED) IRAQ MOOD |
| 03.27.04 (6:00 am) [edit] |
[b]Coalition 'misanalysed' Iraq mood[/b]
Britain's special representative to Iraq has admitted the coalition forces "misanalysed" the situation in the country both before and during the war.
In a[i] BBC[/i] interview Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who ends his role on Saturday, also warned there would be no easy route to lasting peace in Iraq.
He admitted the process of transition from occupation to Iraqi sovereignty had not gone perfectly to plan.
But he insisted democracy remained "a distinct possibility".
[b]Securing disarmament [/b]
Sir Jeremy told the [i]BBC's [/i]correspondent in Baghdad, Caroline Hawley: "We misanalysed at the beginning, both before and during the conflict."
He had always championed the need to bring affairs in Iraq back to the control of Iraqis as soon as that was sustainable.
Before leaving for Iraq just over six months ago, Sir Jeremy said he saw his role as supporting that of US administrator Paul Bremer.
He had agreed to take on the job after his formal retirement at the age of 60 from the Foreign Office,
In his previous role, as the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy issued the statement in March 2003 ruling out a further resolution on military action in Iraq.
[i][b]BBC NEWS[/b][/i], http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mi...
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. TROOP DEATHS IN BUSH'S ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR AGAIN RISING |
| 03.27.04 (5:56 am) [edit] |
[b]U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq Again Rising[/b]
After a marked decline in U.S. troop deaths in Iraq in February, the toll is again escalating.
So far this month 38 U.S. troops and two Department of the Army civilians have died, according to the Pentagon's count. The two civilians, Fern L. Holland and Robert J. Zangas, were the first Pentagon civilians to be killed in Iraq. They were slain by Iraqi policemen on March 9.
The Pentagon's count does not include a Marine who was reported killed Friday in heavy fighting in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad. The Marine's name has not been released so he is not yet on the Pentagon list.
On Thursday another Marine, Lance Cpl. Jeffrey C. Burgess, 20, of Plymouth, Mass., was killed near Fallujah. This week, the Marines took over authority in Fallujah and surrounding areas from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division. The city is situated in the so-called Sunni Triangle, where support for Saddam Hussein was strong and rebel attacks on American forces are frequent.
Homemade bombs continue to cause U.S. casualties. On Friday the Pentagon announced that Spc. Adam D. Froehlich, 21, of Pine Hill, N.J., died Thursday in Baqubah from injuries sustained when his patrol was hit by such a bomb, which the military calls an improvised explosive device.
The Pentagon also announced Friday that Lance Cpl. James A. Casper, 20, of Coolidge, Texas, died Thursday due to a non-combat-related incident at Al Asad.
Mid-March saw the heaviest death toll for any 10-day period since November, which was the deadliest month of the war so far.
Pentagon records say 24 American troops died in the March 13-22 period, including the first Marines to be killed in action in Iraq since last June 1, although six other Marines died last summer of non-hostile causes. The Marine Corps left Iraq last summer and returned just this month.
As of Friday, 586 U.S. service members - not including the two civilians - have died since military operations in Iraq began March 20, 2003, according to the Defense Department.
The death toll has followed an irregular pattern during the course of the war. The lowest monthly total was February's 21; the highest was November's 82. Even though February showed improvement, it was one of the deadliest months for Iraqi civilians.
In addition to deaths from a range of hostile action, including Friday's fighting in Fallujah, there have been an unusually large number of non-hostile deaths this month. They include Spc. Clint Richard Matthews, 31, of Bedford, Pa., who died March 19 from injuries sustained when his Bradley troop carrier went over a 60-foot embankment and flipped over on March 17.
Also, 1st Lt. Michael R. Adams, 24, of Seattle, Wash., died March 16 when he was struck by the barrel of the .50-caliber weapon mounted on his armored vehicle. Pvt. Dustin L. Kreider, 19, of Riverton, Kan., died March 21 during what the military described as a "weapon test-firing incident."
Pfc. Ernest Harold Sutphin, 21, of Parkersburg, W.Va., died March 18 from injuries sustained in a vehicle accident a week earlier.
The deaths in March included one of the oldest troops to have died so far in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Army National Guard Master Sgt. Thomas R. Thigpen, 52, of Augusta, Ga. He died March 16 at a support base in Kuwait of non-combat-related injuries. Details were not made public.
[i][b]ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer[/b][/i], http://www.houmatoday.com/app...
|
|
|
| |
| THE COLOR OF TREASON & DUPLICITY!!!!!!! |
| 03.26.04 (5:13 pm) [edit] |
[b]Condoleezza Rice's Credibility Gap
[u]A point-by-point analysis of how one of America's top national security officials has a severe problem with the truth[/u][/b]
[u]Pre-9/11 Intelligence [/u]
CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02
FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [Source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]
* * *
CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]
* * *
CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]
* * *
CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]
* * *
CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]
Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding
* * *
CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04
FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
[u]Richard Clarke's Concerns[/u]
CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [Source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04
* * *
CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04
[u]Response to 9/11[/u]
CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]
[u]9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans[/u]
CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [Source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]
Iraq and WMD
* * *
CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04
FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [Source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]
[u]9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link[/u]
CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [Source: BBC, 9/14/03]
|
|
|
| |
| ADOLF HITLER: FREEDOM, SECURITY & PEACE THROUGH SO-CALLED "STRENGTH"! |
| 03.26.04 (5:01 pm) [edit] |
[b]BRUTE FORCE IS THE WAY OF TYRANTS, DICTATORS AND BLOOD-THIRSTY MAD-MEN[/b].
[u][b]ADOLF HITLER PROPOSED[/b][/u]:
"Strength lies not in defense but in attack."
"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."
"The German people are not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom."
"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth."
"We will pursue no other ultimate aim than to win freedom for our German people and to secure a living-space for the German family."
[b]ADOLF HITLER'S ORDER OF THE DAY CALLING FOR INVASION OF YUGOSLAVIA AND GREECE[/b] - http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/po...
[b]A BOOT-IN-THE-FACE IS NO WAY FOR GOVERNMENTS TO BEHAVE IN THE 21st CENTURY. BUSH'S NEO-CONS SOUND EERILY LIKE ADOLF HITLER AND HIS FASCIST THUGS[/b].
|
|
|
| |
| REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM IN NEO-CON LOONEY-LAND: EVEN BUSH REJECTS SADDAM-9/11 LINK |
| 03.26.04 (9:11 am) [edit] |
[b][u]Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link[/u][/b]
[b]AS LATE AS LAST WEEK, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DAN BARTLETT APPEARED ON THE [i]NEWS HOUR WITH JIM LEHRER[/i], DENYING THAT BUSH EVER CLAIMED ANY LINKS EXIST BETWEEN SADDAM/IRAQ AND 9/11 ... BARTLETT CONFIRMED THAT NO SUCH LINKS EXIST! PRIOR TO THE WAR IN IRAQ, HOWEVER, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE AND THE NEO-CONS MISLED THE NATION BY IMPLYING THAT A LINK EXISTED, WHEN IN FACT, IT DID NOT AND THEY SHOULD BE [u]IMPEACHED[/u] FOR HIGH CRIMES[/b]!
[b]US President George Bush has said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks[/b].
The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks.
Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington.
Critics of the war on Iraq have accused the US administration of deliberately encouraging public confusion to generate support for military action.
At a time when the credibility of government intelligence and information is under the spotlight, President Bush probably had little choice but to scotch the confusion, says the BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington.
But if the public believes that they were given the wrong impression by the administration, then there may be a political cost involved with the presidential campaign under way, our correspondent says.
[b]Lack of clarity [/b]
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.
This confusion has been partly attributed to, at best a lack of clarity by the administration and at worst, deliberate obfuscation, correspondents say.
As recently as last Sunday, Vice-President Dick Cheney, refused to rule out a link between Iraq and 11 September, saying "'we don't know".
"We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
[b]Jordanian link [/b]
On Wednesday, Mr Bush said Mr Cheney was right about suspicions of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda.
The US believes Mr Zarqawi received medical treatment in Baghdad and helped to orchestrate the assassination of a US diplomat in Jordan.
And Mr Bush denied there had been any attempt by his administration to try to confuse people about links between Saddam Hussein and 11 September.
"What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda.
"And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties."
No links have been found, however to substantiate Cheney's claims. President Bush, National Security Adviser Rice and Secretary of State Powell have all denied any such links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda existed.
BBC NEWS, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/am...
[i][b]Another article[/b][/i]: [b]Bush Disavows Hussein-Sept. 11 Link Administration Has Been Vague on Issue, but President Says No Evidence Found [/b] on http://www.washingtonpost.com...
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL 'FABRICATED' CHILD-BOMBER STORY |
| 03.26.04 (6:02 am) [edit] |
[b]Israel 'fabricated' child-bomber story[/b]
Palestinian leaders have accused Israel of fabricating a story about a 14-year-old Palestinian boy who planned to blow himself up.
The Israeli army said he was caught wearing an explosive belt at an army roadblock in the northern West Bank.
The boy, identified as Husam Abdu from Nablus, was shown on TV screens around the world, with an explosive belt strapped to his waist.
The Israeli army said the boy told interrogators that his dispatchers promised that he would have sex with 72 virgins in heaven soon after his death.
"We know for sure this is a fabricated story from A to Z. Would you believe that a 13 or 14-year old would agree to blow up himself in return for a hundred shekels which he would receive after his death?
"It seems to me that the Israelis are bad liars as well," said Yaqub Shahin, a director-general of the Palestinian Authority ministry of information.
[b]Painting a 'terrorist' picture[/b]
In an interview with Aljazeera.net, Shahin accused Israel of seeking to justify slaughtering Palestinian children by spreading the false impression that they are used as human bombers.
"Their [Israel’s] goal is to besmirch Palestinian childhood so that when they slaughter the children, the world won’t feel sorry for them," he said.
Arab Knesset member Muhammad Baraka has also voiced "serious doubts" about the veracity of the Israeli narrative.
"I have very serious doubts about the whole story. I can't give the Israeli army the benefit of the doubt."
However, Baraka urged all parties to "keep children away from this sinister and bloody conflict.
"Using children as bombs is infinitely diabolical. It is totally inconsistent with all religious, moral and human values."
[b]Fatah denial[/b]
The armed wing of Fatah, the Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, has denied any involvement in the incident, accusing Israel of "concocting the whole story for the purpose of justifying the killing of more Palestinian children".
The Israeli newspaper Yedeot Ahranot reported on Thursday that Abdu told Shin Beth interrogators that an anonymous person had promised him 100 shekels if he blew himself up in the midst of Israeli soldiers.
Samir Khiwairah, a Nablus journalist who personally knows the boy’s family, told Aljazeera.net that the boy’s mental capacity to distinguish things is very low.
"I don't completely rule out the possibility that some evil person gave him the explosive belt and told him he would become a hero ... but this is a very tiny possibility."
Khiwairah said the Israeli army had a history of "fabricating and concocting stories" for the purpose of vilifying the Palestinians and winning public relations points.
[b]Similar story[/b]
A few weeks ago, another boy from Nablus, Muhammad Kuraan, made headlines when the Israeli army presented him to the media as a child who had been dispatched to blow himself up at an Israeli roadblock.
However, when the boy returned home, he reportedly told his family and relatives "Jews told me to do this or else they would kill me."
Aljazeera.net asked the Israeli army spokesman in Tel Aviv to explain why Abdu would accept 100 shekels to get blown up and what good the money could possibly do?
The army was also asked to explain why it had TV cameras ready at the roadblock more than two hours before the event.
Despite two hours of waiting, the army failed to provide an answer.
[b]Child-killing[/b]
The controversy of using children in the Israeli-Palestinian strife underscores the brazen ugliness of the conflict.
According to human rights groups operating in the occupied territories, the Israeli army has killed hundreds of Palestinian children since the outbreak of the Palestinian Intifada more than three and a half years ago.
According to a spokeswoman for the East Jerusalem-based Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (HRMG), the Israeli army and paramilitary Jewish settlers have killed 263 Palestinian children from age 0-14 and 236 minors from the age of 15-18 during the ongoing Intifada.
The total number of Palestinians killed by Israel since the outbreak of the Intifada is estimated at 2670.
The figures for the injured and maimed are believed to be in the thousands.
The number of Israelis killed by Palestinians during the same period is around 838, including soldiers, settlers and civilians.
Israel claims its army does not target Palestinian civilians deliberately but admits, rather grudgingly, that the killing is carried out knowingly.
However, human rights groups argue forcefully that, in the final analysis, killing knowingly is killing deliberately.
[b]Aljazeera.Net [/b]- http://english.aljazeera.net/...
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-CON CRIMINALS DEVISE Enron-Style 'LOOPHOLE' TO MAINTAIN FASCIST CONTROL OF IRAQ |
| 03.26.04 (5:54 am) [edit] |
[b]U.S. Officials Fashion Legal Basis to Keep Force in Iraq[/b]
With fewer than 100 days to go before Iraq resumes its sovereignty, American officials say they believe they have found a legal basis for American troops to continue their military control over the security situation in Iraq.
After months of concern about the legal status of the 110,000 American troops who are expected to remain here after the occupation formally ends on June 30, the officials say they believe an existing United Nations resolution approving the presence of a multinational force in Iraq, approved by the Security Council in October, gives American commanders the authority needed to maintain control after sovereignty is handed back.
Showing his confidence that the approach was grounded in international law, L. Paul Bremer III, the chief of the occupation authority, issued an executive order this week specifying that the newly formed Iraqi armed forces be placed under the operational control of the American commander, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, who has been named to lead American and allied forces after the transfer of political authority to the Iraqis.
Mr. Bremer and other top American officials say they believe Security Council Resolution 1511, which conferred the mandate for the American-led alliance, can be used to provide legal justification for the American military command to operate until Dec. 31, 2005. That is when a timetable agreed on by Iraqi leaders envisages the final transition to an elected Iraqi government.
The plan, the American officials say, will require the Security Council to review the resolution before it expires in October. But the United States may also seek a new resolution, hoping to placate Spain's new prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who has said that he will withdraw Spain's contingent unless the force is placed under clear United Nations control.
The Americans hope they will not be forced to rely on a legalistic argument. They plan to negotiate with the interim Iraqi government in place after June 30 for the kind of "status of forces" agreement the United States has in dozens of nations where its forces are deployed.
But if negotiations snag — many Iraqi political leaders are often hostile to the foreign military presence — the Americans believe that they will be able to fall back on the United Nations resolution.
That remains to be tested.
Some Iraqi politicians maintain that United Nations mandate was intended to lapse at the return of sovereignty. But American officials, citing a passage in the resolution saying that the mandate would expire "upon the completion of the political process," argue that it will not lapse until a permanent Iraqi government takes office.
European and United Nations diplomats said Thursday that American control would still have to be approved by the Iraqis taking office on June 30. That control, said a United Nations official, "is not likely to survive the transfer of sovereignty unless the successor government approves it."
There were also questions about the effects of extending the primacy of the American military.
The United Nations official said that while it would be a "practical reality" for American domination to continue despite Iraqi self-rule, "it has to be done in a way that's not offensive to Iraqis and the international community, which emphasizes Iraqi sovereignty rather than Iraqi impotence."
A European diplomat said that continued American military control "sends the wrong signal" and "gives an impression of continuing foreign occupation" in Iraq.
Nevertheless, in recent interviews, American officials and military commanders said they were confident that they had found a way to avert the possible political crisis that loomed after Iraqi leaders made it plain that no status-of-forces talks would occur before June 30.
American concern has focused primarily on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, a Shiite cleric who has become a champion of the Shiite majority and of Iraqi nationalism and who has thrown a succession of political roadblocks in the path of the American plan for transition to Iraqi rule. He has rejected the interim constitution adopted by the Iraqi Governing Council, an advisory body handpicked by the Americans, and, some Iraqi politicians believe, could eventually try to derail the status-of-forces discussions.
One of the most influential members of the Governing Council who has close relations with the Americans offered support on Thursday for the American approach. The council member, Adnan Pachachi, a Sunni and a former Iraqi foreign minister, said it made sense to rely on the resolution as a fallback. He also said he supported Mr. Bremer's decision to put Iraq's military forces under American control.
Mr. Pachachi is favored to be the Sunni representative on the three-member presidency council that will head the interim government. In an interview at his Baghdad home, he said all Iraqis, including Shiite clerics restive under the occupation, recognized it was in Iraq's interest to have American troops remain to fight the intensifying terror campaign of insurgents loyal to the deposed Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, and Islamic militants.
Mr. Pachachi said it had become common for Iraqis to say that it would be best if the country's security passed into Iraqi hands after June 30. But he suggested, with a colorful turn of phrase, that Shiite clerics and others who took this view were resorting to gesture politics without foundation in the harsh realities facing Iraq.
"Bearded and nonbearded gentleman have been saying, `The question of Iraqi security should be left to Iraqis,' " he said. "But if we Iraqis do not have the means to do this by ourselves, the withdrawal of American forces would be a disaster, for the beards as well as the nonbeards."
Top aides to Mr. Bremer have said in recent days that the American troops will act as the most important guarantor of American influence. In addition, they said, the $18.4 billion voted for Iraqi reconstruction last fall by the United States Congress — including more than $2 billion for the new Iraqi forces — will give the Americans a decisive voice.
The American determination to retain military control was clear from a document released by the occupation authority on Thursday summarizing Mr. Bremer's executive order on the Iraqi forces.
The order provided for the establishment of an Iraqi Defense Ministry to be headed by an as-yet unnamed civilian, which will oversee the new 40,000-soldier Iraqi Army the Americans expect to have trained by this fall. The Defense Ministry will also control the Iraqi civil defense force, which will also be 40,000-strong. Mr. Hussein's army, disbanded by Mr. Bremer last summer, had 715,000 men.
The document was unequivocal on the ultimate control of the Iraqi forces. "All trained elements of the Iraqi armed forces shall at all times be under the operational control of the commander of coalition forces for the purpose of conducting combined operations," it said.
The document also outlined plans for Mr. Bremer to appoint an Iraqi forces chief of staff and a national security adviser for three-year terms, and an inspector-general with a five-year term.
A senior American official said "it was expected" that the interim government would leave the appointees in their jobs at least until elections early next year produce a national assembly and a second-phase transitional government.
In practice, another senior official said, any Iraqi government would be unlikely to replace the appointees before the permanent government takes office in January 2006.
"The American commander would only have to say, `O.K., we're out of here,' and the Iraqis would back down," he said.
Another official said Iraqis could hardly claim that Iraq's sovereignty was compromised by having its troops under American command when nations like Britain and Poland had placed military contingents here under an American general. "There's no sovereignty issue for them," the official said.
[i][b]By JOHN F. BURNS and THOM SHANKER, N.Y. TIMES[/b][/i], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| DUMB DUBYA & POODLE BLAIR IGNORE TERRORISM, MAKING OSAMA BIN LADEN'S JOB EASIER |
| 03.26.04 (5:50 am) [edit] |
[b]Tony Blair and George Bush have made Osama bin Laden’s task a lot easier[/b]
Spring has come late this year, punctuated by news of three horrible, doom-laden terrorist atrocities: the bombing of Shia worshippers in Iraq and Pakistan, the slaughter in Madrid, and the Israeli assassination of the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
In Westminster there is an air of grim expectation. People’s habits are starting to change. I know one media couple who no longer travel together by Tube, a precaution in case they leave their children orphaned. A well-known political correspondent has taken to driving to work, rather than going by train. Bomb scares now routinely delay commuter traffic into town. The looming Easter recess will see the erection of a bullet-proof glass barrier between the Strangers’ Gallery and the Chamber. A 15-foot prison wall is reportedly set to go up around the Commons, replacing the familiar iron railings. Inside, MPs bleakly speculate on where the terrorists might strike. A pub? A football match? A high-street store? Machinegun-toting police patrol the streets of Westminster, braced for carnage.
Curiously, Downing Street feels vindicated by this new air of menace. Tony Blair made this sentiment explicitly clear after Madrid. He insisted that the bombing showed why he has been right to fight what he likes to term his ‘war against terror’. He is polite but witheringly contemptuous about the anti-war party. He likes to accuse it of failing to understand the problem posed by modern terrorism. From time to time Tony Blair makes the derisive claim that opponents of the war deserve comparison with the appeasers of Munich in 1938; that they are well-meaning but naive. By extension he becomes Winston Churchill, the brave war leader, the only man courageous enough to voice the truth.
And Downing Street does indeed calculate that when the bombs do come, the British people will not respond as the Spanish did and turn on their war leaders. It reckons that we are made of better stuff than that, and will face al-Qa’eda with the same stoicism and courage with which we endured IRA attacks for the last few decades. No. 10 may be right. There is a problem, but it is not the morale of the British people. It lies with the increasingly dubious credentials of the government’s own anti-terror proposition: above all Tony Blair’s emphatic claim, spelt out with great clarity in his speech in Sedgefield three weeks ago, that the invasion of Iraq and the war on terror are identical.
Any demonstration that the two are distinct would make a nonsense of the Prime Minister’s case. Hence the importance of this week’s testimony from Richard Clarke, the White House counter-terrorism chief under President Clinton and President Bush. Clarke’s claims are wounding to Bush, even more damaging to Tony Blair. He asserts, and is in a position to know, that the Bush administration was obsessed with regime change in Iraq from the very start. Clarke suggests it saw September 11 as a convenient excuse to topple Saddam, and regarded pursuing al-Qa’eda as little more than a secondary objective.
Clarke’s claims chime easily with Ron Suskind’s book The Price of Loyalty, published earlier this year, in which the former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill remembers how an Iraq invasion was discussed very shortly after Bush arrived in the White House. Clarke makes sense of much that was puzzling about the decision to invade Iraq: the absence of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa’eda; the neglected warning from the Secret Intelligence Service (concealed from the British people till after the war) that an invasion would increase the danger of terrorism; above all the falsehoods spread by the British and American governments about WMD. If Clarke is right, then the so-called war on terror was no more than an excuse for an invasion that the Bush administration was determined to carry out in any case; Tony Blair becomes at best a mug, at worst an accomplice to a massive deceit.
This week the isolated and baffled British Prime Minister went on his travels again. Wednesday found him in Madrid, where he attended a memorial service for the dead and did his best to salvage the remnants of the war coalition. Thursday’s trip to Tripoli had long been planned as a triumphal event. For the neoconservatives Colonel Gaddafi is Exhibit A. Marvellous claims have been made about the efficacious effects of the Iraq invasion upon Gaddafi. They are false: Gaddafi has been treading his path back from isolation for years. Just before the trip, one close prime ministerial aide confided what everyone else knows, that Gaddafi would have come on board whether Iraq had been invaded or not.
The Prime Minister’s whistle-stop tour began in Belfast, where five years ago he secured the Good Friday agreement. This remains the greatest success of his ever more problematic administration. Its key was the belated recognition that terrorism could not be defeated by military means. Instead Tony Blair — and John Major before him — recognised that the terrorists were articulating genuine grievances. They set out to address them in a creative way, and eventually the hard-core of republican terrorists were isolated and left behind.
The paradox of Blair’s war on terror is that he has set about the task in exactly the opposite way. He was never going to be able to win over the hard-core of terrorists. The task was to hunt them down. But at the same time — and Tony Blair showed every sign of recognising this in his early speeches after September 11 — it was essential to eradicate the injustices that have fomented terrorism. Neither Tony Blair nor, especially, George Bush has seriously attempted to make this precarious and easily mocked journey.
They have set about defeating bin Laden as if he were a conventional enemy — a conceptual error of incalculable consequences. It is beginning to become abundantly clear that war on Iraq has done nothing to damage Islamic terrorism: quite the reverse. It has made it more difficult for moderate Muslim leaders to argue the cause of the West, much easier for radical leaders to recruit. Al-Qa’eda, which did not exist in Iraq before the war, flourishes there now, and spy chiefs admit it is gaining ground elsewhere. Osama bin Laden’s project is to draw a giant dividing-line between Islam and the West. Over the last two years, Tony Blair and George Bush have made that task very much easier for him. If they could have devoted the time, money and energy into solving the problems of the Middle East as they did to invading Iraq, the world would not be quite the scary place it is today.
One manifestation of that failure was Monday’s assassination in Gaza. Events are moving fast. It may not be long before the solution to the problem grows too large for national governments. First of all it might be a good idea to ponder once more what we really mean by a ‘war against terrorism’.
[i][b]By Peter Osborne, The Spectator[/b][/i], http://www.antiwar.com/specta...
|
|
|
| |
| AS U.S. SOLDIERS ARE KILLED IN IRAQ, DUBYA MAKES SICK JOKES ABOUT HIS LIES ABOUT WMDs ... |
| 03.26.04 (5:46 am) [edit] |
[u][b]For Stupid and Shallow Bush, It's A Joke ... But, Is The Joke On Us??? ...[/b][/u]
[b]Dubya is a dangerously stupid and shallow man ... One sign of intelligence ([i]at least emotional intelligence [/i]...) is [i]sensitivity to others [/i]and [i]understanding the impact [/i]of one's own words and actions upon our fellow-men and women ... [/b]
For example, to make jokes about Holocaust victims would be extremely hurtful to those who lost loved-ones killed by the Nazis, as well as to all intelligent people who abhor the heinous nature of their callous and destructive massacre of innocent human beings ... Only a very stupid and shallow thug-and-creep would joke about such a painful and horrendous event ...
"We the People" are tragically witness to an[i] imbecilic ne'er-do-well-cum-buffoon -boy president in Dubya[/i]: a man who[i] callously and meanly jokes (to despicably win some cheap laughs and some squalid 'brownie-points') [/i]about his traitorous[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding WMDs in Iraq. Meanwhile, nearly 590 U.S. Soldiers & 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered based upon the corrupt Bush regime's [i]casus belli [/i]for their illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war: [i]so-called WMDs in Iraq supposedly posing an imminent threat to our national security[/i].
Surely, we deserve a [i]better man [/i]than [i]this ignorant, insensitive and corrupt criminal[/i] ... Read the [i]sickening report [/i]of Dubya's unconscionable [i]insensitivity [/i]described by [i]David Corn [/i]in his eye-witness account entitled "[b]MIA WMDs--[i]For Bush, It's a Joke[/i][/b]", in[i] Capital Games[/i], by The Nation, on http://www.thenation.com/capi... :
[i]Only in Washington[/i].
Last night I was at the [i]Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner[/i]. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.
But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And, the tradition is, that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.
It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.
Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, [i]Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it[/i]. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and [i]had[/i] to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.
At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.
So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide http://www.tompaine.com/featu... .) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.
Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.
Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."
Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.
[b][For Stupid and Shallow Bush, Missing WMDs is a [i]Joke[/i]??? ... It Sounds to Me, Like the [i]"Joke [sic]" [/i]is On [i][u]Us[/u][/i]!!!][/b]
[b]DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, [i]The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception[/i] (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...%3D1060280098/sr%3D11-1/r ef%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-1250 273-6970361 The [i]Library Journal [/i]says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the book's official website: http://www.bushlies.com. [/b]
[b]By Winston Smith, For Stupid and Shallow Bush, It's A Joke ... But, Is The Joke On Us??? ...[/b], http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| 9/11 SCRUTINY HITS BUSH'S BOGUS AURA ON TERROR |
| 03.26.04 (5:43 am) [edit] |
[b]9/11 scrutiny hits Bush aura on terror[/b]
Until now, it has been an article of faith that President Bush's stewardship of the nation right after 9/11 would help him win reelection. It would give this self-described "war president" an automatic measure of goodwill among many voters, shielding him from bad news about the economy and Iraq.
Now, after two days of testimony before the independent commission investigating 9/11, punctuated by harsh criticism from a former National Security Council counterterrorism chief, the Bush administration is on the defensive - and facing questions over whether 9/11 will present quite the political boon it had expected in November.
The campaign-year timing of the testimony allows the administration to cry politics. And many Bush voters will perceive the criticism that way, even though the sharpest critique comes from a career public servant, former counterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke, whose 30-year service spanned administrations of both parties.
Mr. Clarke alleged, in his testimony and in a new book, that Bush didn't make the Al Qaeda threat a priority before 9/11 and then allowed Iraq to divert attention from Al Qaeda after 9/11.
The two days of testimony, featuring top defense and diplomatic officials from both the Clinton and second Bush administrations, were marked as much by the nonpartisan agreement over the limits in combating terrorism as by the flashes of partisanship that Clarke's testimony brought out.
"My gut sense on this is that for Americans who are paying attention, they're paying attention to the half of it that they want to hear," says independent pollster John Zogby. "For those who hate or are not inclined favorably toward the president, this is fuel for more anger. For those who are angry at the Clintons and hence the Democrats and John Kerry, the same thing - this is fuel to say, well, it's all Bill Clinton's fault."
Still, even if public memory of this week's testimony fades by Nov. 2, it was not a positive week for the Bush White House, analysts say. Administration officials, including Vice President Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and press secretary Scott McClellan, were put on the defensive, often uttering identical phrases that showed the care taken in a coordinated response.
In one embarrassing exception, Cheney claimed Monday that Clarke had been "out of the loop" in the fight against terror, raising the obvious question of why a White House would not involve its counterrorism chief in major decisions.
On Wednesday, Ms. Rice stepped forward to correct the vice president, asserting that, indeed, Clarke "was in every meeting that was held on terrorism."
After two weeks of Republican offense against Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator got the real vacation he wanted - a chance to sit back and watch the Bush White House squirm.
Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, says he believes the public was paying close attention to the 9/11 testimony this week, and that questions over one of Bush's strongest areas in polls - his handling of the war on terror - could be "potentially damaging."
"Over the long term, it may be less so, simply because this will be overshadowed, I think, by the commission's findings" on July 26, Mr. Doherty adds. "I think it's possible if not probable that the commission could give a more critical view of both administrations [Clinton and Bush] for failing to take the needed actions."
For now, though, the sight of Clarke, the former counterrorism coordinator, apologizing to and hugging the 9/11 victims' family members may be the most memorable moment of the week - allowing Democrats to make the contrast with the Bush White House's defensive crouch.
And if Tuesday's testimony was marked by a rare setting aside of partisan differences, Wednesday saw the gloves come off. Republican members of the 9/11 commission attacked Clarke's credibility, teeing off on a transcript the White House gave to Fox News of Clarke - speaking in 2002 as an unnamed administration official - defending the president's performance in fighting terrorism.
Clarke responds that he was asked by the White House to brief the press on what the administration was doing right on terrorism.
"Basically, the way it's lining up is Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and the president's word against his," says GOP strategist Charlie Black. With some of the charges Clarke is making, he adds, "you can demonstrate whether he's right or they're right. By Monday or so, I don't think he'll have much credibility left."
Still, he expects that by next week Senator Kerry will be "citing Clarke in every speech. You watch."
The president, meanwhile, from his bully pulpit will continue to make the case that he's doing all he can to defend the country, says Rutgers University professor Ross Baker.
"Really, the course of reconstruction in Iraq will have a much greater impact than what Richard Clarke says," Professor Baker states. "People have short memories. And they're going to judge the candidates by their overall appraisal of them."
[i][b]By Linda Feldmann and Liz Marlantes | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor [/b][/i] http://csmonitor.com/2004/032...
|
|
|
| |
| CONDI RICE'S REFUSAL TO TESTIFY ABOUT 9/11 INTELLIGENCE 'BOTHERS' COMMISSIONERS |
| 03.26.04 (5:38 am) [edit] |
[b]Rice's refusal bothers commissioners [/b]
Members of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks complained angrily Tuesday that Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, has refused to testify publicly about the Bush administration's counterterrorism policy yet has appeared on several TV programs to defend the administration.
"We're disappointed that she's not gong to appear to answer our questions," said commission Chairman Tom Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey.
Rice has been interviewed privately by members of the commission but declined a request for a public session.
Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, held up a new book, Against All Enemies, that accuses Bush and his aides of ignoring warnings of the threat posed by al-Qaeda. The author, Richard Clarke, who was in charge of counterterrorism for Bush and President Clinton, has been discussing his charges in TV interviews.
Roemer said the discussion "belongs not on the airwaves" but before the commission.
"I hope Dr. Rice will reconsider and come before the commission for the sake of the American people," he said.
The audience at Tuesday's hearing included many people who lost family members in the attacks in 2001. They applauded each time commissioners criticized Rice's decision not to appear and testify under oath.
Rice met privately with the panel for four hours at the White House on Feb. 7. Afterward, Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democratic member of the panel, said, "It was a very useful interview, and I personally found Dr. Rice to be candid and forthcoming. I think it would be useful for the public to hear from Dr. Rice."
But White House officials say it is inappropriate for a presidential adviser who is not a Senate-confirmed Cabinet officer to publicly discuss confidential advice.
The administration made the same argument in 2002 when it said Tom Ridge, then director of homeland security, would not testify under oath before Congress. Under pressure from Congress, the White House backed down, and he did testify.
"It's a long-standing principle that the president's advisers do not testify in front of congressional committees," Rice said Tuesday on Fox News Radio's Tony Snow Show. "So, as much as I would like to be able to do this, it would really not be a good precedent."
The White House says previous administrations had the same policy.
The bipartisan commission, although it was set up by Congress, does not fall under congressional rules.
Ben-Veniste, who was a Watergate prosecutor, cited examples of non-Cabinet presidential advisers who have testified publicly to Congress. Among them: Lloyd Cutler, White House counsel under Clinton; Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter; and Samuel Berger, Clinton's national security adviser. Berger is scheduled to testify before the commission today.
Some legal experts say Rice could be subpoenaed.
Democrats have speculated that she is reluctant to testify under oath or in public because of her comment in May 2002 that no one "could have predicted that (terrorists) would try to use a hijacked airplane as a missile."
News reports indicated later that intelligence officials had considered the possibility of such strikes as recently as a month before the attacks.
The commission is expected to decide within a week whether to subpoena notes taken by four commissioners in December when they reviewed classified presidential briefing papers, including an August 2001 memorandum that discusses the possibility of airline hijackings by al-Qaeda terrorists.
The commissioners were allowed to take notes but not to remove the notes from the room.
[b]WHO THE HELL DOES CONDI RICE THINK SHE IS? A QUEEN? THE BITCH SHOULD BE FORCED OUT-OF-OFFICE AND TRIED FOR TREASON!!!!!!![/b]
[i][b]By Mimi Hall, Andrea Stone and Judy Keen, USA TODAY[/b][/i], http://www.usatoday.com/news/...
|
|
|
| |
| AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES MISREAD THE SPANISH ELECTION |
| 03.26.04 (5:31 am) [edit] |
[b]American Conservatives Misread the Spanish Election[/b]
Seldom has mythology arisen so quickly about an event as it has with regard to the election results in Spain. Hordes of conservative pundits in the United States have rushed to condemn the unexpected defeat of the right-wing Popular Party as a vote for the appeasement of terrorism. According to the conservative conventional wisdom, Spanish voters, in an appalling act of cowardice, reacted to the terrorist bombings in Madrid by ousting the party that had loyally supported the Bush administration's war on terror, and especially the war in Iraq.
Such an interpretation profoundly misreads the election results. Although Al Qaeda may believe that the outcome vindicates a strategy of intimidation, there is no evidence that Spanish voters intended to convey a message of appeasement. Indeed, in his first news conference, the new prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, emphasized that combating terrorism would be a top priority of his government. Spain has been resolute all along in helping the United States identify and disrupt Al Qaeda cells in that country. Now that Spanish blood has been shed on Spanish soil by the terrorists, that resolve is likely to be strengthened, not weakened.
But just because the Spanish people are determined to combat radical Islamic terrorism does not mean that they have an obligation to endorse the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The election results confirm that a majority of Spaniards make a distinction between those two missions. That is not surprising, because large majorities around the world have made a similar distinction. Indeed, it is a distinction that seems to elude few people -- except for a majority of conservatives in the United States.
Public opinion surveys before, during, and after the Iraq war showed that 80 to 90 percent of Spanish voters opposed the U.S. policy. Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government took a great risk in defying such overwhelming sentiment by supporting the U.S. war and occupation. It should not come as a surprise that, in a healthy democratic system, a political party that arrogantly ignores the public's near consensus on an important issue may go down to defeat in the next election.
True, opinion polls showed the Popular Party with a modest lead over the opposition Socialists before the Madrid bombings. That was largely because the Iraq war had faded as a salient issue for most voters. The bombings of the commuter trains again elevated the prominence of the Iraq issue. And when that happened, voters remembered their irritation with the Aznar government.
The Aznar administration compounded the Popular Party's renewed problems by prematurely and tenaciously attributing the bombings to the radical Basque separatist group ETA. When evidence continued to mount that Al Qaeda, not ETA, was probably responsible for the atrocities, a good many Spanish voters concluded that the government was manipulating the tragedy for its own political advantage. They suspected (with good reason) that Aznar and his associates were trying to blame ETA to conceal the reality that the attacks were a payback for Spain's support of Washington's Iraq policy. Not surprisingly, voters did not react well to such attempts at self-serving political deception.
Those Americans who accuse Spaniards of appeasement exhibit a lack of respect for the workings of Spain's democratic system. They implicitly assume that voters had an obligation to return the Popular Party to power, even though that party did not reflect the will of the people on a crucial issue. Critics of the election result have no right to expect such sheep-like behavior, however much it might have benefited the foreign policy of the Bush administration.
The outcome of Spain's election was a referendum on Iraq policy, not policy toward Al Qaeda. Allegations of appeasement are a despicable slur against a population that has already suffered grievously.
[i][b]By Ted Galen Carpenter - Vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 15 books on international affairs, including Peace & Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic[/b][/i]., http://www.cato.org/dailys/03...
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE SMEARED BY NEO-CON SLIME MACHINE |
| 03.26.04 (5:28 am) [edit] |
[b]Clarke Smeared by Neocon Slime Machine[/b]
Dick Clarke's testimony http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/s... before the 9/11 Commission turned into a political ping pong match, with John Lehman, former secretary of the navy, insisting that Clarke has a "real credibility problem."
I read Clarke's book while traveling the past couple of days, and found it anything but a liberal tract. Clarke comes across as a principled conservative with special expertise. He clearly feels that his expertise was respected by Bill Clinton, who made him a cabinet official and took an intellectual interest in the nature of terrorism. And he clearly feels that George W. Bush lacks that intellectual curiosity, and surrounded himself with anti-Iraq hawks who simply did not understand asymmetrical organizations and the threat they posed. As a result, Bush and the people around him demoted Clarke from the cabinet and paid no attention to his suggestion that the administration go to 'battle stations' as a result of the increased chatter in summer of 2001.
That Clarke, while in office, tried to put a positive face on the Bush administration, in which he was serving, does not detract from the credibility of his memoir, [i]Against all Enemies[/i]. Only the most naive observer could fail to be able to distinguish between the discourse of a public servant and that of a private citizen released from such duties, and now able to speak his mind. Washington rhetoric is often so simple-minded that it is insulting to those of us west of the Potomac, as if we are little children who will swallow any tall tale fed us.
Clarke's integrity in standing against the Neocons' and Rumsfeld's outrageous politicization of intelligence and peddling of false charges that Saddam was behind 9/11 or in cahoots with al-Qaeda more generally, is extremely admirable. But, clearly, he was reduced to a second or third tier player, and could not counteract the enormous influence of Feith, Hannah, Libby, and others, who worked through Cheney to get up a phoney case against Iraq.
Clarke was rumored to have been personally targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda before 9/11, and served honorably in the fight against that organization at a time when most high US government officials had no idea what al-Qaeda was. To have his "credibility" now challenged on partisan political grounds, when his book is anything but partisan, is shameful.
John Lehman, by the way, is the one with credibility problems. He tried to blame https://mail.lsit.ucsb.edu/pipermail/gordon-news post/2000-October/001648.html the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000 at Aden on a failure of the CIA and the State Department, and alleged that an anti-US and anti-Israel state was behind it (read: Iraq). In fact, the USS Cole bombing was a purely al-Qaeda affair in which Iraq was in no way involved. And, as Clarke explains, it happened in part because the Navy decided to start refueling at Aden without passing the plan by any of the civilian counter-terrorism officials, including himself. Lehman's brother, Chris, http://rightweb.irc-online.or... served in Douglas Feith's Office of Special Programs, which cherry-picked intelligence so as to manufacture huge Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs and extensive collaboration with al-Qaeda, both of them fantasies.
Lehmann and his brother Chris have been wrong all along the way in downplaying al-Qaeda and foregrounding Saddam. That is why he has to now smear Clarke, who has simply told it like it was.
If you read the preface to Clarke's book carefully, you'll see that he predicted the smear campaign against him. Indeed, the word "enemies" in the title of his book refers to the way the Bushies treat anyone who doesn't get with their program.
For more on the anti-Clarke campaign see the always sharp and canny commentary of Josh Marshall at [i]Talking Points Memo[/i] http://www.talkingpointsmemo.... .
[i][b]By Juan Cole - Professor of History at the University of Michigan[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/cole/?arti...
|
|
|
| |
| CONDOLEEZZA RICE DIDN'T DO HER JOB -- SHE SHOULD BE FIRED!!!!!!! |
| 03.25.04 (9:09 pm) [edit] |
[b]'Condoleezza Rice didn't do her job' [/b]
Former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke said late on Wednesday that the national security adviser had failed to take enough action against al-Qaeda before September 11.
"The president was being told an a regular basis that the al-Qaeda attack was coming," Clarke told CNN.
"Buried in the FBI was the fact that two of the hijackers had entered the United States," he said. "If we had known that those two were in the United States ... I believe that we could have caught those two."
White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice should have held daily meetings with the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and with the attorney general to hunt out such information that could help flesh out the mounting warnings of an attack, Clarke said.
"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings... it would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001, if she had been doing her job."
Clarke repeated his charge that President George W. Bush had not seen much urgency in threats posed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, while former president Bill Clinton had been "obsessed with getting bin Laden".
"We'll probably catch bin Laden shortly, but it's two years too late," he said. "By the time we catch him now, it won't matter very much because all these al-Qaeda like organisations have sprung up all over the world."
([i][b]AFP[/b][/i]), http://iafrica.com/news/world...
|
|
|
| |
| THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DUBYA'S SICK WMDs JOKE IS TO SHOW BUSH IS AN ASSHOLE!!!!!!! |
| 03.25.04 (8:14 pm) [edit] |
[u][b]For Stupid and Shallow Bush, It's A Joke ... But, Is The Joke On Us??? ...[/b][/u]
[b]Dubya is a dangerously stupid and shallow man ... One sign of intelligence ([i]at least emotional intelligence [/i]...) is [i]sensitivity to others [/i]and [i]understanding the impact [/i]of one's own words and actions upon our fellow-men and women ... [/b]
For example, to make jokes about Holocaust victims would be extremely hurtful to those who lost loved-ones killed by the Nazis, as well as to all intelligent people who abhor the heinous nature of their callous and destructive massacre of innocent human beings ... Only a very stupid and shallow thug-and-creep would joke about such a painful and horrendous event ...
"We the People" are tragically witness to an[i] imbecilic ne'er-do-well-cum-buffoon -boy president in Dubya[/i]: a man who[i] callously and meanly jokes (to despicably win some cheap laughs and some squalid 'brownie-points') [/i]about his traitorous[i] lies, deceptions and falsehoods [/i]regarding WMDs in Iraq. Meanwhile, nearly 590 U.S. Soldiers & 10,000-15,000 innocent Iraqi Civilians have been ruthlessly slaughtered based upon the corrupt Bush regime's [i]casus belli [/i]for their illegal & immoral neo-con, neo-fascist war: [i]so-called WMDs in Iraq supposedly posing an imminent threat to our national security[/i].
Surely, we deserve a [i]better man [/i]than [i]this ignorant, insensitive and corrupt criminal[/i] ... Read the [i]sickening report [/i]of Dubya's unconscionable [i]insensitivity [/i]described by [i]David Corn [/i]in his eye-witness account entitled "[b]MIA WMDs--[i]For Bush, It's a Joke[/i][/b]", in[i] Capital Games[/i], by The Nation, on http://www.thenation.com/capi... :
[i]Only in Washington[/i].
Last night I was at the [i]Radio and Television Correspondents' Association Dinner[/i]. It's a formal-and-fun affair where thousands of media folks assemble at the Hilton for a fancy dinner and fab pre- and post-parties. I'm not going to denigrate such soirees. I enjoy them. While bookers and producers jiggled and jostled on the dance floor and media and political celebs dissected the news du jour (this time it was Richard Clarke's dramatic appearance before the 9/11 commission), I was able to chat with former weapons hunter David Kay and learn about some troubling developments in the intelligence community (more on that down the road). And there was free sushi.
But an awful you're-all-alone moment came during George W. Bush's comments that followed the sit-down dinner. The current president is often the honored guest at this annual affair, and the audience toasts him in what is supposed to be a sign of communal and nonpartisan spirit. And, the tradition is, that the president has to be funny; he has to provide us with an amusing speech that pokes fun at himself and his political foes. After all, political journalists love to see politicians engage in self-deprecating humor. Bill Clinton was quite good at these performances. Bush seems to enjoy them less. Rather than do straight standup, he sometimes relies on a humorous slide show, and that was how he chose to entertain the media throng this time.
It's standard fare humor. Bush says he is preparing for a tough election fight; then on the large video screens a picture flashes showing him wearing a boxing robe while sitting at his desk. Bush notes he spends "a lot of time on the phone listening to our European allies." Then we see a photo of him on the phone with a finger in his ear. There were funny bits about Skull and Bones, his mother, and Dick Cheney. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office, and he said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
The audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn't the end of it. After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. "Nope," he said. "No weapons over there." More laughter. Then another picture of Bush searching in his office: "Maybe under here." Laughter again.
Disapproval must have registered upon my face, for one of my tablemates said, "Come on, David, this is funny." I wanted to reply, [i]Over 500 Americans and literally countless Iraqis are dead because of a war that was supposedly fought to find weapons of mass destruction, and Bush is joking about it[/i]. Instead, I took a long drink of the lovely white wine that had come with our dinner. It's not as if I was in the middle of a talk-show debate and [i]had[/i] to respond. This was certainly one of those occasions in which you either get it or don't. And I wasn't getting it. Or maybe my neighbor wasn't.
At the end of the slide show, Bush displayed two pictures of himself with troops and noted these were his favorites. The final photograph was a shot of special forces soldiers--with their faces blurred to protect their identities--who were posing in Afghanistan where they had buried a piece of 9/11 debris in a spot that had once been an al Qaeda camp. Bush spoke about the prayer the commander had said during the burial ceremony and noted he had this photograph hanging in his private study.
So what's wrong with this picture? Bush was somber about the sacrifice being made by U.S. troops overseas. But he obviously considered it fine to make fun of the reason he cited for sending Americans to war and to death. What an act of audacious spin. One poll recently showed that most Americans believe he either lied about Iraq's WMDs or deliberately exaggerated the case to justify the war. And it is undeniable that in seeking public support for the war he made many false assertions that went beyond quoting intelligence that turned out to be wrong. (I've written about this in many other places. If you still don't believe Bush mugged the truth, check out this short guide http://www.tompaine.com/featu... .) As the crowd was digesting the delicious surf-and-turf meal, Bush was transforming serious scandal into rim-shot comedy.
Few seemed to mind. His WMD gags did not prompt a how-can-you silence from the gathering. At the after-parties, I heard no complaints. Was I being too sensitive? I wondered what the spouse, child or parent of a soldier killed in Iraq would have felt if they had been watching C-SPAN and saw the commander-in-chief mocking the supposed justification for the war that claimed their loved ones. Bush told the nation that lives had to be sacrificed because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could be used (by terrorists) against the United States. That was not true. (And as Kay pointed out, the evidence so far shows these weapons were not there in the first place, not that they were hidden, destroyed or spirited away.) But rather than acknowledge he misinformed the public, Bush jokes about the absence of such weapons.
Even if Bush does not believe he lied to or misled the public, how can he make fun of the rationale for a war that has killed and maimed thousands? Imagine if Lyndon Johnson had joked about the trumped-up Gulf of Tonkin incident that he deceitfully used as a rationale for U.S. military action in Vietnam: "Who knew that fish had torpedoes?" Or if Ronald Reagan appeared at a correspondents event following the truck-bombing at the Marines barracks in Beirut--which killed over 200 American servicemen--and said, "Guess we forgot to put in a stop light." Or if Clinton had come out after the bombing of Serbia--during which U.S. bombs errantly destroyed the Chinese embassy and killed several people there--and said, "The problem is, those embassies--they all look alike."
Yet there was Bush--apparently having a laugh at his own expense, but actually doing so on the graves of thousands. This was a callous and arrogant display. For Bush, the misinformation--or disinformation--he peddled before the war was no more than material for yucks. As the audience laughed along, he smiled. The false statements (or lies) that had launched a war had become merely another punchline in the nation's capital.
[b][For Stupid and Shallow Bush, Missing WMDs is a [i]Joke[/i]??? ... It Sounds to Me, Like the [i]"Joke [sic]" [/i]is On [i][u]Us[/u][/i]!!!][/b]
[b]DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, [i]The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception[/i] (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob...%3D1060280098/sr%3D11-1/r ef%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/104-1250 273-6970361 The [i]Library Journal [/i]says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations....Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." For more information and a sample, check out the book's official website: http://www.bushlies.com. [/b]
[b]By Winston Smith, For Stupid and Shallow Bush, It's A Joke ... But, Is The Joke On Us??? ...[/b], http://www.tblog.com/template...
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL'S "REASONS" FOR ASSASSINATING SHEIKH YASSIN |
| 03.25.04 (4:04 pm) [edit] |
[b]Israel's 'reasons' for killing Sheikh Yassin[/b]
ISRAEL'S ASSASSINATION of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the founder and spiritual mentor of Hamas, demonstrated once again that Israel is a free agent, unbound by international law, moral principles or decency. Sheikh Yassin was a nearly blind quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair, a man of 66 made far older than his years by illness. He was surrounded by carers who pushed his chair and lifted him in and out of cars. They, too, were slain. Their families also mourn. For years, Israel and its friends have been quite rightly crying out against the slaying by Palestinians from the Palestinian Liberation Front of an elderly Jewish passenger in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer, on a hijacked cruise ship. This incident shamed the Palestinians and their just cause.
The killing of Sheikh Yassin by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who ordered and took charge of the operation, shames Israel. It was an act typical of Sharon who, throughout his career, has been accused by his political and military superiors of wrong-headed extravagant thinking and operational excesses.
Sharon seems to believe that killing Sheikh Yassin will intimidate other Hamas leaders and frighten the movement's rank and file members into halting their struggle against the Israeli occupation. The action has done quite the opposite. Hamas responded to the challenge by changing the form of its leadership in Gaza. Until Sheikh Yassin's death, Hamas had a command which included the sheikh and several other senior figures. On Tuesday Dr Abdel Aziz Rantisi was named overall head of the movement's Gaza branch.
Although committed to the long-term strategy of the liberation of all Palestine, Sheikh Yassin was also a short-to medium-term tactical moderate prepared to accept self-rule in parts of the Palestinian homeland and to agree to a mutual cessation of hostilities with Israel. Rantisi, who formerly bent to the will of Sheikh Yassin, is a strategic and tactical hardliner unprepared to make any compromises over Palestine or deals with Israel. He promptly vowed to confront Israel everywhere and at every opportunity. Therefore, by removing the moderating influence of Sheikh Yassin, Sharon may find that Hamas has become far more aggressive and more determined to strike at the heart of Israel.
While Israeli commentators argue that killing the sheikh amounts to lopping off the head of the Hamas “snake”, the movement has proved itself to be a resilient organisation, a many-headed hydra. As soon as one head is cut off, another sprouts in its place.
Israel also killed senior clerics in the Lebanese Hizbollah movement. But instead of acting as a deterrent, the targeting of these personalities drove Hizbollah to perfect its tactics and step up its campaign to force Israel to withdraw from the south of that country. Hizbollah achieved its aim in May 2000. It appears that Sharon learnt nothing from Israel's 20-year struggle with Hizbollah.
Sheikh Yassin, now a martyr like the slain Hizbollah figures, could very well be more dangerous dead than alive. Not only can Hamas be expected to step up attacks on and in Israel, but Palestinian citizens of the Jewish state, particularly members of the Islamic Movement, could also join the resistance, operating within Israel “proper” as a fifth column far more effective than Palestinians from the territories who are often not acquainted with the geography of Israel and the habits of its citizens.
Furthermore, across the Arab and Muslim worlds, militant organisations may have a fresh flood of recruits prepared to strike at Israel and its principal ally, the US, which justified Sharon's killing of the sheikh but also blocked Security Council condemnation of the action. Sheikh Yassin's assassination, like the Bush administration's occupation of Iraq, makes the world a more dangerous place.
Sharon was prepared to accept the risks posed by killing the sheikh for several reasons. First, Sharon finished off the moribund peace process for the foreseeable future. No Palestinian and, indeed, no Arab leader would dare meet with Sharon in the aftermath of the murder.
Sharon will now be in a position to conduct his proposed withdrawal from Gaza and isolated West Bank settlements without entering into consultations or negotiations with the Palestinian National Authority or, even, with Cairo over security along the southern Gaza border with Egypt. Sharon has long wanted to end the peace process and cease contacts with the Palestinians. He is now free to do whatever he likes, particularly since the Bush administration has defended this action and done its best to protect Israel and Sharon.
Second, Sharon has shown right-wing critics that he is determined to pull out of Gaza because it suits Israel and not under Hamas pressure. Sharon does not want to be accused of withdrawing under fire, repeating the humiliation of Israel's precipitate pull out from south Lebanon in May 2000.
Third, taking a tough line on Hamas will encourage the hard right in Sharon's coalition to remain for the time being, in spite of its opposition to the Gaza evacuation plan. Sharon does not want to become dependent on the Labour Party to push his policy through the Knesset.
Fourth, by hitting Hamas, Sharon seeks to show the Israelis that he is the only leader capable to tackling the “terrorists” at a time his approval rating is at an all time low and he and his sons are accused of corruption and influence peddling.
Fifth, Sharon would like to carry on with the killing of Palestinian militants using as justification the Bush administration's campaign to “kill or capture” Osama Ben Laden, dubbed the world's arch “terrorist”. Sixth, Sharon is determined to punish any Palestinian who dares resist the Israeli occupation.
Finally, Sharon has never really given up his personal, extravagant plan for rearranging the demography and political structure of the region. He has been encouraged to pursue this plan by the Bush administration, which has its own equally extravagant and impractical ideas for remaking the area. When Sharon invaded and occupied Lebanon in 1982, Sharon expected that he would be able to drive the Palestinian refugees living there into Syria and Jordan.
Sharon refuses to acknowledge that the Palestinians have an attachment to their national identity and homeland. He considers them simply “Arabs”, mere pawns who can be moved from place to place on the chessboard of the region.
[i][b]Michael Jansen, Jordan Times[/b][/i], http://www.aljazeerah.info/Op...%20editorials/2004%20opin ions/March/25o/Israels%20 reasons%20for%20killing%2 0Sheikh%20Yassin,%20Micha el%20Jansen.htm
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL: THE UNMENTIONABLE SOURCE OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD |
| 03.25.04 (4:01 pm) [edit] |
[b]Israel: The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism in the World[/b]
The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to attack the strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism (as many as 55,000 Iraqis killed) exposes "us" to retaliation.
The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then guardian of the west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.
In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises Israel for its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the continuing Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had on the lives of ordinary Palestinians."
Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast quantities of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that Israel has defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since the founding of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by 144 to four to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the West Bank, annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system that provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored the world.
Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice-president heavily invested in oil."
The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all have close ties with the Likud government in Tel Aviv and the Zionist lobby groups in Washington. In 1997, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa) declared: "Jinsa has been working closely with Iraqi National Council leader Dr Ahmad Chalabi to promote Saddam Hussein's removal from office..." Chalabi is the CIA-backed stooge and convicted embezzler at present organising the next "democratic" government in Baghdad.
Until recently, a group of Zionists ran their own intelligence service inside the Pentagon. This was known as the Office of Special Plans, and was overseen by Douglas Feith, an under-secretary of defence, extreme Zionist and opponent of any negotiated peace with the Palestinians. It was the Office of Special Plans that supplied Downing Street with much of its scuttlebutt about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; more often than not, the original source was Israel.
Israel can also claim responsibility for the law passed by Congress that imposes sanctions on Syria and in effect threatens it with the same fate as Iraq unless it agrees to the demands of Tel Aviv. Israel is the guiding hand behind Bush's bellicose campaign against the "nuclear threat" posed by Iran. Today, in occupied Iraq, Israeli special forces are teaching the Americans how to "wall in" a hostile population, in the same way that Israel has walled in the Palestinians in pursuit of the Zionist dream of an apartheid state. The author David Hirst describes the "Israelisation of US foreign policy" as being "now operational as well as ideological."
In understanding Israel's enduring colonial role in the Middle East, it is too simple to see the outrages of Ariel Sharon as an aberrant version of a democracy that lost its way. The myths that abound in middle-class Jewish homes in Britain about Israel's heroic, noble birth have long been reinforced by a "liberal" or "left-wing" Zionism as virulent and essentially destructive as the Likud strain.
In recent years, the truth has come from Israel's own "new historians," who have revealed that the Zionist "idealists" of 1948 had no intention of treating justly or even humanely the Palestinians, who instead were systematically and often murderously driven from their homes. The most courageous of these historians is Ilan Pappe, an Israeli-born professor at Haifa University, who, with the publication of each of his ground-breaking books, has been both acclaimed and smeared.
The latest is A History of Modern Palestine, in which he documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing that tore apart Jews and Arabs coexisting peacefully. As for the modern "peace process," he describes the Oslo Accords of 1993 as a plan by liberal Zionists in the Israeli Labour Party to corral Palestinians in South African-style bantustans. That they were aided by a desperate Palestinian leadership made the "peace" and its "failure" (blamed on the Palestinians) no less counterfeit. During the years of negotiation and raised hopes, governments in Tel Aviv secretly doubled the number of illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, intensified the military occupation and completed the fragmentation of the 22 per cent of historic Palestine that the Palestine Liberation Organisation had agreed to accept in return for recognising the state of Israel.
Along with the late Edward Said, Ilan Pappe is the most eloquent writer of Palestinian history. He is also one of the most scholarly. This combination has brought him many admirers, but also enemies among Israel's academic liberal mythologists in Britain, one of whom, Stephen Howe, was given the Pappe book to review in the New Statesman of 8 March. Howe often appears in these pages; his style is to damn with faint praise and to set carefully the limits of debate about empire, be it Irish history, the Middle East or the "war on terror." In Pappe's case, what the reader doesn't know is Howe's personal link to the Israeli establishment; and what Howe does not say in his review is that here for the first time is a textbook on Palestine that narrates the real story as it happened: a non-Zionist version of Zionism.
He accuses Pappe of "factual mistakes," but gives no evidence, then denigrates the book by dismissing it as a footnote to another book by the Israeli historian Benny Morris, who has long atoned for his own revisionist work. To its credit, Cambridge University Press has published Pappe's pioneering and highly accessible work as an authoritative history. This means that the "debate" over Israel's origins is ending, regardless of what the empire's apologists say.
[i][b]By John Pilger[/b][/i], http://www.aljazeerah.info/Op...%20editorials/2004%20opin ions/March/21%20o/Israel% 20The%20Unmentionable%20S ource%20of%20Terrorism%20 By%20John%20Pilger.htm
|
|
|
| |
| THREE MORE U.S. SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ, WHILE DUBYA MAKES LAME JOKES ABOUT WMDs IN IRAQ! |
| 03.25.04 (3:54 pm) [edit] |
[b]Three U.S. Soldiers Killed in Ambushes in Iraq[/b]
Two U.S. soldiers were killed and four wounded in two separate attacks on convoys in Iraq on Thursday, the U.S. military said.
In the morning, a roadside bomb exploded near the town of Baquba, 40 miles north of the capital, killing one U.S. soldier and wounding two.
In the afternoon, insurgents attacked another convoy east of the restive town of Falluja, 32 miles west of the capital, killing one Marine and injuring two with a combination of a roadside bomb, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms.
A U.S. Army spokesman also announced that on Wednesday insurgents had killed a soldier and wounded another in a gun battle just north of Baghdad. U.S. soldiers returned fire and killed three attackers.
The clashes brought to 399 the number of U.S. troops killed in action in Iraq since the start of the U.S.-led war just over one year ago.
Iraqi insurgents most often attack U.S. patrols and convoys using what are called improvised explosive devices -- small amounts of explosive hidden in a soft drink can or similar disguise and wired to a simple detonator.
The roadside bombs have increasingly been followed by small arms fire or grenade attacks.
([b]Reuters[/b]), http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
[b]Bush Makes Jokes About Lack Of WMDs In Iraq[/b]
President George W. Bush has taken some time out from his intense re-election campaign to poke some fun at himself.
The president rubbed elbows Wednesday night with 1,500 guests at the 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association.
Bush's speech featured a slide show which he called the "White House Election-Year Album." One photo showed the president looking under furniture. He captioned it: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
Another slide showed Bush playing cards on Air Force One. He said that's one of him boning up on the names of leaders he was about to meet at an international summit.
The president also offered a serious view of the world's problems -- showing American soldiers in Afghanistan burying a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in memory to those killed on 9/11.
[b]LET'S SEND ASSHOLE-DUBYA OFF TO BE KILLED IN IRAQ! MAYBE POPPY BUSH COULD MAKE LAME JOKES ABOUT THAT![/b]
[i][b]The Associated Press[/b][/i], http://www.thechamplainchanne...
|
|
|
| |
| PIN THE TAIL ON THE DONKEY DUBYA! |
| 03.25.04 (3:39 pm) [edit] |
[b]Pin the tale on the donkey[/b]
One year, 570 fallen American soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis later, the widespread realization that the war against Iraq is a failure is reducing George W. Bush's popularity to that of raw liver. Were the election to be held today, the latest Washington Post poll finds, John Kerry would kick his skinny illegitimate ass all the way back to Crawford--and that's before the coming six months of job losses.
The numerous excuses the White House used to justify the invasion--a "grave" and "gathering" threat posed by Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, planting the seed of democracy in the Middle East, avenging September 11---have all been belied by subsequent events. Now, as Slaughtergate crumbles down upon them, top administration prevaricators are mounting one final line of defense: the ridiculous claim that everyone believed the war was a splendid idea.
"The question was," spins the hopelessly compromised Colin Powell, "did they have stockpiles or not? And we all thought they had stockpiles, not because we wished it. The evidence suggested that they had stockpiles. And so we may not find the stockpiles. They may not exist any longer. But let's not suggest that somehow we knew this."
"I wasn't giving the world bad information," Powell asserted in a separate interview with state-controlled Fox News. "I was giving the world the information that we had at the time we had it."
Actually, we didn't "all" think Iraq had stockpiles of dangerous weapons "at the time." Quite the opposite: most people thought it didn't. And Powell thought the "information" he gave the world was, in his own words, "bullshit." At the time.
Three top Bush officials in a position to know the truth--chief counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and CIA director George Tenet--call Powell a liar. In fact, say these pissed-off conservatives, the American intelligence establishment agreed that there was no proof that Iraq possessed WMDs after 1998. And that's what they told Bush. Getting rid of Saddam, CIA analysts additionally warned White House hawks in 2002 and early 2003, would likely lead to stubborn resistance. They predicted that Iraq would become a recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and other militant groups.
Bush, of course, ignored them.
Talk about chutzpah! The Bushies not only brushed off the CIA analyses--"wrong answer," Clarke says the White House replied when it bounced back his report denying ties between Saddam and 9-11--now they're blaming their mistakes on "faulty intelligence."
Pundits, including yours truly, published hundreds of columns and essays noting the lack of evidence that Iraq had WMDs while describing in eerily prescient detail what would go wrong in Iraq. Now, say occupation watchers, the lack of a strong central government could cause sectarian violence to devolve into full-fledged civil war by this summer. Energy analysts see gas prices rising as high as $3 per gallon. I predicted both developments in a July 30, 2002 column titled "Gulf War Two." Ditto for the dangerous impact of war in Iraq on the war on terrorism: "Why give radical anti-American Islamists even more political ammunition with which to recruit suicide bombers and attract the financial donations that fund their assaults?" I asked. Referring to the botched precedent of Afghanistan, I wrote in October 2002, we had no chance of success in Iraq: "We won the war but we lost the peace. Will we do the same thing in Iraq? Count on it."
Liberals weren't the only skeptics. Months before bombs began falling on Baghdad, with Bush's popularity rating still hovering around 80 percent, the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens, including Republicans, nevertheless disagreed with his desire to invade Iraq. According to a December 15, 2002 Los Angeles Times poll, 72 percent of the American people said that such a war would be totally unjustified. In the biggest demonstrations since the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of Americans marched through the streets of New York, San Francisco and dozens of other cities to urge a bellicose Administration to back down. Ignoring the demonstrators' statements that they didn't believe Iraq had WMDs, Bush's henchmen derided them as hippie retreads and kneejerk pacifists. History doesn't record what Bush thought of that 72 percent majority.
The world beyond our borders, so solicitous and generous after 9-11, stood shoulder to shoulder against the war. Between 1 and 3 million people marched in Rome, half a million in Berlin, 300,000 in Paris. With the exception of Great Britain, the governments of every major industrialized nation refused to provide military or diplomatic support due to the absence of firm evidence of Iraqi WMDs. So we went it alone, unless you count Bulgaria and Fiji.
Democratic Senators, liberal writers, the United Nations, former arms inspectors--they all said that invading Iraq was stupid and unjustifiable. Now that everyone else has been proven right, Mr. Bush, feel free to lie and dissemble--God knows we're used to it--but don't you dare try to stick us with the blame for your screw-up.
[i][b]Ted Rall is the author of "Wake Up, You're Liberal: How We Can Take America Back From the Right," coming in May. Ordering information is available at amazon.com[/b][/i]. http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| ASSHOLE-DUBYA MAKES JOKES ABOUT LACK OF WMDs IN IRAQ WHILE U.S. SOLDIERS ARE KILLED! |
| 03.25.04 (3:32 pm) [edit] |
[b]Bush Makes Jokes About Lack Of WMDs In Iraq[/b]
President George W. Bush has taken some time out from his intense re-election campaign to poke some fun at himself.
The president rubbed elbows Wednesday night with 1,500 guests at the 60th annual dinner of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association.
Bush's speech featured a slide show which he called the "White House Election-Year Album." One photo showed the president looking under furniture. He captioned it: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
Another slide showed Bush playing cards on Air Force One. He said that's one of him boning up on the names of leaders he was about to meet at an international summit.
The president also offered a serious view of the world's problems -- showing American soldiers in Afghanistan burying a piece of the fallen World Trade Center in memory to those killed on 9/11.
[b]LET'S SEND ASSHOLE-DUBYA OFF TO BE KILLED IN IRAQ! MAYBE POPPY BUSH COULD MAKE LAME JOKES ABOUT THAT![/b]
[i][b]The Associated Press[/b][/i], http://www.thechamplainchanne...
|
|
|
| |
| ... THE BUSHIES TREASONOUS 9/11 REVISIONISM ... |
| 03.24.04 (5:58 am) [edit] |
[b]9/11 Revisionism
It's the only way we'll get at the truth [/b]
"They will never give the full story" – that's what former Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission in protest over White House stonewalling, said to Amy Goodman on the "Democracy Now" radio program. But of course not. The Bushies would just as soon commit collective suicide. Just as we had to find out on our own the truth about the Iraq war – that there were no WMD, no links to Al Qaeda, no unmanned drones ready to strike American cities with God-knows-what: it was all a lie – so a similar revisionism is necessary when it comes to examining what happened on 9/11, and why.
Indicative of the Bush administration's implacable hostility to any revisionist trends when it comes to this sensitive subject is National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's bizarre refusal to show up at the public hearings of the Commission. She demurs on the somewhat murky grounds that her testimony might "set a bad precedent" by violating the doctrine of the "separation of powers." It is hard to make out what this might possibly mean, except that our rulers have now completely separated themselves from the principles of open government and the rule of law. As for setting a precedent, any sign of cooperation from this government in the 9/11 inquiry would be a first.
This administration has put every hurdle in the way of the 9/11 Commission, much to the dismay of the 9/11 families, and the reticence of the Bush camp naturally provokes the question: what do they have to hide? Suspicion heightens when we see those Bush ads touting the President's leadership during the dark aftermath of the attacks. George W. Bush is campaigning as a "war President," whose steely leadership in the aftermath of a monstrous terrorist assault deserves to be rewarded with a second term. But if 9/11 is going to be the centerpiece of the President's reelection campaign, then why are we not supposed to look too closely at the event that gave him more gravitas than he might otherwise have acquired on his own?
The findings of the Commission, at this point, are rather tepid, and far removed from the actual theater of operations in which 9/11 occurred. The Clinton administration, we are told, attempted to resolve the status of Osama bin Laden via diplomatic approaches to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, with the Saudis spearheading an effort that ended in failure. The preliminary report also chronicles complaints of a lack of military action from some in the Pentagon. But the focus, at least so far, on events in faraway Afghanistan is of little relevance when it comes to understanding what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001. While a key task of the Commission is to recreate the context in which the biggest terrorist attack in American history occurred, this is painting with a very broad brush. The details are lost, yet these are precisely what we need to see in order to understand what hit us, how they hit us, and how to prevent them from ever hitting us again.
The initial findings of the Commission lament the fact that "policy-makers and military officials" – eager to launch an attack on Bin Laden in Afghanistan – "expressed frustration with the lack of actionable intelligence." But the elimination of Bin Laden and his Afghan legions, at that point, would not necessarily have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks. Such an outcome seems highly unlikely, since it assumes the erroneous idea that Al Qaeda is engaged in conventional warfare, with the centralized leadership and hierarchical command structure characteristic of a state. With the leadership gone, the Commission assumes that Al Qaeda would have been unable to carry out operations in the U.S. But by that time, an Al Qaeda cell was already ensconced in the U.S., planning for The Day. The plot was set in motion. What was needed was "actionable intelligence" in America, not Afghanistan.
The "intelligence failure" that made 9/11 possible is routinely explained by U.S. government officials as the result of them not having enough power. If only the draconian strictures of the PATRIOT Act had been in place prior to 9/11 and the government had the unlimited right to spy on us, detain us, and declare us "illegal combatants" at the drop of a hat, they opine, all might have turned out differently. Sounds superficially plausible, except when one considers that there was plenty of actionable intelligence about the 9/11 plotters: there were warnings galore, as we are beginning to discover, not only from foreign intelligence agencies but from our own agents and analysts.
Yes, but these warnings were "nonspecific": that's the standard official excuse. Except it isn't true: the ringleader of the 9/11 plot, Mohammed Atta, was under surveillance by authorities the year before the attacks, in Hamburg, Germany. Atta and his associates were well-known to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, U.S. and foreign, long before the 9/11 terror attacks.
What did they know and when did they know it? That is a key question for the 9/11 Commission to ask, and answer.
What is coming out in the revelations of administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil is that a peculiar fixation on Iraq displaced the threat from Al Qaeda from the day of Dubya's inauguration. Sandy Berger, according to reports by Michael Hirsch and Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, became increasingly focused on the threat of domestic terrorism in the latter days of the Clinton administration, and, in briefing Ms. Rice, emphasized the danger, but to no avail. The effort to root out Bin Laden and his agents was marginalized. Out of 100 meetings of the Bush National Security Council held in the pre-9/11 era, 2 were devoted to the terrorist threat.
Clearly, the Bushies had other things on their minds, namely the invasion of Iraq – an obsession driven by the neoconservative policymakers in the Pentagon and the President himself, which did not abate when Al Qaeda struck, but only seemed to intensify. Instead of correcting their Iraqi-centric orientation, in the wake of 9/11, the Bush White House veered in the opposite direction, going off on what is now widely perceived as a wild tangent: in retrospect, this was not an honest error but a deliberate diversion. Inquiring minds want to know: what are we being diverted away from?
Discovering the answer to that question is what 9/11 revisionism is all about. We cannot begin to understand what happened that fateful day without revising what we think we know – which, at this point, isn't very much. The official story is that the 19 hijackers, without benefit of state sponsorship or the collaboration of any foreign intelligence agency, managed to set up an extensive underground apparatus in the U.S., train as airline pilots, and blend into American society undetected for period of years. All indications of the coming attack were "nonspecific," and there were no clear indication that something big was afoot.
The unofficial story is that the FBI hobbled its own investigation, and didn't understand the law sufficiently to realize that they had the power to act against suspected terrorists. Another level of the unofficial narrative is what appears to have been the deliberate obstruction of vital intelligence intercepted on the eve of September 11.
In the autumn of 2002, Sibel Edmonds, a former translator at the top-secret listening station maintained by the National Security Agency, stepped forward and testified that
"[i]Investigations are being compromised. Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field. Translations are being blocked and circumvented[/i]."
Alarm bells should have gone off in the media as well as the government. According to reports in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and several wire services, the NSA had been blamed for a "glitch" that left two intercepted messages untranslated until September 12: "The match is about to begin," and "Tomorrow is zero hour."
Dick Cheney just about blew another gasket over that leak. He and the neocon cabal at the core of this administration would much prefer to leave the truth in an undisclosed location, rather than give the public even a brief glimpse at the dark prehistory of 9/11. The White House refuses to hand over key documents, most significantly the pertinent daily presidential briefings that are the intelligence community's highest-end product, meant only for the eyes of America's chief executive and his inner circle. Without access to the briefings, however, we can't know if Al Qaeda was even on this administration's radar screen – or what else was going on to distract their attention.
Distraction and diversion: this seems to be the theme, the woof and warp of the Bush administration's strategy when it comes to deflecting any inquiry into the mysteries of 9/11. Bin Laden attacked us, and we attacked … Iraq. We failed to follow up the evidence accumulated in America, and the investigation was obstructed at every turn by top officials still in charge – but this is apparently none of the 9/11 Commission's concern. Their focus, instead, is on providing officials and ex-officials of both parties with election-year platforms from which to exonerate themselves and settle partisan scores.
9/11 revisionism is generally viewed as a disreputable collection of "conspiracy theories." This in spite of the impossibility of framing the 9/11 narrative in any but a conspiratorial context. It was, after all, a conspiracy that led to the wanton murder of over 3000 people in a single horrific day. What is the "war on terrorism" all about – if it is about anything – other than a war against these Islamist conspirators and their accomplices, who don't usually operate right out in the open?
So it turns out that the official 9/11 narrative is itself a conspiracy theory, albeit one of storybook simplicity. Using "fourth generation" military strategy, evading detection over a period as long as 5 years, and mounting a low-tech assault on an overconfident, unsuspecting opponent, Al Qaeda managed to pull off a veritable ballet of simultaneous hijackings, pirouetting in the sky above the Pentagon and the WTC before plunging into history. They executed their plan with perfect precision, and without technical or intelligence assistance from any source other than those directly traceable to Al Qaeda.
The lesson we are expected to learn from the official storybook version is similarly simple-minded and bereft of any complexity: shut up, obey orders, and stop questioning your leaders. The government knows best, so there's no need for you to know all that much.
Without disputing the basic facts – that we were attacked, that Al Qaeda has boasted of its responsibility, and that Bin Laden and his associates are at the center of the terrorist conspiracy – 9/11 revisionism allows for far more complexity. This automatically excludes, I'd like to note, such works as the book by a whacked-out French author that denies the planes ever hit the WTC, or other examples of the Tinfoil Hat Syndrome. These "alternative" theories of 9/11 are basically derived from some parallel universe where the laws of physics (and logic) don't seem to apply. I would call this crackpot genre 9/11 denialism, in that it entirely denies what we do know and tries to construct an "alternative" theory out of thin air.
On the other hand, true 9/11 revisionism seeks to build and expand on what we already know, elaborating on the essential context in which this seminal event took place. Revisionism is not an ideology, or a school of thought: it merely describes the process by which we add to our knowledge of history. In gaining access to new documentary evidence, and collecting corroborated testimony, the conscientious 9/11 researcher is bound to be constantly revising the meaning of this singular event.
For the War Party, 9/11 can have only one meaning, and it has nothing to do with a conscientious devotion to truth. Certainly it disallows complexity.
Who knew? That's what the revisionists want to know.
Who should have known? That's another question the Bushies would rather not have to answer. Yet people are bound to ask it as long as this administration and its allies in the media wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 as the rationale for endless wars, not to mention four more years of our Republican "war President."
In opposition to the court historians, whose "official" version of the 9/11 narrative is tailored to justify and excuse the actions (or non-actions) of the government, the 9/11 revisionists – including especially the families of the people who were killed that day – know that the primary function of official commissions is to cover up the criminal incompetence of our rulers – and that is especially true of this particular Commission. The lesson here is that Government, by its very nature, lives and thrives in secrecy, pulling off its depredations in the dark. Our task is nothing less than to light up the dark corners of the 9/11 mystery, and expose the truth to the light of day.
I have done my own part in carrying out this project, but much remains to be done. Although some allusion to the truth may slip through the cracks, what we can say, with supreme confidence, is that the less we expect of the 9/11 Commission, the less likely we are to be bitterly disappointed. 9/11 revisionism may yet find some outlet, and achieve a major breakthrough, but the Commission, while it may provide for some interesting political theater, is unlikely to provide such a venue.
– [i][b]Justin Raimondo[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/justin/?ar...
|
|
|
| |
| FASCIST SHARON'S ASSASSINATION 'UNLIKELY TO ACHIEVE ITS INTENDED RESULT'! |
| 03.24.04 (5:53 am) [edit] |
[b]Machiavelli in the Middle East [/b]
PARIS -- "It is much safer to be feared than loved," wrote the philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli nearly 500 years ago. That harsh logic can be seen in Israel's assassination Monday of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of the terrorist group Hamas.
It follows that for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, it's better to be seen as ruthless than as weak. That's especially true now, when Sharon plans to make a concession to the Palestinians by withdrawing from settlements in Gaza. The danger in this unilateral withdrawal, one of Sharon's advisers told me several months ago, is that terrorist groups such as Hamas might think they had "won" by forcing an Israeli retreat. Israeli defense analyst Zeev Schiff explained in the online edition of the newspaper Haaretz on Monday: "The message that Israel sent out by assassinating Sheik Ahmed Yassin is that when the disengagement from Gaza is finally implemented, Hamas will not be able to claim that the withdrawal was promoted by the group's operations."
But even Machiavelli believed that intimidation has its limits. Just a few sentences after the famous passage quoted above, he cautioned: "Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred."
By that Machiavellian measure, Sharon has failed. An enraged Hamas has vowed new suicide bombings in retaliation, and governments across the Middle East and Europe issued statements on Monday condemning Israel. "It's unacceptable, it's unjustified and it's very unlikely to achieve its objective," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
But will the Israeli operation work? That's the question a modern Machiavelli would ask. The killing of Sheik Yassin might be justified -- politically if not morally -- if it stopped the spread of the terrorism Yassin had helped foment. But even by this test, the assassination seems unlikely to achieve its intended result.
A pragmatic critique came from Sharon's own interior minister, Avraham Poraz. He explained Monday to Israeli reporters why he voted against the operation in a secret cabinet meeting: "I'm afraid that Hamas's motivation will increase. [Yassin] will become some sort of martyr . . . a national hero for them, and, I'm sorry to say, this won't prevent Hamas from continuing its activities."
Killing the partially blind and paralyzed Yassin "will only reignite and re-energize Hamas," agreed Daoud Kuttab, a prominent Palestinian journalist. "There is nothing in this operationally, except to show they are leaving Gaza strongly, not weakly." And how does Israel imagine that Gaza will be governed once it pulls out? Before the Yassin assassination, Egypt had signaled a willingness to help with security. And Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority had drawn up plans (with the tacit approval of Yassin) for restoring law and order after the Israeli army leaves. Both efforts may now collapse in the uproar over Yassin's death. It's hard to see how Israel will benefit from the resulting anarchy.
So why did Sharon do it? One obvious answer is that he is a gambler. Throughout his career, he has been willing to roll the dice on bold military operations that promise to transform the strategic landscape. That risk-taking instinct is part of Sharon's charisma among Israelis, and it explains his continuing popularity despite his many failures over the years.
But there is a deeper issue, one that goes to the heart of Israel's dilemma in dealing with the Arabs. Sharon symbolizes the belief that the Palestinians can be intimidated by military force -- and that peace will be possible only when they are sufficiently weakened and humbled. If Israel is tough enough, by this logic, it will eventually break the Arabs' will and force them to accept Israel's right to exist.
That rationale sent Israeli tanks rolling into Lebanon 22 years ago, in an operation Sharon believed would break the PLO and open the way to peace. But it didn't work out that way, and many Israelis now agree that the Lebanon war was a costly failure.
It would be fatuous to give the Israelis advice about their security. They live under the shadow of terrorism, and they must find their own solution. But they should consider the evidence of more than two decades that Sharon's approach isn't working. Rather than being humbled into submission, the Palestinians have embraced a strategy of suicidal rage. How will this gruesome cycle of violence end? Today that's impossible to answer. But perhaps both sides could begin by considering the possibility that Machiavelli was wrong. Sometimes it may actually be safer to be loved than feared. An Israel that took risks for peace might find unexpected rewards.
- [i][b]David Ignatius, The Washington Post[/b][/i], http://www.washingtonpost.com...
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA AND SHARON ENGAGED IN 'INTENSIVE & SECRET BARGAINING' OVER PAST MONTHS! |
| 03.24.04 (5:49 am) [edit] |
[b]Mr. Sharon's Solution [/b]
ISRAEL'S ASSASSINATION of the founder and senior leader of Hamas, Sheik Ahmed Yassin, is part of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's attempt to radically reshape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- an initiative that is looking as reckless as it is bold. Mr. Sharon's intention is to scrap a decade of the "peace process" aimed at a negotiated permanent settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, and instead to impose a "long-term interim" solution in which Israel would retreat behind a fortified border of its own choosing. That would involve an evacuation of Israelis from most or all of the Gaza Strip, and Mr. Sharon has recently faced objections that such a withdrawal could leave Hamas in charge, or at least allow the extremist Islamic movement to boast that its suicide bombings had driven Israel out. With the killing of Sheik Yassin, an operation he supervised personally, Mr. Sharon probably hoped to neutralize these problems even while eliminating one of Israel's most implacable enemies.
Though he was wheelchair-bound and nearly blind, Sheik Yassin rightly could be held responsible for a campaign of terrorism that has killed 377 Israelis and wounded more than 2,000 in the past 31/2 years alone. But even in the short term -- Mr. Sharon's usual focus -- the strike against him was risky. The storm of outrage among Palestinians yesterday will almost certainly be followed by an all-out effort by Hamas, and possibly other groups, to kill Israelis; history suggests that some suicide bombers will get through. Egypt and other Arab states may abandon efforts to build up Palestinian security forces and encourage a crackdown on terrorist groups, at least in the short term. Hamas may end up strengthening its position in Gaza, where Sheik Yassin now will be revered as a martyr.
In the longer term, the assassination may prove even more problematic. It's true that Sheik Yassin, like Osama bin Laden, oversaw a terrorist organization, but unlike al Qaeda Hamas is also a religious and social movement that holds the allegiance of a substantial segment of Palestinian society. Part of finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves inducing the fundamentalist Islamic movement to pursue its agenda by peaceful means, as have similar groups in Egypt and Jordan. Some Israelis believed Sheik Yassin was inching in that direction; he recently spoke of accepting a long-term truce with Israel if it withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza. His violent death at Israel's hands seems more likely to postpone rather than accelerate any moderation by his followers.
Mr. Sharon can discount such considerations because he has abandoned the option of negotiating with the Palestinians; instead, for the past several months, he has been engaged in intensive and secret bargaining with the Bush administration. He is pushing for action, and he is in a hurry. His hope is that President Bush will endorse his plan and the United States, at least, will accept Israel's de facto annexation of substantial parts of the West Bank and its encirclement of Jerusalem. Skeptical at first, the administration has been drawn by the prospect that thousands of Jewish settlers would be evacuated from Gaza and parts of the West Bank; a U.S. policy is forming around the Sharon initiative. But yesterday's event should give the administration pause. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice did not condemn the assassination; but she also said Mr. Sharon had not warned the White House in advance. If Mr. Bush agrees to reshape the Israeli-Palestinian landscape with such a partner, he can expect that other surprises will follow.
[i][b]The Washington Post[/b][/i], http://www.washingtonpost.com...
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA/CHENEY SLUTS TO THEIR PIMPS HALLIBURTON, CARLYLE GROUP!!!!! |
| 03.24.04 (5:44 am) [edit] |
[b]CARLYLE GROUP, HALLIBURTON GETTING RICH OFF IRAQ WAR[/b]
Since World War II, dozens of U.S. companies have made a "killing" from military conflict. President Dwight David Eisenhower was the first to refer to these companies as the "military industrial complex." The financial and political clout of these companies has risen and waned through the years, depending on who was in power and what the international climate was like.
Whatever one thinks of the morality or necessity of our war in Iraq, one thing is undeniable: certain well-placed companies are making millions of dollars off the war. Two companies with close ties to the Bush and Cheney families that are reaping huge profits are the Halliburton Company and the Carlyle Group.
The Carlyle Group is so proficient at raking in government contracts that it is often referred to as the "Ex-Presidents Club." Some of the West's biggest and most powerful political leaders are helping to guide Carlyle through the muddy waters of governmental red tape and are reaping huge benefits in the process.
Carlyle's movers and shakers include such heavyweights as Former Secretary of State James Baker, Ex-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, Former President George H.W. Bush, and Former British Prime Minister John Major. President G.W. Bush has also held board membership. What is even more fascinating is that the bin Laden family was an investor in Carlyle.
Carlyle also has direct links to the Saudi royal family and has been directly involved in training Saudi troops to protect oil fields. It also helped build Saudi Arabia's national guard from 26,000 to over 70,000 troops. The link between Carlyle and Saudi Arabia is so strong that some have called Carlyle a "front" organization for the Saudi royal family.
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Carlyle Group has reaped millions of dollars from government contracts on things such as cleaning up anthrax-infected buildings, including the Hart Senate Office Building, making X-ray scanners, providing logistics support to the U.S. military, making metal-bond structures in fighter jets and missiles, and providing employee background checks for the government.
Another well-connected company that is greatly profiting from the Iraq War is Halliburton, a company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney. A Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown and Root, just received a government contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq. According to Forbes Magazine, no other company was even allowed to bid on the contract. This contract alone is worth tens of millions of dollars.
Therefore, while our war in Iraq is costing billions of dollars to America's taxpayers and is also costing many American families the ultimate sacrifice of lost sons and daughters, certain well-connected companies are reaping huge profits and benefits. I sincerely hope and pray that these connections are merely circumstantial and not intentional.
- [i][b]Chuck, Baldwin[/b][/i], http://www.newswithviews.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| REQUIRED READING: DUBYA'S CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE ON TERRORISM |
| 03.24.04 (5:40 am) [edit] |
[b]Dick Clarke Is Telling the Truth
Why he's right about Bush's negligence on terrorism[/b]
I have no doubt that Richard Clarke, the former National Security Council official who has launched a broadside against President Bush's counterterrorism policies, is telling the truth about every single charge. There are three reasons for this confidence.
First, his basic accusations are consistent with tales told by other officials, including some who had no significant dealings with Clarke.
Second, the White House's attempts at rebuttal have been extremely weak and contradictory. If Clarke were wrong, one would expect the comebacks—especially from Bush's aides, who excel at the counterstrike—to be stronger and more substantive.
Third, I went to graduate school with Clarke in the late 1970s, at MIT's political science department, and called him as an occasional source in the mid-'80s when he was in the State Department and I was a newspaper reporter. There were good things and dubious things about Clarke, traits that inspired both admiration and leeriness. The former: He was very smart, a highly skilled (and utterly nonpartisan) analyst, and he knew how to get things done in a calcified bureaucracy. The latter: He was arrogant, made no effort to disguise his contempt for those who disagreed with him, and blatantly maneuvered around all obstacles to make sure his views got through.
The key thing, though, is this: Both sets of traits tell me he's too shrewd to write or say anything in public that might be decisively refuted. As Daniel Benjamin, another terrorism specialist who worked alongside Clarke in the Clinton White House, put it in a phone conversation today, "Dick did not survive and flourish in the bureaucracy all those years by leaving himself open to attack."
Clarke did suffer one setback in his 30-year career in high office, though he doesn't mention it in his book. James Baker, the first President Bush's secretary of state, fired Clarke from his position as director of the department's politico-military bureau. (Bush's NSC director, Brent Scowcroft, hired him almost instantly.) I doubt we'll be hearing from Baker on this episode: He fired Clarke for being too close to Israel—not a point the Bush family's political savior is likely to make in an election season. (For details on this unwritten chapter and on why Clarke hasn't talked to me for over 15 years, click here.)
But on to the substance. Clarke's main argument—made in his new book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, in lengthy interviews on CBS's 60 Minutes and PBS's Charlie Rose Show, and presumably in his testimony scheduled for tomorrow before the 9/11 Commission—is that Bush has done (as Clarke put it on CBS) "a terrible job" at fighting terrorism. Specifically: In the summer of 2001, Bush did almost nothing to deal with mounting evidence of an impending al-Qaida attack. Then, after 9/11, his main response was to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. This move not only distracted us from the real war on terrorism, it fed into Osama Bin Laden's propaganda—that the United States would invade and occupy an oil-rich Arab country—and thus served as the rallying cry for new terrorist recruits.
Clarke's charges have raised a furor because of who he is. In every administration starting with Ronald Reagan's, Clarke was a high-ranking official in the State Department or the NSC, dealing mainly with countering weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Under Clinton and the first year of George W. Bush, he worked in the White House as the national coordinator for terrorism, a Cabinet-level post created specifically for his talents. When the terrorists struck on Sept. 11, Condi Rice, Bush's national security adviser, designated Clarke as the "crisis manager;" he ran the interagency meetings from the Situation Room, coordinating—in some cases, directing—the response.
Clarke backs up his chronicle with meticulous detail, but the basic charges themselves should not be so controversial; certainly, they're nothing new. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill wrote in his book, The Price of Loyalty, that Bush's top officials talked about invading Iraq from the very start of the administration. Jim Mann's new book about Bush's war Cabinet, Rise of the Vulcans, reveals the historic depths of this obsession.
Most pertinent, Rand Beers, the official who succeeded Clarke after he left the White House in February 2003, resigned in protest just one month later—five days before the Iraqi war started—for precisely the same reason that Clarke quit. In June, he told the Washington Post, "The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terror. They're making us less secure, not more." And: "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged, and generally underfunded." (For more about Beers, including his association with Clarke and whether there's anything pertinent about his current position as a volunteer national security adviser to John Kerry's presidential campaign, click here.)
Clarke's distinction, of course, is that he was the ultimate insider—as highly and deeply inside, on this issue, as anyone could imagine. And so his charges are more credible, potent, and dangerous. So, how has Team Bush gone after Clarke? Badly.
To an unusual degree, the Bush people can't get their story straight. On the one hand, Condi Rice has said that Bush did almost everything that Clarke recommended he do. On the other hand, Vice President Dick Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's show, acted as if Clarke were a lowly, eccentric clerk: "He wasn't in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff." This is laughably absurd. Clarke wasn't just in the loop, he was the loop.
Cheney's elaboration of his dismissal is blatantly misleading. "He was moved out of the counterterrorism business over to the cybersecurity side of things ... attacks on computer systems and, you know, sophisticated information technology," Cheney scoffed. Limbaugh replied, "Well, now, that explains a lot, that answer right there."
It explains nothing. First, he wasn't "moved out"; he transferred, at his own request, out of frustration with being cut out of the action on broad terrorism policy, to a new NSC office dealing with cyberterrorism. Second, he did so after 9/11. (He left government altogether in February 2003.)
In a further effort to minimize Clarke's importance, a talking-points paper put out by the White House press office states that, contrary to his claims, "Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank." At the same time, the paper denies—again, contrary to the book—that he was demoted: He "continued to be the National Coordinator on Counter-terrorism."
Both arguments are deceptive. Clarke wasn't a Cabinet secretary, but as Clinton's NCC, he ran the "Principals Committee" meetings on counterterrorism, which were attended by Cabinet secretaries. Two NSC senior directors reported to Clarke directly, and he had reviewing power over relevant sections of the federal budget.
Clarke writes (and nobody has disputed) that when Condi Rice took over the NSC, she kept him onboard and preserved his title but demoted the position. He would no longer participate in, much less run, Principals' meetings. He would report to deputy secretaries. He would have no staff and would attend no more meetings with budget officials.
Clarke probably resented the slight, took it personally. But he also saw it as a downgrading of the issue, a sign that al-Qaida was no longer taken as the urgent threat that the Clinton White House had come to interpret it. (One less-noted aspect of Clarke's book is its detailed description of the major steps that Clinton took to combat terrorism.)
The White House talking-points paper is filled with these sorts of distortions. For instance, it notes that Bush didn't need to meet with Clarke because, unlike Clinton, he met every day with CIA Director George Tenet, who talked frequently about al-Qaida.
But here's how Clarke describes those meetings:
[i][Tenet] and I regularly commiserated that al Qaeda was not being addressed more seriously by the new administration. ... We agreed that Tenet would insure that the president's daily briefings would continue to be replete with threat information on al Qaeda[/i].
The problem is: Nothing happened. (It is significant, by the way, that Tenet has not been recruited—not successfully, anyway—to rebut Clarke's charges. Clarke told Charlie Rose that he was "very close" to Tenet. The two come off as frustrated allies in Clarke's book.)
The White House document insists Bush did take the threat seriously, telling Rice at one point "that he was 'tired of swatting flies' and wanted to go on the offense against al-Qaeda."
Here's how Clarke describes that exchange:
[i]President Bush, reading the intelligence every day and noticing that there was a lot about al Qaeda, asked Condi Rice why it was that we couldn't stop "swatting flies" and eliminate al Qaeda. Rice told me about the conversation and asked how the plan to get al Qaeda was coming in the Deputies' Committee. "It can be presented to the Principals in two days, whenever we can get a meeting," I pressed. Rice promised to get to it soon. Time passed[/i].
The Principals meeting, which Clarke urgently requested during Bush's first week in office, did not take place until one week before 9/11. In his 60 Minutes interview, Clarke spelled out the significance of this delay. He contrasted July 2001 with December 1999, when the Clinton White House got word of an impending al-Qaida attack on Los Angeles International Airport and Principals meetings were called instantly and repeatedly:
[i]In December '99, every day or every other day, the head of the FBI, the head of the CIA, the Attorney General had to go to the White House and sit in a meeting and report on all the things that they personally had done to stop the al Qaeda attack, so they were going back every night to their departments and shaking the trees personally and finding out all the information. If that had happened in July of 2001, we might have found out in the White House, the Attorney General might have found out that there were al Qaeda operatives in the United States. FBI, at lower levels, knew [but] never told me, never told the highest levels in the FBI. ... We could have caught those guys and then we might have been able to pull that thread and get more of the conspiracy. I'm not saying we could have stopped 9/11, but we could have at least had a chance[/i].
That's what Clarke says is the tragedy of Bush's inaction, and nobody in the White House has dealt with the charge at all.
[i][b]Slate[/b][/i], http://slate.msn.com/id/20976...
|
|
|
| |
| ... THE BUSHIES TREASONOUS 9/11 REVISIONISM ... |
| 03.24.04 (5:30 am) [edit] |
[b]9/11 Revisionism
It's the only way we'll get at the truth [/b]
"They will never give the full story" – that's what former Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission in protest over White House stonewalling, said to Amy Goodman on the "Democracy Now" radio program. But of course not. The Bushies would just as soon commit collective suicide. Just as we had to find out on our own the truth about the Iraq war – that there were no WMD, no links to Al Qaeda, no unmanned drones ready to strike American cities with God-knows-what: it was all a lie – so a similar revisionism is necessary when it comes to examining what happened on 9/11, and why.
Indicative of the Bush administration's implacable hostility to any revisionist trends when it comes to this sensitive subject is National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice's bizarre refusal to show up at the public hearings of the Commission. She demurs on the somewhat murky grounds that her testimony might "set a bad precedent" by violating the doctrine of the "separation of powers." It is hard to make out what this might possibly mean, except that our rulers have now completely separated themselves from the principles of open government and the rule of law. As for setting a precedent, any sign of cooperation from this government in the 9/11 inquiry would be a first.
This administration has put every hurdle in the way of the 9/11 Commission, much to the dismay of the 9/11 families, and the reticence of the Bush camp naturally provokes the question: what do they have to hide? Suspicion heightens when we see those Bush ads touting the President's leadership during the dark aftermath of the attacks. George W. Bush is campaigning as a "war President," whose steely leadership in the aftermath of a monstrous terrorist assault deserves to be rewarded with a second term. But if 9/11 is going to be the centerpiece of the President's reelection campaign, then why are we not supposed to look too closely at the event that gave him more gravitas than he might otherwise have acquired on his own?
The findings of the Commission, at this point, are rather tepid, and far removed from the actual theater of operations in which 9/11 occurred. The Clinton administration, we are told, attempted to resolve the status of Osama bin Laden via diplomatic approaches to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, with the Saudis spearheading an effort that ended in failure. The preliminary report also chronicles complaints of a lack of military action from some in the Pentagon. But the focus, at least so far, on events in faraway Afghanistan is of little relevance when it comes to understanding what happened in New York City on September 11, 2001. While a key task of the Commission is to recreate the context in which the biggest terrorist attack in American history occurred, this is painting with a very broad brush. The details are lost, yet these are precisely what we need to see in order to understand what hit us, how they hit us, and how to prevent them from ever hitting us again.
The initial findings of the Commission lament the fact that "policy-makers and military officials" – eager to launch an attack on Bin Laden in Afghanistan – "expressed frustration with the lack of actionable intelligence." But the elimination of Bin Laden and his Afghan legions, at that point, would not necessarily have prevented the 9/11 terror attacks. Such an outcome seems highly unlikely, since it assumes the erroneous idea that Al Qaeda is engaged in conventional warfare, with the centralized leadership and hierarchical command structure characteristic of a state. With the leadership gone, the Commission assumes that Al Qaeda would have been unable to carry out operations in the U.S. But by that time, an Al Qaeda cell was already ensconced in the U.S., planning for The Day. The plot was set in motion. What was needed was "actionable intelligence" in America, not Afghanistan.
The "intelligence failure" that made 9/11 possible is routinely explained by U.S. government officials as the result of them not having enough power. If only the draconian strictures of the PATRIOT Act had been in place prior to 9/11 and the government had the unlimited right to spy on us, detain us, and declare us "illegal combatants" at the drop of a hat, they opine, all might have turned out differently. Sounds superficially plausible, except when one considers that there was plenty of actionable intelligence about the 9/11 plotters: there were warnings galore, as we are beginning to discover, not only from foreign intelligence agencies but from our own agents and analysts.
Yes, but these warnings were "nonspecific": that's the standard official excuse. Except it isn't true: the ringleader of the 9/11 plot, Mohammed Atta, was under surveillance by authorities the year before the attacks, in Hamburg, Germany. Atta and his associates were well-known to law enforcement and intelligence agencies, U.S. and foreign, long before the 9/11 terror attacks.
What did they know and when did they know it? That is a key question for the 9/11 Commission to ask, and answer.
What is coming out in the revelations of administration insiders like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil is that a peculiar fixation on Iraq displaced the threat from Al Qaeda from the day of Dubya's inauguration. Sandy Berger, according to reports by Michael Hirsch and Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, became increasingly focused on the threat of domestic terrorism in the latter days of the Clinton administration, and, in briefing Ms. Rice, emphasized the danger, but to no avail. The effort to root out Bin Laden and his agents was marginalized. Out of 100 meetings of the Bush National Security Council held in the pre-9/11 era, 2 were devoted to the terrorist threat.
Clearly, the Bushies had other things on their minds, namely the invasion of Iraq – an obsession driven by the neoconservative policymakers in the Pentagon and the President himself, which did not abate when Al Qaeda struck, but only seemed to intensify. Instead of correcting their Iraqi-centric orientation, in the wake of 9/11, the Bush White House veered in the opposite direction, going off on what is now widely perceived as a wild tangent: in retrospect, this was not an honest error but a deliberate diversion. Inquiring minds want to know: what are we being diverted away from?
Discovering the answer to that question is what 9/11 revisionism is all about. We cannot begin to understand what happened that fateful day without revising what we think we know – which, at this point, isn't very much. The official story is that the 19 hijackers, without benefit of state sponsorship or the collaboration of any foreign intelligence agency, managed to set up an extensive underground apparatus in the U.S., train as airline pilots, and blend into American society undetected for period of years. All indications of the coming attack were "nonspecific," and there were no clear indication that something big was afoot.
The unofficial story is that the FBI hobbled its own investigation, and didn't understand the law sufficiently to realize that they had the power to act against suspected terrorists. Another level of the unofficial narrative is what appears to have been the deliberate obstruction of vital intelligence intercepted on the eve of September 11.
In the autumn of 2002, Sibel Edmonds, a former translator at the top-secret listening station maintained by the National Security Agency, stepped forward and testified that
"[i]Investigations are being compromised. Incorrect or misleading translations are being sent to agents in the field. Translations are being blocked and circumvented[/i]."
Alarm bells should have gone off in the media as well as the government. According to reports in the Washington Post, the Washington Times, and several wire services, the NSA had been blamed for a "glitch" that left two intercepted messages untranslated until September 12: "The match is about to begin," and "Tomorrow is zero hour."
Dick Cheney just about blew another gasket over that leak. He and the neocon cabal at the core of this administration would much prefer to leave the truth in an undisclosed location, rather than give the public even a brief glimpse at the dark prehistory of 9/11. The White House refuses to hand over key documents, most significantly the pertinent daily presidential briefings that are the intelligence community's highest-end product, meant only for the eyes of America's chief executive and his inner circle. Without access to the briefings, however, we can't know if Al Qaeda was even on this administration's radar screen – or what else was going on to distract their attention.
Distraction and diversion: this seems to be the theme, the woof and warp of the Bush administration's strategy when it comes to deflecting any inquiry into the mysteries of 9/11. Bin Laden attacked us, and we attacked … Iraq. We failed to follow up the evidence accumulated in America, and the investigation was obstructed at every turn by top officials still in charge – but this is apparently none of the 9/11 Commission's concern. Their focus, instead, is on providing officials and ex-officials of both parties with election-year platforms from which to exonerate themselves and settle partisan scores.
9/11 revisionism is generally viewed as a disreputable collection of "conspiracy theories." This in spite of the impossibility of framing the 9/11 narrative in any but a conspiratorial context. It was, after all, a conspiracy that led to the wanton murder of over 3000 people in a single horrific day. What is the "war on terrorism" all about – if it is about anything – other than a war against these Islamist conspirators and their accomplices, who don't usually operate right out in the open?
So it turns out that the official 9/11 narrative is itself a conspiracy theory, albeit one of storybook simplicity. Using "fourth generation" military strategy, evading detection over a period as long as 5 years, and mounting a low-tech assault on an overconfident, unsuspecting opponent, Al Qaeda managed to pull off a veritable ballet of simultaneous hijackings, pirouetting in the sky above the Pentagon and the WTC before plunging into history. They executed their plan with perfect precision, and without technical or intelligence assistance from any source other than those directly traceable to Al Qaeda.
The lesson we are expected to learn from the official storybook version is similarly simple-minded and bereft of any complexity: shut up, obey orders, and stop questioning your leaders. The government knows best, so there's no need for you to know all that much.
Without disputing the basic facts – that we were attacked, that Al Qaeda has boasted of its responsibility, and that Bin Laden and his associates are at the center of the terrorist conspiracy – 9/11 revisionism allows for far more complexity. This automatically excludes, I'd like to note, such works as the book by a whacked-out French author that denies the planes ever hit the WTC, or other examples of the Tinfoil Hat Syndrome. These "alternative" theories of 9/11 are basically derived from some parallel universe where the laws of physics (and logic) don't seem to apply. I would call this crackpot genre 9/11 denialism, in that it entirely denies what we do know and tries to construct an "alternative" theory out of thin air.
On the other hand, true 9/11 revisionism seeks to build and expand on what we already know, elaborating on the essential context in which this seminal event took place. Revisionism is not an ideology, or a school of thought: it merely describes the process by which we add to our knowledge of history. In gaining access to new documentary evidence, and collecting corroborated testimony, the conscientious 9/11 researcher is bound to be constantly revising the meaning of this singular event.
For the War Party, 9/11 can have only one meaning, and it has nothing to do with a conscientious devotion to truth. Certainly it disallows complexity.
Who knew? That's what the revisionists want to know.
Who should have known? That's another question the Bushies would rather not have to answer. Yet people are bound to ask it as long as this administration and its allies in the media wave the bloody shirt of 9/11 as the rationale for endless wars, not to mention four more years of our Republican "war President."
In opposition to the court historians, whose "official" version of the 9/11 narrative is tailored to justify and excuse the actions (or non-actions) of the government, the 9/11 revisionists – including especially the families of the people who were killed that day – know that the primary function of official commissions is to cover up the criminal incompetence of our rulers – and that is especially true of this particular Commission. The lesson here is that Government, by its very nature, lives and thrives in secrecy, pulling off its depredations in the dark. Our task is nothing less than to light up the dark corners of the 9/11 mystery, and expose the truth to the light of day.
I have done my own part in carrying out this project, but much remains to be done. Although some allusion to the truth may slip through the cracks, what we can say, with supreme confidence, is that the less we expect of the 9/11 Commission, the less likely we are to be bitterly disappointed. 9/11 revisionism may yet find some outlet, and achieve a major breakthrough, but the Commission, while it may provide for some interesting political theater, is unlikely to provide such a venue.
– [i][b]Justin Raimondo[/b][/i], http://antiwar.com/justin/?ar...
|
|
|
| |
| WHITE HOUSE IN ROW OVER 9/11 EVIDENCE - WHY WON'T RICE TESTIFY???? |
| 03.24.04 (5:22 am) [edit] |
[b]White House in row over September 11 evidence [/b]
The White House was facing a crisis in confidence yesterday over its handling of the al-Qaida threat prior to September 11, as a public inquiry into the attacks demanded to question George Bush's national security adviser.
The September 11 commission insisted that Condoleezza Rice appear at today's session, even though the Bush administration has warned that a public grilling of a member of presidential staff would breach constitutional protocol.
The standoff with the inquiry could damage the White House's popularity in a tightly contested presidential campaign, in which President Bush is concentrating on his reputation as a decisive wartime leader.
The commission is due to submit its final report on July 26, just before the Democratic party's convention.
Ms Rice has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration after the publication of a White House memoir by the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.
Mr Clarke portrayed Ms Rice as ill-informed about the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaida. He said she "gave me the impression she had never heard the term before".
He said that in an early meeting in January 2001, in which he tried to make her realise the extent of the danger, she changed the subject and later decided to exclude Mr Clarke from top level meetings and downgrade his counter-terrorism security group.
The White House has launched a media counter- offensive to rebut Mr Clarke's claims, with Ms Rice appearing on five talkshows. In one interview, Ms Rice said: "Dick Clarke was counter-terrorism tsar for a long time with a lot of attacks on the United States.
"What he was doing was - what they were doing apparently was not working. We wanted to do something different."
Speaking during a cabinet meeting, President Bush denied that he ignored the threat from al-Qaida.
"The facts are these: [CIA director] George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11, we would have acted," he said.
However, members of the September 11 commission, formally known as the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States, were furious that Ms Rice had taken such a high public profile after refusing to appear before a public session of the inquiry. Timothy Roemer, a Democratic commissioner, held up a copy of Mr Clarke's book at one point, saying: "I would hope that this discussion would not be for the airwaves ... but belongs in this hearing room tomorrow."
Such demands were greeted by applause from relatives of victims of September 11. The White House is already under fire from relatives for using scenes from Ground Zero in its political campaign advertising.
It has also had a run-in with the commission before over sharing information.
The disputes have led to the commission issuing two subpoenas and threatening several more.
An initial offer by the president to spend an hour with senior members of the commission behind closed doors also provoked outrage and the White House has since signalled it might be flexible over the duration of the interview. The commission yesterday closely questioned officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations over their failure to take decisive measures against al-Qaida after the 1998 bombing of US embassies in east Africa and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
[i][b]Guardian UK[/b][/i], http://www.guardian.co.uk/sep...,11209,1176591,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| RICHARD CLARKE DEFENDS 9/11 ALLEGATIONS -- BUSHIES LIES AND SMEARS NOT 'STICKING'!!!!!! |
| 03.24.04 (5:20 am) [edit] |
[b]Ex-White House aide defends 9/11 allegations[/b]
[b]NEW YORK (CNN) -- Former White House counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of going on the offensive against him to "divert attention from the truth" that the administration did "virtually nothing about al Qaeda prior to September 11, 2001."[/b]
President Bush, however, said his administration would have acted if he'd known of a pending strike by the terror group.
"[CIA Director] George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America," the president said.
"And had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to target New York City on September 11, we would have acted."
But Bush did not comment specifically on Clarke's charge that the administration wrongly focused on Iraq after the 9/11 attacks. In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke asserts that Bush sought to connect Iraq to the attacks, even though there was no evidence of any such connection.
Clarke defended himself Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."
"The White House is papering over facts, such as in the weeks immediately after 9/11, the president signed a national security directive instructing the Pentagon to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, even though they knew at the time -- from me, from the FBI, from the CIA -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11," Clarke said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Clarke never mentioned his concerns about the administration's strategy, even as he left the White House.
"There was no mention of the grave concerns he claims to have had on the war on terrorism or what we were doing to confront the threat posed by Iraq, by the former regime," McClellan said.
Clarke is a 30-year White House veteran, having served Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton before taking on his role in the current administration.
He referred to Bush's own comments to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, author of "Bush at War," in which the president said he "didn't have a sense of urgency" about Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda.
"They're trying to divert attention from the truth here," Clarke said. "And they've got all sorts of people on the taxpayers' rolls going around attacking me and attacking the book and writing talking points and distributing them to radio talk shows and whatnot around the country."
Senior administration officials told CNN that President Bush personally signed off on the strategy to aggressively rebut charges by Clarke.
It's not the first time the Bush White House has gone on the offensive over critical comments by a former insider. Top administration figures were active in rebutting allegations in a book by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill but not with the same energy.
Officials said the different approach stems from Clarke's potentially explosive charge that the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if Bush and other leading figures in the administration had taken a more urgent interest in the al Qaeda threat.
On Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made various news media appearances defending the administration, while other administration officials did the same in news conferences.
Rice, whom Clarke says ignored his memo requesting an "urgent" meeting on the al Qaeda threat in January 2001, accused Clarke of "retrospective rewriting of history."
"To somehow suggest that the attack on 9/11 could have been prevented by a series of meetings -- I have to tell you that during that period of time, we were at battle stations," she said.
Cheney told conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh: "The only thing I can say about Dick Clarke is he was here throughout those eight years going back to 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center, in [1998] when the [U.S.] embassies were hit in east Africa, in 2000, when the USS Cole was hit.
"The question that has to be asked is, 'What were they doing in those days when he was in charge of counterterrorism efforts?'"
Clarke answered Cheney's question Tuesday. During the Clinton administration, he said, al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of "fewer than 50 Americans," and Clinton responded with military action, covert CIA action and by supporting United Nations sanctions.
"They stopped al Qaeda in Bosnia," Clarke said, "They stopped al Qaeda from blowing up embassies around the world." (Clarke transcript)
"Contrast that with Ronald Reagan, where 300 [U.S. soldiers] were killed in [a bombing attack in Beirut,] Lebanon, and there was no retaliation," Clarke said. "Contrast that with the first Bush administration where 260 Americans were killed [in the bombing of] Pan Am [Flight] 103, and there was no retaliation."
"I would argue that for what had actually happened prior to 9/11, the Clinton administration was doing a great deal," Clarke said. "In fact, so much that when the Bush people came into office, they thought I was a little crazy, a little obsessed with this little terrorist bin Laden. Why wasn't I focused on Iraqi-sponsored terrorism?"
On Limbaugh's program Cheney said Clarke "wasn't in the loop" on major decisions and may hold a personal grudge against Rice. He said Clarke may have wanted a more "prominent position." Clarke has denied any such motive for his book.
Clarke called Rice's contention that he never offered a plan against al Qaeda "counterfactual." "We presented the plan to her ... before she was even sworn into office," Clarke said.
Rice has characterized as "ridiculous" Clarke's statement in his book that she seemed unaware of al Qaeda until he told her about it.
"I wasn't born yesterday when Clarke briefed me," she said Monday. "This wasn't an issue of who knew about al Qaeda, but what we were going to do about al Qaeda."
[i][b]CNN[/b][/i], http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...
|
|
|
| |
| WHITE HOUSE PANICKY OVER 9/11 EVIDENCE: AND DUMB-DUBYA & SLUT-RICE REFUSE TO TESTIFY!!!!! |
| 03.24.04 (5:13 am) [edit] |
[b]WHAT ARE DUMB-DUBYA & SLUT-RICE HIDING???? BOTH THESE TRAITORS REFUSE TO TESTIFY!!!!!
[u]White House in row over September 11 evidence [/u][/b]
The White House was facing a crisis in confidence yesterday over its handling of the al-Qaida threat prior to September 11, as a public inquiry into the attacks demanded to question George Bush's national security adviser.
The September 11 commission insisted that Condoleezza Rice appear at today's session, even though the Bush administration has warned that a public grilling of a member of presidential staff would breach constitutional protocol.
The standoff with the inquiry could damage the White House's popularity in a tightly contested presidential campaign, in which President Bush is concentrating on his reputation as a decisive wartime leader.
The commission is due to submit its final report on July 26, just before the Democratic party's convention.
Ms Rice has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration after the publication of a White House memoir by the president's former top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.
Mr Clarke portrayed Ms Rice as ill-informed about the seriousness of the threat posed by al-Qaida. He said she "gave me the impression she had never heard the term before".
He said that in an early meeting in January 2001, in which he tried to make her realise the extent of the danger, she changed the subject and later decided to exclude Mr Clarke from top level meetings and downgrade his counter-terrorism security group.
The White House has launched a media counter- offensive to rebut Mr Clarke's claims, with Ms Rice appearing on five talkshows. In one interview, Ms Rice said: "Dick Clarke was counter-terrorism tsar for a long time with a lot of attacks on the United States.
"What he was doing was - what they were doing apparently was not working. We wanted to do something different."
Speaking during a cabinet meeting, President Bush denied that he ignored the threat from al-Qaida.
"The facts are these: [CIA director] George Tenet briefed me on a regular basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America and had my administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New York City on September 11, we would have acted," he said.
However, members of the September 11 commission, formally known as the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States, were furious that Ms Rice had taken such a high public profile after refusing to appear before a public session of the inquiry. Timothy Roemer, a Democratic commissioner, held up a copy of Mr Clarke's book at one point, saying: "I would hope that this discussion would not be for the airwaves ... but belongs in this hearing room tomorrow."
Such demands were greeted by applause from relatives of victims of September 11. The White House is already under fire from relatives for using scenes from Ground Zero in its political campaign advertising.
It has also had a run-in with the commission before over sharing information.
The disputes have led to the commission issuing two subpoenas and threatening several more.
An initial offer by the president to spend an hour with senior members of the commission behind closed doors also provoked outrage and the White House has since signalled it might be flexible over the duration of the interview. The commission yesterday closely questioned officials from the Clinton and Bush administrations over their failure to take decisive measures against al-Qaida after the 1998 bombing of US embassies in east Africa and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.
[i][b]U.K. Guardian[/b][/i], http://www.guardian.co.uk/sep...,11209,1176591,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| REPUGLICANS DON'T WANT TRUTH ABOUT 9/11 REVEALED!!!!!!! |
| 03.24.04 (5:09 am) [edit] |
As many of you know, Bush claimed that he supported an extension of the 9/11 Commission's study of why the September 11th terrorist attacks took place. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress, including Speaker Hastert, have decided they do not want to extend that deadline, fearful that an extension could hurt Bush politically.
For any logical person, Bush only asked for an extension to make it look good for himself, he never meant anything. Bush can get anything he wants through Congress, but he can't extend a commission investigating the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
USA Today reports that a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert on Wednesday said of the debate over extending the deadline: "It's over." Hastert says he doesn't want this to become "political football", but by not allowing the truth to be revealed and giving the commission adequate time, he has underminded national security and historical accuracy.
Right now, the commission will pre-maturely release its final report in May, giving Republicans months to slander what the truth is. The extension would have allowed it to report in late July, giving it two months to continue their investigation and interview former President Clinton and President Bush.
"To say that politics is going to stand in the way of national security is just disgusting," Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband died at the World Trade Center, told a newspaper. "It's not our fault that we're in an election year. President Bush could have established this commission Sept. 12, 2001."
In fact, both former President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore have agreed to be interviewed by the entire commission. President Bush has refused to be interviewed with the entire commission, instead insisting on a one hour interview with the chair and co-chair of the commission.
The panel's work has been delayed several times by disputes over access to sensitive material. In July, chairman Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, said the CIA, Justice Department, Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security were stonewalling.
For months the panel wrestled with the administration over who could see top-secret briefings given to Mr. Bush in the days prior to Sept. 11, 2001. It was resolved this month, with a few panel members getting permission to see the briefings.
The commission recently criticized national security adviser Condoleezza Rice for refusing to testify at an upcoming public hearing. "We are disappointed by this decision," the statement read. "Although we have met privately with Dr. Rice, we believe the nation would be well served by the contribution she can make to public understanding of the intelligence and policy issues being examined by the Commission."
"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," Kean, again a Republican, said. "This was not something that had to happen."
|
|
|
| |
| HYPOCRITICAL REPUGLICANS WEAK ON TERRORISM: WHILE THEY'RE OBSESSED WITH SEX!!!!! |
| 03.24.04 (5:07 am) [edit] |
[b]CLINTON TRIED TO FIGHT TERRORISM, BUT THE NEO-CON, FASCIST REPUGS WERE OBSESSED WITH LEWINSKY AND BRINGING CLINTON DOWN. THE NEO-CON REPUGS ARE TRAITORS.
THE DEMOCRATS WANTED TO FOCUS ON TERRORISM, THE ECONOMY AND GLOBAL ISSUES, BUT THE RIGHT-WING HYPOCRITICAL REPUGS ARE TERRIFIED OF GAY-MARRIAGE ...[/b]
[u][b]Clinton: I Wanted to Bomb Khandahar[/b][/u]
Ex-President Bill Clinton racheted up his rhetoric on Friday in order to convince an audience that he did everything possible to stop terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, claiming that he had considered invading Afghanistan with attack helicopters and weighed a plan to bomb bin Laden's hideout in Khandahar. [At the time, the Republicans refused to support Clinton and were focused on Lewinsky.]
"I actually trained people to do this. We trained people," Clinton told a Long Island Association luncheon crowd in Woodbury, New York.
"But in order to do it we would have had to take them in on attack helicopters 900 miles from the nearest boat, maybe illegally violating the airspace of people if they wouldn't give us approval."
Clinton said the option to bomb Khandahar was considered because they had tracked bin Laden to a compound in the city.
"As far as we knew, he never went back to his training camp. So the only place bin Laden ever went that we knew was occasionally he went to Khandahar, where he always spent the night in a compound that had 200 women and children.
"So I could have, on any given night, ordered an attack that I knew would kill 200 women and children, that had less than a 50 percent chance of getting him," the ex-president explained.
Clinton said that from a post-9-11 perspective he might have been wrong not to order the bombing. "But at the time we didn't think [bin Laden] had the capacity to do that," he added.
Contrary to the accounts of a number of former White House aides who described him as distracted by his scandals and dismissive of the terrorist threat, Clinton told the Long Island audience, "A lot of people thought I was too obsessed by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda."
As for the failure of August 1998 cruise missile attacks he launched on bin Laden's Khost encampment, Clinton said he believed the terrorist mastermind was tipped off just hours ahead of time.
"I think whoever told us he was going to be there told somebody who told him that our missiles might be there," the ex-president said, adding, "I think we were ratted out."
Clinton also defended his administration against charges that it refused to accept Sudan's offer to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. six years ago.
"In the period when the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again, they released [bin Laden]. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him - though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America.
"So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan."
Clinton said that by 1999 he began to consider options like the helicopter attack and the bombing of Khandahar.
"So I tried hard [because] I always thought this guy was a big problem."
He also pointedly reminded the audience that for its first eight months, the Bush administration was no more successful in getting bin Laden than he had been.
"Apparently the options I had were the options that the president and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Powell and all the people involved had for the first eight months, until Sept. 11 changed everything."
But, said Clinton, "I did the best I could with him. I do not believe, based on what options were available to me, that I could have done much more than I did."
Sounding like a man thoroughly haunted by the failure to eliminate the notorious terrorist, the ex-president added, "Obviously, I wish I'd been successful. I tried a lot of different ways to get bin Laden 'cause I always thought he was a very dangerous man."
Clinton's long peroration on bin Laden came during a pre-screened question-and-answer session following a speech in which he argued that America should mount a second Marshall Plan to save Mideast nations from the scourge of terrorism.
Though the event was promoted as likely to be sold out, the ballroom at Woodbury's Crest Hollow Country Club was not quite full, with approximately 800 people on hand to hear Clinton speak. Many left before the question-and-answer session had ended.
Clinton's speech was closed to the press except for a pre-approved group of reporters ([b][i]NewsMax.com attended via alternate credentials[/i][/b]). http://www.newsmax.com/showin...
|
|
|
| |
| BEFORE 9/11 DUBYA LET OSAMA BIN LADEN 'OFF-THE-HOOK'-- IT'S CARLYLE GROUP, STUPID! |
| 03.24.04 (4:58 am) [edit] |
[b]IT'S CARLYLE GROUP, STUPID! Exposed: The Carlyle Group ... http://www.tblog.com/template...
Missed Opportunity
Officials: Bush Administration Was Slow to Approve Drones to Kill Bin Laden[/b]
W A S H I N G T O N, June 24— When President Bush took office in January 2001, the White House was told that Predator drones had recently spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times and officials were urged to arm the unmanned planes with missiles to kill the al Qaeda leader.
But the administration failed to get drones back into the Afghan skies until after the Sept. 11 attacks later that year, current and former U.S. officials say.
Top administration officials discussed the mission to kill bin Laden as late as one week before the suicide attacks on New York and Washington, but they had not yet resolved a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators and whether the missiles would be sufficiently lethal, officials told The Associated Press.
In the month before that meeting, the Pentagon and CIA successfully tested an armed Predator on at least three occasions — including once when it destroyed a mockup home resembling an Afghan structure bin Laden supposedly used, the officials said.
[b]An Important Role in the War on Terror[/b]
The disappearance in 2001 of U.S. Predators from the skies over Afghanistan is discussed in classified sections of Congress' report into pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures and is expected to be examined by an independent commission appointed by the president and Congress, officials said.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, the CIA put the armed drones into the sky within days — and they soon played an important role in one of the early successes of the war on terror.
In November 2001, a drone helped confirm a high-level al Qaeda meeting in Kabul, Afghanistan, and joined in an attack that killed bin Laden military chief Mohammed Atef, according to officials familiar with the attack.
Nearly a dozen current and former senior U.S. officials described to AP the extensive discussions in 2000 and 2001 inside the Clinton and Bush administrations about using an armed Predator to kill bin Laden. Most spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the classified nature of the information. Two former national security aides also cite some of the discussion inside the Bush White House in a recent book they published on terrorism.
The officials said that within days of President Bush taking office in January 2001, his top terrorism expert on the National Security Council, Richard Clarke, urged National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to resume the drone flights to track down bin Laden, citing the successes of late 2000.
The drones were one component of a broader plan that Clarke, a career government employee, had devised in the final days of the Clinton administration to go after al Qaeda after the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. Clinton officials decided just before Christmas 2000 to forward the plan to the incoming Bush administration rather than implement it during Clinton's final days, the officials said.
[b]Seeking a More Lethal Weapon[/b]
Propeller-driven Predators first flew for the military in July 1995 over Bosnia, but early versions couldn't transmit high-quality live video. The Air Force gradually improved camera resolution and first successfully fired a Hellfire missile from a Predator on Feb. 16, 2001.
By summer 2001, the Predator was armed for another test in the Nevada desert that destroyed a mockup of a home bin Laden was suspected of using in Afghanistan, Clarke told executives in a recent speech at a technology conference.
Some U.S. officials, however, worried that an anti-tank missile with just a 27-pound warhead might not be powerful enough to kill everyone inside a building, and the military worked to modify the warhead to be more lethal, officials said.
Cruise missile warheads, by comparison, weigh 1,000 pounds, and traditional bombs typically range from 500 to 2,000 pounds.
Hellfire missiles were attached to the drone after unarmed Predators flown by the CIA from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan spotted a man that several U.S. intelligence analysts believed was bin Laden, or his trademark Japanese truck, as many as three times in September and October 2000, the officials said.
"They were operating them before the United States military was involved … and doing a good job," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said, explaining why CIA operated the armed drones in Afghanistan. "And so rather than changing that, we just left it."
[b]Incorporated into Strategy[/b]
During the fall 2000 sightings, the United States was unable to launch a strike with submarine-based cruise missiles in time to kill bin Laden, officials said.
With powerful winter winds over the mountains affecting the drones' flights, the Predators were taken out of action in Afghanistan after October 2000 and retrofitted with weapons. One was repaired after it crashed on landing, sparking debate whether CIA or the Pentagon would pay the damage. Officials said they planned to put the drones back into the air as early as March 2001 after the winds subsided.
Of 11 successful Predator flights sent across the mountains from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan in September and October 2000, three spotted a person that several U.S. intelligence analysts concluded was bin Laden.
"Different people came to different conclusions. You couldn't see facial characteristics. But there were several who concluded it was bin Laden," one senior U.S. official said, explaining those assessments were based on size, clothing, a beard and human intelligence.
The Predators, however, were not put back in the air before Sept. 11.
Officials said the delay was due in part to arming the Predator with enough lethal force and resolving the debate over which agency was legally and practically best equipped to carry out an attack.
Another official said the CIA was opposed in the interim to running too many unarmed Predator flights for fear that would lead Afghan and al Qaeda leaders to be on the lookout for the drones and to flee sites before bombs or missiles could be launched.
"The agency wanted to keep it under wraps and catch them by surprise once they were armed," the official explained.
That official noted that during one of the unarmed 2000 Predator flights, MiG jets were scrambled by Afghanistan's then-ruling Taliban government and they tried unsuccessfully to shoot down one of the drones. Another time, al Qaeda operatives spotted a drone and pointed to it, officials said.
A former administration official said U.S. officials watched some of the Predator missions live on a television screen inside CIA headquarters, including the one in which Taliban pilots roared past.
[b]Whose Purview?[/b]
After Clarke's briefing in January, the drone plan was discussed again in late April by national security deputies and the test on the mockup of bin Laden's home was conducted in July. A Bush administration official said Rice was generally supportive of the idea as part of a broader strategy.
At a White House meeting of Bush's national security principals on Sept. 4, 2001, senior officials discussed several ideas, including use of the drones, as they finalized a plan to accelerate efforts to go after al Qaeda amid signs of a growing threat of a domestic attack.
Among those present were Rice, CIA Director George Tenet, soon-to-be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Clarke, then Bush's anti-terrorism chief inside the White House.
Though CIA had operated the unmanned Predators in Afghanistan in 2000, Tenet expressed strong reservation about his agency running the armed drones for an attack mission, suggesting it was the purview of the military, according to officials who witnessed or were briefed about the meeting.
"Generally it was understood [inside CIA] that aircraft firing weapons is the province of the military. This was a discussion about what the appropriate agency was to carry out the mission, but it was not a matter of the technology," said one official familiar with Tenet's comments at the meeting.
Defense officials suggested they be given an objective — kill bin Laden — and be left to make their own decisions about whether to use a drone or other weapons like cruise missiles and B-1 bombers, officials said.
Targeting bin Laden was legally permitted under secret orders and presidential findings that Clinton had signed.
Officials at the Sept. 4 meeting put off recommending the armed drone as a solution. Instead, they finalized a series of other measures to rout al Qaeda from its base in Afghanistan, including re-arming the rebel Northern Alliance.
Those recommendations were being forwarded from Rice to Bush when the Sept. 11 hijackers struck, officials said.
[i][b]ABC, The Associated Press[/b][/i]. http://abcnews.go.com/section...
|
|
|
| |
| WILLFUL CARNAGE: UNIVERSAL JUSTICE IS NOT A DREAM |
| 03.23.04 (2:19 pm) [edit] |
[b]Universal Justice Is Not A Dream [/b]
The invasion of Iraq, now in its second year, was "organised with lies", says the new Spanish prime minister. Does anyone doubt this any more? And yet these proven lies are still dominant in Australia. Day after day, their perpetrators seek to obfuscate and justify an unprovoked, illegal attack that killed up to 55,000 people, including at least 10,000 civilians: that every month causes the death and injury of 1,000 children from exploding cluster bombs: that has so saturated Iraqi towns and cities with uranium that American and British soldiers are warned not to go where Iraqi children play, for fear of contamination.
Set that carnage against the Madrid atrocity. Terrible though that act of terrorism was, it was small compared with the terrorism of the American-led "coalition". Yes, terrorism. How strange it reads when it describes the actions of "our" governments. So saturated are we in the west in the devilry of third world tyrants (most of them the products of Western imperialism) that we have lost all sense of the enormous crime committed in our name.
This is not rhetoric. In 1946, the judges who tried the German leadership at Nuremberg called the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country "the supreme international war crime". That principle guided more than half a century of international law, until Bush and Blair and Howard tore it up, covering their actions with a litany of lies. On February 4 last year, in a speech lasting less than an hour, John Howard referred more than 30 times to the "threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. He offered authoritative detail: that Iraq's "arsenal of chemical and biological weapons [was] intact" and was a "massive program". All of this was false.
Ray McGovern, one of the CIA's most senior analysts and a personal friend of George Bush Senior, told me: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard". Set that truth against the present carnage in Iraq, and set it against the willful destruction that preceded it, which was barely reported in Australia. The UN's two senior officials in Iraq in the 1990s, Denis Halliday and Hans Von Sponeck, both assistant secretaries general of the United Nations, have described a "genocidal embargo" imposed by America under a UN flag of convenience, aided and abetted by Australia. "Almost a million Iraqis died as a direct result," Halliday told me, "including at least half a million children. The UNICEF studies are on the record. It was US policy to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, such as the water supply, which killed thousands of infants. By the time Bush invaded, a once prosperous country was a stricken nation."
In fact, UN records show that up to July 2002, more than $US5 billion worth of humanitarian aid, approved by the UN Security Council and paid for by Iraq, was blocked by the United States.
How many Australians are aware of this and their government's complicity? Howard sent RAN ships to police what in reality was a medieval-style siege. Who dared listen to Halliday, Von Sponeck and other distinguished witnesses that it was this terrible siege that actually reinforced Saddam's rule and prevented the Iraqi people from getting rid of him? Who, among those who point almost gleefully to the mass graves of Saddam's tyranny, ever tell their readers that the greatest mass graves are those of Iraqi forces in the south whose uprising in 1991 was encouraged by the Americans, who then denied them minimum support, even access to their own arsenals, and watched from aircraft as they were slaughtered? President Bush senior decided he wanted to keep Saddam Hussein in power at his pleasure, and the bravest Iraqis paid with their lives.
All this has been suppressed in Australia while the latest lies are channelled and amplified by journalists. I am not referring to the usual far-right windbags in the press, but those broadcasters who believe sincerely they are being objective. When a dissenting voice such as mine (representing the views of a great many Australians) was allowed a fleeting appearance on [i]ABC[/i] television on March 10, absurd protests the next day by both the foreign minister and the deputy prime minister and their tut-tutting media court underlined the sheer rarity of genuine debate in the Australian media. Yesterday's Insiders on the [i]ABC[/i] excelled itself with interviews with Alexander Downer (Tweedledum) and Gerard Henderson (Tweedledee). How frightened of informed opinion they are. By constantly framing the national debate in the terms and cliches of mendacious power, journalists collude with it, censoring by omission.
Do they ever consider that the very notion of a "war on terror" is absurd when the power in Washington claiming to combat terror has run an empire of terror: Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and now Haiti, again: to name but a few. By comparison Al-Qaeda is a lethal flea. The true danger for the world is where a rampant superpower will strike next: look out Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, even China.
As the prisoners begin to struggle home from the American concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay (except for two Australians, deserted by their government), the scale of the crime is emerging. We now know that the British military command virtually refused to send troops to Iraq until Blair gave them a guarantee they would not be prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court. Blair's guarantee was worthless. And that frightens the British establishment, and the Australian establishment, too. Unlike the United States, Britain and Australia are signatories to the ICC.
The times are changing; Washington-manipulated show trials of third world dictators are giving way to the promise of universal justice, however tenuous that may seem. The dock may well await those westerners who bring mass terrorism to faraway countries, then watch it blow back in our faces. Like Al-Qaeda, they should not be allowed to get away with it.
[b]By John Pilger[/b], http://www.zmag.org/content/s...
|
|
|
| |
| DUBYA'S 'TALL TALE' (LIE): FART-FRAT-BOY-THE-BUFFOON IGNORES REAL TERRORISTS IN FAVOR OF WAR-FUCKS |
| 03.23.04 (7:02 am) [edit] |
[b]The attack on Iraq is another chapter of terrorism from the West[/b]
[u][b]Al-Qaeda is but a lethal flea when it comes to mass killings, writes John Pilger[/b][/u]. http://smh.com.au/articles/20...
The invasion of Iraq was "organised with lies", says the new Spanish Prime Minister. Does anyone doubt this any more? And yet these proven lies are still dominant in Australia. Day after day, their perpetrators seek to obfuscate and justify an unprovoked, illegal attack that killed at least 10,000 civilians, a figure confirmed last week by Amnesty International.
Set that carnage against the Madrid atrocity. Terrible though that act of terrorism was, it was small compared with the terrorism of the American-led "coalition". Yes, terrorism. How strange it reads when it describes the actions of "our" governments. So saturated are we in the West in the devilry of Third World tyrants (most of them the products of Western imperialism) that we have lost all sense of the enormous crime committed in our name.
This is not rhetoric. In 1946, the judges who tried the German leadership at Nuremberg called the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country "the supreme international war crime". That principle guided more than half a century of international law, until Bush and Blair and Howard tore it up, covering their actions with lies. In Washington, one of the CIA's most senior analysts and a friend of George Bush snr, Ray McGovern, told me: "It was 95 per cent charade. And they all knew it: Bush, Blair, Howard."
The real reasons for this are suppressed in Australia while the latest lies are channelled and amplified by journalists who affect a spurious national "debate". I am not referring to the usual parochial windbags of the far right, but those broadcasters who may sincerely believe they are being objective. When a dissenting voice such as mine, representing the views of a great many Australians, is allowed a fleeting appearance on ABC TV, ridiculous protests the next day by both the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and their tut-tutting media court underline the rarity of genuine debate in the Australian media.
Sunday's Insiders, on the ABC, excelled itself with interviews with Alexander Downer (Tweedledum) and Gerard Henderson (Tweedledee). How frightened of informed, alternative opinion they are as they perpetuate the orthodoxy that invading Iraq was necessary. By constantly framing the national debate in the terms and cliches of mendacious power, journalists actively collude with it, censoring by omission.
Do they ever consider that the very notion of a "war on terrorism" is absurd when the power in Washington claiming to combat terrorism has run an empire of terrorism: Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua and now Haiti, again? By comparison, al-Qaeda is a lethal flea. The true danger for the world lies in a rampant superpower and where it will strike next: Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, even China?
As the prisoners begin to struggle home from the US concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay, the scale of the crime is emerging. We now know that the British military command virtually refused to send troops to Iraq until Blair gave them a guarantee they would not be prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court. Blair's guarantee was worthless. That frightens the British establishment, and the Australian establishment, too. Unlike the US, Britain and Australia are signatories to the ICC.
The times are changing; Washington-manipulated show trials of Third World dictators are giving way to the promise of universal justice, however tenuous; and the dock awaits those Westerners who bring mass terrorism to faraway countries, then watch it blow back in our faces. Like al-Qaeda, they should not be allowed to get away with it.
|
|
|
| |
| GEORGE W. BUSH, AN INSANE WHACK JOB |
| 03.23.04 (6:53 am) [edit] |
[b]Why George Bush is Insane [/b]
"Earlier this year I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after-effects were something of a nightmare. I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive. However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence; the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world. "If you are not with us you are against us" President Bush has said. He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you.
The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.
The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.
The three thousand deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to.
The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through US and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to.
The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf War, is never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high. Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood.
The two hundred thousand deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the Indonesian government but inspired and supported by the United States are never referred to.
The half a million deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by the United States are never referred to.
The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer referred to.
The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to.
But what a misjudgement of the present and what a misreading of history this is.
People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. They strike back.
The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.
In Britain the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in itself preposterous.
How will - or can - public vigilance be embodied? Wearing a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas? However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to the United States. Apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented. But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of school children travel on the London Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the underground himself.
The planned war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator.
The United States and Britain are pursuing a course which can lead only to an escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe.
It is obvious, however, that the United States is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this - not just to take control of Iraqi oil - but because the US administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government but seem to be helpless.
Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist US power Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's definition (as quoted in the Guardian newspaper in London recently) "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".
[i][b]By Harold Pinter[/b][/i], http://www.theassassinatedpre...
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-FASCIST HYPOCRITES SMEAR EVERY WHISTLE-BLOWERS EXPOSING LIAR BUSH!!!!! |
| 03.23.04 (6:48 am) [edit] |
[b]NEO-FASCIST RIGHT-WING HYPOCRITES ARE OUT TO SMEAR ANYONE WHO EXPOSES DUBYA, THE LIAR[/b].
Joshua Micah Marshall writes more about the significance of the Clarke revelations (that Bush's people wanted to bomb Iraq immediately after 9/11, and had to be talked out of it by the terrorism experts who pointed out that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks). There's also some good stuff about Philip D. Zelikow, who was a member of the Bush transition team, and sat in on the anti-terrorism briefings at which the outgoing Clinton people begged the Bush team to pay more attention to al Qaeda. And, surprise, surprise, he's now executive director of the 9/11 commission. Can you say "conflict of interest"? What do you think the chances are that Zelikow will probe deeply into the question of whether he made a horrible mistake in ignoring the warnings of the Clinton folk? Anyway: Richard A. Clarke said in a television interview...
This is the big one. This is the granddaddy of Bush's accountability problems: The way he ignored the threat of al Qaeda in the months leading up to the 9/11 attacks. Marshall writes:
It is fair to say that anyone who has seriously reported on this issue, or has read a lot of the good reporting on it, already knows this: namely, that the incoming Bush administration downgraded the attention given to terrorism and al Qaida specifically in the last years of the Clinton administration, and this after being warned by out-going members of the Clinton team that combatting al Qaida should be at the top of their agenda.
In short, they pushed al Qaida and a lot of resources aimed at fighting al Qaida to the backburner until the whole thing blew up in their faces on 9/11.
Their focus, as we've noted before, was on the centrality of states rather than shadowy transnational terrorist groups -- thus their preoccuption with issues like national missile defense.
In any case, as I say, we've basically known this.
But it's another thing to have the person who was there at the center of the action as NSC counter-terrorism czar -- both under Clinton and Bush -- saying on camera that the president ignored terrorism and al Qaida right up until the day of the attacks. Clarke was there. In fact, to the extent that Bush and Rice and Cheney and the rest of the team were ignoring the issue, it would have been Clarke's urgent warnings they were ignoring -- since he was the head of counter-terrorism on the NSC staff.
Now the Bush administration are conducting a smear campaign, but there are others who are telling similar stories of intimidation and an out-of-touch inner-circle in the White House fixated upon Iraq and ignoring threats to the U.S.
|
|
|
| |
| CLARKE PULLS THE PLUG: THE FASCIST BUSH GANG CAN'T SHUT EVERYONE UP!!!!!! |
| 03.23.04 (6:43 am) [edit] |
[b]Clarke Pulls The Plug [/b]
The gurgling sound you hear is the Bush administration swirling down the tubes. Richard Clarke basically flushed them yesterday. Go out and buy his book, and give a copy to all your friends. A more devastating insider's account of the administration's high crimes and misdemeanors on Iraq couldn't be written—unless Paul Wolfowitz comes over to our side. It's a stunning, all-encompassing damnation of the neocon clique and their Iraq obsession.
From[i] The Washington Post [/i]account:
[i]In the first minutes after hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, Rice placed Clarke in her chair in the Situation Room and asked him to direct the government's crisis response. The next day, Clarke returned to find the subject changed to Iraq.
"I realized with almost a sharp physical pain that [Defense Secretary Donald H.] Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq," he writes.[/i]
Bush—who probably didn't know that Iraq and Iran were two different countries—personally pressed Clarke to find a link between 9/11 and Iraq, a spurious connection that was pushed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz nonstop. "See if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred," Bush said "testily" to Clarke. Five months before 9/11, Wolfowitz was harping on the threat of "Iraqi terrorism," of which there'd been exactly zero.
[i]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, Clarke wrote, scowled and asked, "why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." When Clarke told him no foe but Al Qaeda "poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States," Wolfowitz is said to have replied that Iraqi terrorism posed "at least as much" of a danger. FBI and CIA representatives backed Clarke in saying they had no such evidence.[/i]
But Clarke, and countless others, point out that Iraq hadn't been involved in terrorism since 1993, when reports of the alleged assassination attempt against Bush I in Kuwait surfaced. (Even that was a hoax, as Seymour Hersh definitely showed in the New Yorker years ago.)
What a pleasure to watch the Bush team, led by Condi Rice and Stephen Hadley, squirming and lying in trying to respond.
[i][b]The Dreyfuss Report, TomPaine[/b][/i], http://tompaine.com/blog.cfm/...
|
|
|
| |
| AMERICANS STARTING TO SEE THAT DUBYA IS A LIAR AND FASCIST THUG |
| 03.23.04 (6:38 am) [edit] |
[b]Debating 9/11[/b]
Richard Clarke is an angry man. Mr. Clarke, the former counterterrorism coordinator for the Bush and Clinton administrations, seemed to be seething during an interview on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, when he said the president had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." The more colorful anecdotes he offered up in support of that judgment are bound to be cited over and over in the presidential campaign — like his contention that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld argued for post-9/11 strikes against Iraq rather than the Taliban's Afghanistan by saying "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan."
Mr. Clarke is scheduled to testify this week before the special presidential commission investigating the 9/11 attacks, as are members of the Clinton administration who warned top Bush officials during the transfer of power about the terrorism threat. The hearings are sure to produce fireworks — both from Mr. Bush's critics and his defenders, who will demand to know why the Democratic administration didn't act more aggressively against Al Qaeda if the Clinton White House was so aware of the threat it posed to the United States.
Since the hearing is taking place during a presidential campaign, it's unlikely that a spirit of bipartisan decorum will prevail. Nevertheless, it's good to bring this debate out in the open. The memories of Sept. 11, 2001, are still so raw that it has been hard to regard anything about that terrible day as a subject for political debate. But now President Bush is running for re-election on his record in responding to the terrorist attack, and that transition needs to take place.
Richard Clarke has served honorably under presidents of both parties, going back to Ronald Reagan. His words are very much worth listening to, but it's not necessary to find all of his criticisms of the current administration equally persuasive. Mr. Clarke's central complaint — that the president failed to respond to his urgent request for a cabinet-level meeting on terrorism until days before 9/11 — is far from conclusive evidence that the administration failed to take the threat seriously until disaster struck.
The most persuasive part of the critique by the former anti-terrorism czar concerns the administration's obsession with Iraq. Mr. Clarke says he and intelligence experts repeatedly assured top officials — and Mr. Bush himself — that Iraq was not involved in 9/11 or in supporting Al Qaeda. This fall, when the public has to judge Mr. Bush's decision to invade, voters will know that the president's own counterterrorism adviser had warned him that he was on the wrong track.
[i][b]N.Y. Times[/b][/i], http://nytimes.com/2004/03/23...
|
|
|
| |
| EX-AIDE CONFIRMS THAT FASCIST LIAR BUSH WANTED 9/11-IRAQ LINK FABRICATED |
| 03.23.04 (6:31 am) [edit] |
[b]Ex-Aide: Bush Sought Iraq-9/11 Link[/b]
Almost immediately after the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes, President Bush ordered Richard Clarke, his top counterterrorism advisor, to search for evidence that Iraq was complicit in the attacks, Clarke said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.
"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this,' " Clarke told the CBS program "60 Minutes." "He never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this."
Clarke said Bush demanded the analysis even after Clarke and other officials, including CIA Director George J. Tenet, repeatedly told Bush and others in the White House that there were no significant ties between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
Clarke's statement meshes with other accounts portraying senior Bush administration officials as eager to make Iraq a target of the war on terrorism, but it is the first to suggest that this was also among the president's first impulses.
Clarke served as the National Security Council's top counterterrorism official from 1998 until Oct. 9, 2001, when he became a special advisor on cyberspace security. He resigned from that post early last year after 30 years of government service.
The White House said it could find no record of that meeting between Clarke and Bush.
The administration also put out a lengthy statement rebutting charges Clarke has made in recent interviews and in a book he has written that is sharply critical of Bush's handling of the war on terrorism.
The book, "Against All Enemies," which is to be released today, is already fueling Democratic attacks on Bush, whose reelection campaign has sought to cast him as a resolute leader in the war on terrorism.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who is vacationing in Ketchum, Idaho, said Sunday: "Several chapters [of the book] are being FedExed out to me here. I would like to read them before I make any comments."
A commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is to hold hearings this week. Clarke is among current and former officials, including Tenet and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, scheduled to testify.
In his book, Clarke says that the Bush White House ignored repeated warnings about the threat from Al Qaeda and that it was focused on attacking Saddam Hussein long before Sept. 11. It also accuses the administration of undermining the war on terrorism by diverting resources to the war with Iraq.
The Bush administration rejected the criticism, saying it began planning a strategy to confront Al Qaeda immediately upon taking office.
Describing the meeting with Bush, Clarke said he told the president that "there's no connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Clarke said his team produced two reports that concluded there were no ties, but said he didin't believe they were delivered to Bush because "he wouldn't like the answer."
[i][b]By Greg Miller, L.A. Times[/b][/i], http://www.latimes.com/news/n...,1,2996536.story?coll=la-headlines-n ation
|
|
|
| |
| INSIDERS CONFIRM THAT BUSH IS A LIAR AND A VENGEFUL THUG |
| 03.23.04 (6:28 am) [edit] |
[b]Lifting the Shroud[/b]
From the day it took office, [i]U.S. News & World Report [/i]wrote a few months ago, the Bush administration "dropped a shroud of secrecy" over the federal government. After 9/11, the administration's secretiveness knew no limits — Americans, Ari Fleischer ominously warned, "need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Patriotic citizens were supposed to accept the administration's version of events, not ask awkward questions.
But something remarkable has been happening lately: more and more insiders are finding the courage to reveal the truth on issues ranging from mercury pollution — yes, Virginia, polluters do write the regulations these days, and never mind the science — to the war on terror.
It's important, when you read the inevitable attempts to impugn the character of the latest whistle-blower, to realize just how risky it is to reveal awkward truths about the Bush administration. When Gen. Eric Shinseki told Congress that postwar Iraq would require a large occupation force, that was the end of his military career. When Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV revealed that the 2003 State of the Union speech contained information known to be false, someone in the White House destroyed his wife's career by revealing that she was a C.I.A. operative. And we now know that Richard Foster, the Medicare system's chief actuary, was threatened with dismissal if he revealed to Congress the likely cost of the administration's prescription drug plan.
The latest insider to come forth, of course, is Richard Clarke, George Bush's former counterterrorism czar and the author of the just-published "Against All Enemies."
On "60 Minutes" on Sunday, Mr. Clarke said the previously unsayable: that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed "war president," had "done a terrible job on the war against terrorism." After a few hours of shocked silence, the character assassination began. He "may have had a grudge to bear since he probably wanted a more prominent position," declared Dick Cheney, who also says that Mr. Clarke was "out of the loop." (What loop? Before 9/11, Mr. Clarke was the administration's top official on counterterrorism.) It's "more about politics and a book promotion than about policy," Scott McClellan said.
Of course, Bush officials have to attack Mr. Clarke's character because there is plenty of independent evidence confirming the thrust of his charges.
Did the Bush administration ignore terrorism warnings before 9/11? Justice Department documents obtained by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, show that it did. Not only did John Ashcroft completely drop terrorism as a priority — it wasn't even mentioned in his list of seven "strategic goals" — just one day before 9/11 he proposed a reduction in counterterrorism funds.
Did the administration neglect counterterrorism even after 9/11? After 9/11 the F.B.I. requested $1.5 billion for counterterrorism operations, but the White House slashed this by two-thirds. (Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has been attacking John Kerry because he once voted for a small cut in intelligence funds.)
Oh, and the next time terrorists launch an attack on American soil, they will find their task made much easier by the administration's strange reluctance, even after 9/11, to protect potential targets. In November 2001 a bipartisan delegation urged the president to spend about $10 billion on top-security priorities like ports and nuclear sites. But Mr. Bush flatly refused.
Finally, did some top officials really want to respond to 9/11 not by going after Al Qaeda, but by attacking Iraq? Of course they did. "From the very first moments after Sept. 11," Kenneth Pollack told [i]"Frontline[/i]," "there was a group of people, both inside and outside the administration, who believed that the war on terrorism . . . should target Iraq first." Mr. Clarke simply adds more detail.
Still, the administration would like you to think that Mr. Clarke had base motives in writing his book. But given the hawks' dominance of the best-seller lists until last fall, it's unlikely that he wrote it for the money. Given the assumption by most political pundits, until very recently, that Mr. Bush was guaranteed re-election, it's unlikely that he wrote it in the hopes of getting a political job. And given the Bush administration's penchant for punishing its critics, he must have known that he was taking a huge personal risk.
So why did he write it? How about this: Maybe he just wanted the public to know the truth.
[i][b]Dr. Paul Krugman, N.Y. Times[/b][/i], http://nytimes.com/2004/03/23...
|
|
|
| |
| DUMB-DUBYA FLIP-FLOPS ON ISRAELI NEO-NAZI ASSASSINATION |
| 03.23.04 (6:25 am) [edit] |
[b]A Day When the White House Reversed Stand on the Killing[/b]
The Bush administration, in the middle of its own campaign to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and others it considers terrorists, found itself on Monday in the position of being pressed by world opinion to criticize as "deeply troubling" Israel's assassination of the leader of Hamas.
In a startling sequence of events unusual even for the ups and downs of Middle East policy, the administration began the day by avoiding direct criticism of Israel after the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin in Gaza City.
Instead, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said in a morning television interview that Hamas was a terrorist organization, that Sheik Yassin had been involved in terrorist actions and that it was "very important that everyone step back and try now to be calm in the region."
Only later in the afternoon did the administration shift tone and criticize Israel's action as harmful to the cause of bringing peace to the region.
"We're deeply troubled by this morning's events in Gaza," said Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, adding that all sides, including Israel, should now "exercise maximum restraint" and "do everything possible to avoid any further actions that would make more difficult the restoration of calm."
An administration official acknowledged that a change of tone was chosen only after a torrent of criticism erupted throughout the Arab world, and was then joined by condemnations from the European Union and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war.
Those officials said the Hamas leader's death had jolted administration officials just as they were accelerating plans for a highly visible and politically significant visit by Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to Washington, perhaps next month.
The Sharon visit is intended to work out the details of Israel's plan to withdraw militarily from Gaza and to pull out more than 7,000 settlers, and to carry out similar but unspecified withdrawals from at least parts of the West Bank.
The Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, conferred Monday with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to plan for the visit. Dov Weissglas, Mr. Sharon's chief of staff, was due in Washington on Tuesday for the same mission.
The administration has sent word to Israel that it welcomes the Gaza withdrawal plan, provided it is carried out carefully. Among the administration's concerns are that Hamas not be allowed to fill the vacuum in Gaza once the pullout occurs.
Administration officials also say they do not want Israel to walk away entirely from negotiating with the Palestinian Authority on the withdrawal, and it has been trying to encourage talks with Egypt and Jordan to help with security in the areas from which Israelis pull out.
Repeating the administration's endorsement on Monday, Ms. Rice said Israel's plans for "disengagement" from Gaza and parts of the West Bank "might provide new opportunities" for peace.
Israeli officials argued Monday that the killing of Sheik Yassin was consistent with its plans for withdrawal, and indeed would make the withdrawal more effective.
Mr. Sharon was concerned, they explained, that the withdrawal would be seen as a retreat that would simply embolden the most radical anti-Israel forces, much as Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 seemed to embolden Hezbollah, the militant group that gets support from Syria and Lebanon.
"What happened in Lebanon was that the withdrawal gave an incentive to every jihadist to attack Israel," an Israeli official said. "Part of the Israeli policy as we move toward disengagement is to make Hamas bleed, so no one can proceed on the assumption that an Israeli withdrawal is a victory for them."
If that was Israel's purpose, it did not seem to bring the desired objective. Administration officials said the assassination was a mistake that would make more difficult any Arab cooperation with the withdrawal, particularly on the part of Jordan and Egypt.
"The disengagement plan is still in the process of formulation," said an administration official. "There are so many questions that have to be answered. But whatever the Israelis do, they can't ignore that there is a partner they have to deal with. That's why we said we were disturbed by the latest action."
Another official said the administration was "shocked" by the news of the assassination.
Arab and American officials said pressure on the White House to take a tougher stand built up throughout the day.
"When you see thousands of people all over the Arab world coming out into the streets, it's hard to ignore that," an administration official said. "It's hard not to say anything about it."
[i][b]By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, N.Y. TIMES[/b][/i], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL'S SECURITY CHIEF OPPOSED FASCIST SHARON'S ASSASSINATION |
| 03.23.04 (6:20 am) [edit] |
[b]Security chief opposed killing[/b]
THE head of Israel's Shin Beth domestic security service, Avi Dichter, opposed today's controversial assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, army radio reported.
The counter-terrorism chief argued that killing the revered wheelchair-bound leader would be "more harmful than useful for Israel", the radio said.
Dichter believed it would have been better to wait for an opportunity to liquidate the entire Hamas leadership in order to "deliver a fatal blow" to the militant Islamist group, responsible for most suicide bombings in Israel.
The crippled Yassin survived a first attempt by Israeli forces to kill him on September 6, 2003.
The assassination was the implementation of Israel's announced policy of decapitating militant organisations in the Gaza Strip following a double suicide bombing in southern Israel a week ago and ahead of a planned pullback from the flashpoint territory.
The twin attacks in the port of Ashdod were jointly claimed by Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militant group linked to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah movement.
[i][b]Agence France-Presse[/b][/i], http://news.com.au/common/sto...,4057,9049290%255E1702,00 .html
|
|
|
| |
| HYPOCRITE & HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATION CRIMINAL: DUBYA, THE MAD KING GEORGE |
| 03.23.04 (6:16 am) [edit] |
[b]Amnesty says US leads in human rights violations following September 11[/b]
The Amnesty International (AI) Report 2002 covers the period from January to December 2001, with a particular focus on the world situation following the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.
The foreword to the report, written by Irene Khan, secretary general of Amnesty, together with most of the introduction, addresses the attitude of governments towards human rights since the launching of the so-called war against terrorism by US President Bush.
Under the heading “Countering the backlash,” Kahn notes that human rights activists now face an uphill battle: “As the ‘war against terrorism’ dominated world news, governments increasingly portrayed human rights as an obstacle to security, and human rights activists as romantic idealists at best, ‘defenders of terrorists’ at worst.”
Leading into this passage she quotes a revealing comment by an unnamed government official: “‘Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York.’ This blunt statement to AI delegates by a senior government official captured the challenge faced by the human rights movement following the events of 11 September 2001.” Amnesty was unable to source the above quotation as Kahn is presently away, but promised to do so as soon as possible. There is no reason to doubt its veracity, however, given that one attack after another on democratic rights has been mounted in the name of combating terrorism.
[b]US human rights violations[/b]
Kahn explains, “the readiness of governments to trade human rights in the interest of security is nothing new,” but the difference today is that this is not done by “autocratic regimes but established democracies in the name of public security.” Heading the list of culprits is the US itself, with Britain also earning dishonourable mention.
The summary introducing the section on the US paints a picture far removed from that presented by Bush in his recent State of the Union address, when he insisted, “America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity” and that these include “the rule of law” and “equal justice.”
AI writes that more than 1,200 people, mainly foreign nationals were detained during investigations into the September 11 attacks. Though public information on these detentions remains scant, it is clear that some were held incommunicado. The report speaks of “Muslim detainees suffering physical or verbal abuse from guards or other inmates while held in local jails and of cruel conditions of confinement, including prolonged solitary confinement, inadequate exercise and the wearing of shackles during non-contact visits.”
In late November last year, the Attorney General revealed that 104 people had been charged with various criminal offences, “many of them minor and one directly related to 11 September, of whom half remain in custody. Another 548 unidentified individuals were held on immigration charges,” the AI report states.
Alongside anti-terrorist legislation that severely curtails human rights and civil liberties, “AI has called for inquiries into several incidents involving the killing of civilians by US and allied forces during military action in Afghanistan and into the killing of hundreds of prisoners in Qala-i-Jhangi fort following an uprising.”
The report continues, “An as yet unknown number of Afghan civilians were killed or injured or had their homes or property destroyed during the US-led coalition bombing which began on 7 October and continued for the rest of the year. AI raised concerns with the US authorities about specific attacks in which civilians were killed and civilian objects were destroyed, urged that investigations be conducted into possible violation of international humanitarian law and called for a moratorium on the use of cluster-weapons. In November, AI called on the USA, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (United Front) and the United Kingdom to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of hundreds of Taleban prisoners and others at Qala-i-Jhangi fort, after an uprising by some Taleban captives was put down by bombing by US warplanes and United front artillery.”
Both the US and British governments denied AI’s request for an investigation into what happened at the Qala-i-Jhangi fort.
[b]Britain also singled out for criticism[/b]
The stance of the Bush administration finds its reflection throughout the globe. Indeed the AI report makes clear that the launch of the US war on terrorism has had a major destabilising effect on world politics. It is broken down into regional sections including the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and Africa. Whatever the region, the assessment notes increased militarism and the systematic abuse of human rights. Khan says in the foreword, “A number of governments jumped on the ‘anti-terrorist’ bandwagon to stifle political dissent.”
Explaining that governments, “rushed through laws formulating new crimes, banning organisations and freezing their assets, curbing civil liberties and reducing the safeguards against human rights violations,” Kahn adds, “Regrettably, a number of these laws used definitions of ‘terrorism’ which were dangerously broad and vague.”
It is indicative that Britain, America’s main ally in the war on terrorism, is also singled out for particular criticism. The section dealing with Britain includes Northern Ireland and a substantial part of the report is given over to the record of human rights violations there. As with America, however, the September 11 attacks have been seized upon to introduce sweeping new legislation that severely curtails democratic rights and civil liberties.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair sought to strengthen Britain’s ties with the US by providing crucial political support to Bush’s war drive. As with Bush, the climate of hysteria produced after the terrorist attacks provided a useful cloak behind which to make inroads into democratic rights and civil liberties within Britain.
The report explains, “In the United Kingdom (UK), the government passed ‘emergency’ legislation which provided for detention of foreign nationals without charge or trial, thereby creating a shadow criminal justice system without the essential safeguards of the formal system. Legislation was passed in the USA allowing for indefinite detention on national security grounds of non-US nationals facing deportation,” Kahn writes.
“The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed in December after less than a month of parliamentary and public scrutiny. The UK derogated from Article 5(t) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 9 of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] in order to allow for indefinite administrative detention. Under the Act, the Secretary of State may order such detention, without charge or trial and without recourse to judicial review, of any non-UK national deemed a ‘suspected international terrorist and national security risk’ on the basis of reasonable suspicion. The evidence would not be subject to public scrutiny or effective challenge. Among other measures, the Act also denies asylum-seekers labelled as ‘terrorist’ the right to have the merits of their claim individually assessed. In December, eight people were detained under the new legislation.” the report says.
In a separate press briefing on anti-terrorism legislation internationally, AI says of the European Union, “The European Commission prepared a proposal for a set of ‘terrorism’ offences that all member states should prohibit. In Amnesty International’s view, some of the proposed offences were excessively broad or too vague and could criminalise peaceful activities. The Commission also proposed an EU arrest warrant and surrender procedures between member states. Aspects of this would infringe human rights guarantees, e.g. not to be extradited to a jurisdiction where the person might face an unfair trial. New measures might prevent people from seeking asylum on the basis that they may be involved in ‘acts of terrorism’ without fully considering their claims in fair and satisfactory procedures.”
Kahn goes on to cite many other examples of countries that have imposed repressive and undemocratic legislation, concluding, “the aftermath of 11 September saw a resurgence in the powers of the military. More and more civilians were detained by the military and tried by military courts. Military forces, as well as unaccountable security and intelligence services, were increasingly involved in public security functions and in intelligence operations targeted at the civilian population.”
The “hypocrisy and selectivity of governments,” while not new, “became even clearer in the drive to build an alliance in the ‘war against terrorism’. Governments remained silent on abuses committed by those they counted or sought as allies. The same governments that denounced the human rights abuse of women by the Taleban government of Afghanistan remained silent about the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. Those who condemned human rights violations in Iraq did not protest against human rights violations by Russian troops in Chechnya, or by the authorities in Uzbekistan against Muslims who peacefully practise their faith outside state controls.”
The AI report draws particular attention to the impact of the war on terrorism upon immigrants and asylum seekers. Kahn states that the “tendency... to portray foreigners, particularly refugees and asylum-seekers, as ‘terrorists’” has led to “a refuelling of the fires of racism... People were attacked in the USA, Canada, western Europe, parts of Asia and Africa, not for what they did but for who they were, simply for being a Muslim or Arab or Asian, or even for looking like a Muslim, Arab or Asian.”
[i][b]By Mike Ingram[/b][/i], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
[b]See Also[/b]:
The CIA’s international dirty war, US oversees abduction, torture, execution of alleged terrorists, [20 March 2002], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
The Geneva Convention and the US massacre of POWs in Afghanistan, Statement of the WSWS Editorial Board
[7 December 2001], http://www.wsws.org/articles/...
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-NAZI HERR FUHRER BUSH'S ROAD MAP TO HELL |
| 03.23.04 (6:10 am) [edit] |
[b]Road map's lost route [/b]
On March 14 last year, six days before the Iraq war, Tony Blair was in ebullient mood. US President George Bush had just announced publication of the long-delayed Middle East road map to peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
It was a decision Mr Blair had long been urging on the White House. He was convinced progress towards a two-state solution was vital if the west was to demonstrate its "even-handedness" and commitment to security, democracy and human rights not only in Iraq but also in the key cockpit of the Middle East.
In his attempt to justify Britain's involvement in the looming fight against Saddam, overt American backing for the road map had become almost as important to Mr Blair as obtaining a second UN resolution on Iraq. It was also a test of his influence with the Bush administration.
"I believe the importance of what President Bush announced earlier simply cannot be overstated," Mr Blair said. "The road map represents the will of the international community ... it provides the route to a permanent two-state solution (and) a final and comprehensive settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict by 2005."
This was a prize of enormous value, Mr Blair enthused. "And what I hope people can do is to take this commitment now and hold us to it ... it is something that we are fundamentally committed to."
What a difference a year makes. If the road map were not already dead in the water, then yesterday's assassination by Israel of the Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, may finally have sunk it. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak certainly thinks so. The killing, he said, has "aborted the peace process".
Condemnation of the assassination by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, by Britain's EU partners and other members of the international "quartet" cannot disguise the fact that Mr Blair's high hopes of 12 months ago have again been punctured.
But what is surely also true is that the grounds for optimism expressed by Mr Blair have steadily eroded almost since the moment his press conference ended. The Yassin affair, while momentous, is but the latest blow.
On the American side, Mr Bush's focus on a two-state solution has gradually diminished. "America is committed, and I am personally committed, to implementing our road map toward peace," he declared on March 14. But then came Iraq and all the unanticipated post-war problems that still plague the Americans there.
By last November, Mr Bush was developing a far broader Middle East "vision" in which Palestine was one issue among many. In a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, he vowed to develop "a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East". In this, Palestine had but a walk-on part.
Since then, Mr Bush's grandiose, non-specific ideas have morphed into an even vaguer reform plan entitled the Greater Middle East Initiative. Many in Washington now believe his aim is merely to contain the Israel-Palestine conflict until the November US presidential election is out of the way.
On the ground, in the embattled occupied territories and in Jerusalem's suicide-bombed streets, the road map has meanwhile been slowly dying. By February this year, Mr Straw was grasping at the non-governmental Geneva accord as a way to keep hope alive.
"The peace process is at a fork in the road," Mr Straw warned. "There is a real risk that people on both sides become so hardened ... that they stumble down the other road towards more violence, towards unilateral efforts to redraw borders."
Mr Straw's reference to unilateralism was doubtless deliberate. For in the absence of any road map momentum, and left to his own devices by US inaction, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, was busy drawing his own maps.
One aspect of Mr Sharon's evolving, alternative path was the accelerated construction of a security fence closing off large parts of the West Bank. Another was his failure, although the Palestinians were also to blame, to launch a substantive bilateral dialogue. The latest plan for talks was cancelled last week.
But most importantly, Mr Sharon proposed what is in effect his own made-to-measure, territorial deal, quite separate from (and at odds with) the road map. By suggesting that Israel may vacate Gaza entirely and close some settlements in the West Bank, he appears to have taken all the remaining steam out of US policy as stated with such apparent conviction by Mr Bush 12 months ago.
Indeed, the Americans have almost stopped talking about a viable two-state solution. Separation and disengagement are the new names of the game - and Washington is playing along.
This as much as Sheikh Yassin's assassination may sound the final death-knell for the road map.
[i][b]By Simon Tisdall, Guardian UK[/b][/i], http://www.guardian.co.uk/isr...,2763,1175877,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| NEO-NAZI HERR FUHRER DUBYA FLIP-FLIPS ON ISRAELI ASSASSINATION |
| 03.23.04 (6:07 am) [edit] |
[b]A Day When the White House Reversed Stand on the Killing[/b]
The Bush administration, in the middle of its own campaign to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and others it considers terrorists, found itself on Monday in the position of being pressed by world opinion to criticize as "deeply troubling" Israel's assassination of the leader of Hamas.
In a startling sequence of events unusual even for the ups and downs of Middle East policy, the administration began the day by avoiding direct criticism of Israel after the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin in Gaza City.
Instead, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said in a morning television interview that Hamas was a terrorist organization, that Sheik Yassin had been involved in terrorist actions and that it was "very important that everyone step back and try now to be calm in the region."
Only later in the afternoon did the administration shift tone and criticize Israel's action as harmful to the cause of bringing peace to the region.
"We're deeply troubled by this morning's events in Gaza," said Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, adding that all sides, including Israel, should now "exercise maximum restraint" and "do everything possible to avoid any further actions that would make more difficult the restoration of calm."
An administration official acknowledged that a change of tone was chosen only after a torrent of criticism erupted throughout the Arab world, and was then joined by condemnations from the European Union and Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war.
Those officials said the Hamas leader's death had jolted administration officials just as they were accelerating plans for a highly visible and politically significant visit by Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, to Washington, perhaps next month.
The Sharon visit is intended to work out the details of Israel's plan to withdraw militarily from Gaza and to pull out more than 7,000 settlers, and to carry out similar but unspecified withdrawals from at least parts of the West Bank.
The Israeli foreign minister, Silvan Shalom, conferred Monday with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to plan for the visit. Dov Weissglas, Mr. Sharon's chief of staff, was due in Washington on Tuesday for the same mission.
The administration has sent word to Israel that it welcomes the Gaza withdrawal plan, provided it is carried out carefully. Among the administration's concerns are that Hamas not be allowed to fill the vacuum in Gaza once the pullout occurs.
Administration officials also say they do not want Israel to walk away entirely from negotiating with the Palestinian Authority on the withdrawal, and it has been trying to encourage talks with Egypt and Jordan to help with security in the areas from which Israelis pull out.
Repeating the administration's endorsement on Monday, Ms. Rice said Israel's plans for "disengagement" from Gaza and parts of the West Bank "might provide new opportunities" for peace.
Israeli officials argued Monday that the killing of Sheik Yassin was consistent with its plans for withdrawal, and indeed would make the withdrawal more effective.
Mr. Sharon was concerned, they explained, that the withdrawal would be seen as a retreat that would simply embolden the most radical anti-Israel forces, much as Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 seemed to embolden Hezbollah, the militant group that gets support from Syria and Lebanon.
"What happened in Lebanon was that the withdrawal gave an incentive to every jihadist to attack Israel," an Israeli official said. "Part of the Israeli policy as we move toward disengagement is to make Hamas bleed, so no one can proceed on the assumption that an Israeli withdrawal is a victory for them."
If that was Israel's purpose, it did not seem to bring the desired objective. Administration officials said the assassination was a mistake that would make more difficult any Arab cooperation with the withdrawal, particularly on the part of Jordan and Egypt.
"The disengagement plan is still in the process of formulation," said an administration official. "There are so many questions that have to be answered. But whatever the Israelis do, they can't ignore that there is a partner they have to deal with. That's why we said we were disturbed by the latest action."
Another official said the administration was "shocked" by the news of the assassination.
Arab and American officials said pressure on the White House to take a tougher stand built up throughout the day.
"When you see thousands of people all over the Arab world coming out into the streets, it's hard to ignore that," an administration official said. "It's hard not to say anything about it."
[i][b]By STEVEN R. WEISMAN, N.Y. TIMES[/b][/i], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...
|
|
|
| |
| IRAQ WAR BASED ON LIES: FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT CARTER |
| 03.23.04 (6:03 am) [edit] |
[b]Iraq War Based on Lies: Carter [/b]
LONDON, 23 March 2004 — The war in Iraq was based on a campaign of “lies and misinterpretations” by Washington and London which falsely linked Iraq’s deposed dictator Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, former US President Jimmy Carter was quoted as saying yesterday.
“There was no reason for us to become involved in Iraq recently,” Carter told Britain’s daily The Independent. “That was a war based on lies and misinterpretations from London and from Washington, claiming falsely that Saddam Hussein was responsible for (the) 9/11 attacks, claiming falsely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
“And I think that President (George W) Bush and Prime Minister (Tony) Blair probably knew that many of the allegations were based on uncertain intelligence ...a decision was made to go to war (then people said) ‘let’s find a reason to do so’.”
The 2002 Nopel peace prize winner said he believed that Bush was the prime instigator of the war and Blair let himself be convinced that it was justified.
“I think the basic reason was made not in London but in Washington,” he said. “I think that Bush Jr. was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq.
“I think it was that commitment of Bush that prevailed over, I think, the better judgment of Tony Blair and Tony Blair became an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush policy”.
Carter’s criticism came amid efforts by the White House to downplay accusations by a former top Bush terrorism adviser who accused the current administration of doing a “terrible job” of defending the country against terrorism.
Richard Clarke, who worked at the National Security Council for three US administrations, made the charges in his book “Against All Enemies,” released Monday, and in an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” program.
[i][b]Agence France Presse, Arab News[/b][/i], http://www.aljazeerah.info/23...%20n/Iraq%20War%20Based%2 0on%20Lies%20Carter.htm
|
|
|
| |
| ISRAEL: THE UNMENTIONABLE SOURCE OF TERRORISM IN THE WORLD |
| 03.23.04 (6:01 am) [edit] |
[b]Israel: The Unmentionable Source of Terrorism in the World[/b]
The current threat of attacks in countries whose governments have close alliances with Washington is the latest stage in a long struggle against the empires of the west, their rapacious crusades and domination. The motivation of those who plant bombs in railway carriages derives directly from this truth. What is different today is that the weak have learned how to attack the strong, and the western crusaders' most recent colonial terrorism (as many as 55,000 Iraqis killed) exposes "us" to retaliation.
The source of much of this danger is Israel. A creation, then guardian of the west's empire in the Middle East, the Zionist state remains the cause of more regional grievance and sheer terror than all the Muslim states combined. Read the melancholy Palestinian Monitor on the Internet; it chronicles the equivalent of Madrid's horror week after week, month after month, in occupied Palestine. No front pages in the West acknowledge this enduring bloodbath, let alone mourn its victims. Moreover, the Israeli army, a terrorist organisation by any reasonable measure, is protected and rewarded in the west.
In its current human rights report, the Foreign Office criticises Israel for its "worrying disregard for human rights" and "the impact that the continuing Israeli occupation and the associated military occupations have had on the lives of ordinary Palestinians."
Yet the Blair government has secretly authorised the sale of vast quantities of arms and terror equipment to Israel. These include leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents. No matter that Israel has defied more United Nations resolutions than any other state since the founding of the world body. Last October, the UN General Assembly voted by 144 to four to condemn the wall that Israel has cut through the heart of the West Bank, annexing the best agricultural land, including the aquifer system that provides most of the Palestinians' water. Israel, as usual, ignored the world.
Israel is the guard dog of America's plans for the Middle East. The former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison have described how "two strains of Jewish and Christian fundamentalism have dovetailed into an agenda for a vast imperial project to restructure the Middle East, all further reinforced by the happy coincidence of great oil resources up for grabs and a president and vice-president heavily invested in oil."
The "neoconservatives" who run the Bush regime all ha | |
