CONDOLEEZZA AND
THE CHICKEN HAWKS
(Not a rock group....)
Sightings from The Catbird Seat
~ o ~
August 14, 2008
US: Russia must keep its word
to leave Georgia
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer, 7 minutes ago
The United States challenged Russia to keep its word to end a crushing invasion of U.S.-backed Georgia, siding decisively with the former Soviet republic and rejecting Russian justifications.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, headed for emergency meetings on the crisis in Europe and in the Georgian capital, said Russia's now-weeklong military action in Georgia is a throwback to darker Cold War times.
"The message is that Russia has perhaps not accepted that it is time to move on from the Cold War and it is time to move to a new era in which relations between states are on the basis of equality, and sovereignty and economic integration," Rice said Wednesday.
She met Thursday with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has led the European pressure campaign on Russia, at his summer residence in Toulon, France. From there she was going to Paris to meet with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner; on Friday she is flying to Tbilisi, Georgia.
The Bush administration is reeling from the near collapse of its closest friend among the former Soviet republics, a strategic Black Sea nation that is an emerging pathway for undeveloped energy reserves and that has worn its zeal for America and the West as a badge of honor.
As the United States mustered humanitarian aid for Georgia, President Bush demanded that Russia end all military activity inside its neighbor and withdraw all troops sent in recent days onto Georgian territory.
Bush announced that U.S. military assets and personnel would be deploying into the conflict zone. Though they are only going on a humanitarian mission, he made a point of noting that "we will use U.S. aircraft, as well as naval forces" to distribute supplies. He warned Russia not to impede relief efforts in any way.
All this appeared designed to answer criticism that Bush has not done enough to stand by his 2005 pledge, made from the center of Tbilisi before tens of thousands of citizens, to "stand with" the people of Georgia.
Amid some fear that Russian troops may be setting up for some type of medium-term occupation of parts of Georgia or even have intentions to press on to its capital of Tbilisi, Bush promised Wednesday to "rally the free world in the defense of a free Georgia."
Speaking in grave tones in the Rose Garden, Bush decried Moscow's apparent violation of a cease-fire agreement.
He demanded that Russia "keep its word and act to end this crisis."
"The United States stands with the democratically elected government of Georgia and insists that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia be respected," he said.
The president postponed Thursday's planned start of a two-week Texas vacation for a couple of days to monitor developments.
A Russian military convoy defied a cease-fire agreement Wednesday and rolled through a strategically important city in Georgia, where officials claimed fresh looting and bombing by the Russians and their allies.
The Kremlin announced Thursday that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was meeting with the leaders of Georgia's two separatist provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
Russia and its small neighbor had agreed Tuesday to a French-brokered cease-fire to end the dispute that began over two pro-Russian breakaway territories. The United States accuses Russia of pressing the war far beyond the initial conflict zone and threatening the democratically elected government in Georgia.
"I have to say that the reports are not encouraging about Russia's respect for this cease-fire," Rice said.
U.S. officials have had difficulty determining exactly what's happening on the ground in Georgia, despite considerable intelligence resources. U.S. spy satellites have been repositioned to refocus on the conflict area.
Rice said Moscow is harming its standing in the world and eligibility for global clubs whose eligibility depends on responsible behavior, but she made no explicit threats about U.S. retaliation.
"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten its neighbors, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it," Rice said. "Things have changed."
July 10, 2008
Iran tests more missiles as
U.S. vows to defend allies
By Alistair Lyon
Iran tested more missiles in the Gulf on Thursday, state media said, and the United States reminded Tehran that it was ready to defend its allies.
The United States, which accuses Tehran of seeking nuclear arms, said after Iran test-fired nine missiles on Wednesday that there should be no more such tests if Iran wanted the world's trust. An intelligence official in Washington said there had been a second test and that it was small.
U.S. leaders have not ruled out military options if diplomacy fails to assuage fears about Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran says is only to produce electricity.
Israel, which has long been assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power. Last month it staged an air force exercise that stoked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian nuclear sites.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said he favored diplomatic pressure and sanctions, but: "Israel is the strongest country in the region and has proved in the past it is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake."
Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, has vowed to strike back at Tel Aviv, as well as U.S. interests and shipping, if it is attacked, asserting that missiles fired during war games in the Gulf included some that could hit Israel and U.S. bases in the region.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on a visit to the former Soviet republic of Georgia that no one should doubt Washington's commitment to protect its allies.
"We are also sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and ... the interests of our allies," she said.
Rice said a planned U.S. missile defense shield, to be partly based in the Czech Republic and Poland, would dampen any threat of an attack from Iran. Russia opposes the project.
Iranian state TV and radio said the Revolutionary Guards -- the ideologically driven wing of Iran's armed forces -- had fired ground-to-sea, surface-to-surface and sea-to-air missiles overnight. Long-range missiles were also launched.
"The ... maneuver brings power to the Islamic Republic of Iran and is a lesson for enemies," Guards Commander-in-Chief Mohammad Ali Jafari was quoted as saying.
The missile tests have rattled global oil markets. In late afternoon trading, oil prices surged $6, with some traders talking of a potential third missile test. Crude prices have hit a series of record highs this year partly over Iran....
Iran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz, a vital route for Gulf oil exports, if it is attacked. Thursday's exercises involved divers, speedboats and the launch of a high-speed torpedo called Hout, state media said.
China urged restraint, and did not echo Western rebukes over the missile firings. Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said he welcomed the prospect of fresh talks on the nuclear program. Iran is China's third biggest crude oil supplier.
The United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have offered Iran incentives to curb its nuclear work. Tehran rejects their demand to suspend uranium enrichment.
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana is expected to meet Iranian officials for talks on the package, but no time or place has been announced.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the six powers would be "extremely precise" on the issue of enrichment. "Yes to dialogue, but there must be an answer on uranium enrichment, halting it," he said.
China and Russia, which is building Iran's first, and so far only, nuclear power plant, have been resisting U.S.-led calls for expanding U.N. sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Sanctions have made Western firms increasingly wary of investment. France's Total said on Thursday it would not invest for now in a big gas deal due to the risk. Iran brushed off the impact, saying it has enough cash from oil to carry out the project itself or find other interested parties.
"We will proceed with development with or without them," Iranian Oil Minister Gholamhossein Nozari told journalists when asked about the latest comments from Total....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080710/ts_nm/iran_nuclear_dc_29
January 22, 2008
Study: False statements preceded war
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.
"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.
Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.
The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.
The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.
"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
On the Net:
Center For Public Integrity: http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx
Fund For Independence in Journalism: http://www.tfij.org/
* * * * *
I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis.
The great point is to bring them the real facts.
-- Abraham Lincoln
* * * * *
July 29, 2007
Condi Rice Spurned
by Major Papers
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an opinion piece about Lebanon and offered it to major newspapers both here and abroad.
But in a sign of the major media’s dislike of Bush administration foreign policy, not one of the papers agreed to publish it.
“Think about that — every one of the major newspapers approached refused to publish an essay by the secretary of state,” Joel Brinkley, a professor of journalism at Stanford University, writes in the San Francisco Chronicle. Brinkley suggested Rice’s influence had dwindled.
Rice enlisted the aid of John Chambers, chief executive officer of Cisco Systems, and together they wrote about public/private partnerships that might help rebuild Lebanon following last summer’s conflict there.
Price Floyd, until recently the State Department’s director of media affairs, said the essay was sent to papers including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. When there were no takers, the department tried a foreign newspaper, the Financial Times of London, but again there was no interest.
“As a last-ditch strategy, the State Department briefly considered translating the article into Arabic and trying a Lebanese paper, but finally they just gave up,” writes Brinkley, a former foreign policy correspondent for The New York Times.
“Floyd said: ‘I kept hearing the same thing: There’s no news in this.’ The piece, he said, was littered with glowing references to President Bush’s wise leadership. ‘It read like a campaign document.’”
Brinkley opines that Rice’s waning influence can be attributed in part to her department’s failure to achieve significant positive results, especially regarding Iraq, Iran, Darfur, Russia, and Venezuela.
Recalling a round-the-world trip Brinkley took with Rice soon after she took office 2 1/2 years ago, he said back then crowds enthusiastically greeted Condi, interviewers peppered her with questions about a possible White House run, and “one reporter in India told her she was ‘arguably the most powerful woman in the world.’"
Editor's Note:
Do You Really Know Condi? Find Out the Real Story — Go Here Now.
October 5, 2006
Condi Rice: More Sordid
Than Foley
By Robert Scheer, AlterNet
The Foley cover-up should not be allowed to obscure the latest evidence of administration deceit: that Rice was briefed before 9/11.
They are such liars. And no, I am not speaking only of the dissembling GOP House leaders led by Speaker Dennis Hastert who, out of naked political calculation, covered up for one of their own in the sordid teen stalking case of Rep. Mark Foley.
Call me old school, but I am still more concerned with the Republicans molesting Lady Liberty while pretending to be guarding the nation's security, an assignment that they have totally botched. The news about the Foley cover-up, while important as yet another example of extreme hypocrisy on the part of the Republican virtues police, should not be allowed to obscure the latest evidence of administration deceit as to its egregious ineptness in protecting the nation.
On Monday, a State Department spokesman conceded that then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had indeed been briefed in July 2001 by George Tenet, then-director of the CIA, about the alarming potential for an al-Qaida attack, as Bob Woodward has reported in his aptly named new book, "State of Denial."
"I don't remember a so-called emergency meeting," Rice had said only hours earlier, apparently still suffering from some sort of post-9/11 amnesia that seemed to afflict her during her forced testimony to the 9/11 commission. The omission of this meeting from the final commission report is another example of how the Bush administration undermined the bipartisan investigation that the president had tried to prevent.
Surely lying under oath in what was arguably the most important official investigation in the nation's history should be treated more seriously than the evasiveness in the Paula Jones case that got President Bill Clinton impeached. Nor is it just Rice who should be challenged, for Tenet seems to have provided Woodward with details concerning the administration's indifference to the terrorist threat that he did not share with the 9/11 commission.
In his book, Woodward described an encounter between Rice and Tenet, in a near panic about a rising flood of intelligence warnings just presented to him by top aide Cofer Black. Tenet forced an unscheduled meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001, because he wanted the Bush administration to take action immediately against al-Qaida to disrupt a possible domestic attack.
"Tenet ... decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately. Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away," Woodward reports. "He and Black hoped to convey the depth of their anxiety and get Rice to kick-start the government into immediate action." A mountain of evidence proves that the Bush administration did nothing of the sort.
Now, if Rice truly does not remember that now-confirmed meeting -- which was apparently first reported in the Aug. 4, 2002, issue of Time magazine in an article titled "Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?" -- wouldn't that indicate she didn't take it that seriously? Not remembering confirms her inattention to terror reports at a time the Bush administration was already fixated on "regime change" in Iraq.
Rice is famously sharp and has an awesome memory. Considering the trauma of 9/11 and its effects, it is inconceivable that Rice would not recall such an ominous and prescient briefing by Tenet and Black, especially after the 9/11 commission forced her to document and review her actions in those crucial months.
It is, however, as she stated Monday, "incomprehensible" that she, then the national security advisor to the president and the person most clearly charged with sounding the alarm, would have ignored the threat. But ignore it the administration did, and then later tried to lay the blame on the Clinton administration, which, Rice claimed at the 9/11 commission hearings, lied when it said it had given the incoming White House team an action plan for fighting al-Qaida.
"We were not presented with a plan," Rice infamously argued under questioning from former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., but instead were given a memo with "a series of actionable items" describing how to tackle al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
Such weaseling would be funny if the topic were not so serious. But there is no way Rice can squirm out of this one, despite her impressive track record of calculated distortion on everything from Iraq's nonexistent WMDs to the trumped-up ties between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Can there be any better case for turning over control of at least one branch of Congress to the opposition party so that we might finally have hearings to learn the truth of this matter, which is far more important, and sordid, than the Foley affair?
Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.
< < < FLASHBACK < < <
March 25, 2003
1991: In Few Days, the Mood Shifted
‘WHY HADN’T WE WON YET?’
By Kate Aurthur, New York Times
THE 1991 PERSIAN GULF WAR began at roughly the same moment that the United States first found itself the world’s remaining superpower, and the conflict would provide a ready means for the nation to understand its new stature.
The war delivered – at least in the short term – a certain victory, a popular president and new conclusions about such things as the utility of international coalitions, the role of the media in wartime, and even the wisdom of stopping short of Baghdad and leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
Not surprisingly, those conclusions were recorded in various books written by the stars of the first gulf war – in 1992 by Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkoph (It Doesn’t Take a Hero), in 1995 by Colin L. Powell (My American Journey), and in 1998 by former President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft (A World Transformed).
But as the United States once again finds itself at war with Iraq, some of those conclusions have a new, sometimes eerie resonance amid the failures of diplomacy, the role of the media and the clear pursuit of unfinished business this time around.
Excerpts from the three books follow:
The Media Spectacle
DESERT STORM was the first war fought in the 24-hour news cycle, and CNN negotiated with the Iraqi government to allow its team to stay in Baghdad. Television and print coverage was subject to strict rules by the Pentagon print coverage was subject to strict rules by the Pentagon under the aegis of national security. The reports of journalists in combat zones were reviewed before release.
“I was harsh, but I was also convinced that our own newspaper and TV reports had become Iraq’s best source of military intelligence. We had already cut off all other sources.”
– H. Norman Schwarzkoph
“The euphoria of the first day actually created a problem. Reports by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer from the Pentagon made it seem as if all that remained was to organize the victory parade. I called Pete Williams, the Defense Department’s spokesman. ‘Pete,’ I said, ‘tell Blitzer and these other press guys to cool it. This is the beginning of a war, not the end of a ballgame.’ In this age of instant information, people tended to expect instant result. Over the next few days, the mood shifted quickly from euphoria to a funk. Why hadn’t we won yet? Was something wrong?”
– Colin L. Powell
COALITION BUILDING AND THE U.N.
In the days after Iraq invaded Kuwait, the first United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Iraq passed 14-0. President Bush and his advisers worked to find ways to prevent Saddam Hussein from taking over the oil wells of Saudi Arabia.
“There is a historical Arab propensity to try to work out ‘deals.’ Even though we knew the Saudis well, and trusted them, we could not be completely certain what course they would take. In these early hours of the crisis, with so much going on, I had to wonder if, under pressure, they might be inclined to strike some kind of behind-the-scenes arrangement with Saddam.... We had to have our Arab allies with us, particularly those who were threatened the most – the Saudis.”
– George H.W. Bush
“That, in turn, had led directly to our August discussions of a ‘new world order.’ From that point forward, we tried to operate in a manner that would help establish a pattern for the future. Our foundation was the premise that the United States henceforth would be obligated to lead the world community to an unprecedented degree, as demonstrated by the Iraqi crisis, and that we should attempt to pursue our national interests, wherever possible, within a framework of concert with our friends and the international community.”
– Brent Scowcroft
“‘I’ve already been on the phone with the Arab leaders,’ the president said.... ‘They still tell me they can find an Arab solution.’ He sounded unconvinced. ‘But whatever we do, we’ve got to get the international community behind us.’”
– Colin Powell
“I wanted to make absolutely sure that if we took on Saddam, we would win not only on the battlefield but in the history books – and that included Arab history books. This was not strictly speaking a military concern. But we had to avoid giving the impression that Western ‘colonialists’ had unilaterally imposed their will, and I was determined to plan smart.”
– Norman Schwarzkopf
STOPPING SHORT OF BAGHDAD
After 38 days of the air campaign, the ground war began. Iraqi troops capitulated quickly, and Saddam Hussein ordered a withdrawal from Kuwait. The road from Kuwait City back to Iraq became known as “the Highway of Death,” as it provided a wide-open target for the Air Force to strike as the Iraqi military retreated. The United Nations directive that the coalition forces end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was fulfilled.
“A few hours later Powell called to confirm: ‘The president will make his announcement at 9 o’clock, but we won’t actually stop until midnight. That makes it a 100-hour war.’ I had to hand it to them: They really knew how to package an historic event.”
– Norman Schwarzkopf
“President Bush had taken to demonizing Saddam in public just as he had Manuel Noriega. ‘We are dealing with Hitler revisited,’ he said on one occasion, and described Saddam as ‘a tyrant unmoved by human decency,’ I suggested to Cheney and Scowcroft that they might try to get the president to cool the rhetoric. Not that the charges were untrue, but the demonizing left me uneasy.... Our plan contemplated only ejecting Iraq from Kuwait. It did not include toppling Saddam’s dictatorship. Within these limits, we could not bring George Bush Saddam Hussein’s scalp. And I thought it unwise to elevate public expectations by making the man out to be the devil incarnate and then leaving him in place.”
– Colin Powell
“I will confess that emotionally I, like so many others, would have liked to see Saddam Hussein brought to some form of justice. He may still be.... Despite what we may see in ‘Rambo’ films, catching and bringing to justice someone like Saddam is not a simple task.... I’m not sure that even with a full-scale invasion we would have over found Saddam in the large armed camp that is Iraq.”
– Norman Schwarzkopf
“Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”
– George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft
February 16, 2003
MILLIONS WORLDWIDE RALLY AGAINST WAR
Estimated 750,000 gather in London
to show opposition
By Glenn Frankel, The Washington Post
LONDON - Several million demonstrators took to the streets of Europe and the rest of the world yesterday in a vast wave of protest against the prospect of a U.S.-led war against Iraq.
The largest rallies were in London, Rome, Berlin and Paris – the heart of Western Europe – where the generally peaceful demonstrations illustrated the breadth of opposition to U.S. policies among traditional allies. But there were also protests in dozens of other cities on five continents in an extraordinary display of global coordination.
In London, a sea of protesters estimated by police at more than 750,000 flooded into Hyde Park and clogged streets for several miles in what observers and organizers said was probably the largest political demonstration in British history. It was aimed not just at President Bush but also at Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, who has been Bush’s staunchest ally in the campaign against Iraq but who is besieged by opposition at home from virtually every part of the political spectrum....
Nearly 1 million people turned out in Rome, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has also supported the U.S. position. Between 300,000 and 500,000 people demonstrated in Berlin, at the largest rally since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. About 100,000 demonstrators poured through the streets of Paris. Germany and France have emerged as the most vocal opponents of military action against Iraq.
In Brussels, tens of thousands of protesters braved freezing temperatures and fierce winds. Many residents placed white handkerchiefs in windows of homes, stores and pubs as an expression of support.
Patricia Tarabelsi, 23, an American student, said she couldn’t help but feel uneasy as anti-American sentiment has intensified in Europe. “It makes you feel like your country’s a target,” she said, “and I don’t really think Americans back home realize just how angry the world is at us right now.”
There were also demonstrations in Ukraine, Bosnia, Cyprus, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Greee, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Japan, India, Bangladesh, Hungary, South Korea, Australia, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Thailand....
In Baghdad, tens of thousands of Iraqis, some carrying Kalashnikov assault rifles, demonstrated in support of Saddam Hussein. “Our swords are out of their sheaths, ready for battle,” read one of the hundreds of banners....
In Damascus, Syria, protesters chanted anti-U.S. and anti-Israel slogans as they marched to the People’s Assembly building.
About 2,000 anti-war protesters, both Jews and Palestinians, marched in a peaceful procession in central Tel Aviv that lasted about 90 minutes.
Many waved Israeli and Palestinian flags and carried pictures of gas masks and placards reading:
“Drop Bush not Bombs.”
* * *
February 16, 2003
U.S. RALLIES BRING OUT THOUSANDS
TO PROTEST WAR
Associated Press
NEW YORK - Thousands of anti-war demonstrators packed more than 20 blocks near the United Nations headquarters yesterday, the largest of an estimated 150 peace rallies across the nation that filled city streets with banners, chanting and people from all walks of life.
“Just because you have the biggest gun does not mean you must use it,” Martin Luther King III told demonstrators in New York as he stood before an enormous banner reading: “The World Says No To War.”
Protests were held across the nation, from Maine to Hawaii, and from Texas to Minnesota.
And around the world – including many in the capitals of America’s traditional allies - similar rallies drew well over a million people in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.
“Peace! Peace! Peace!” Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa said as he walked from a church service to a meeting with Kofi Annan at the United Nations.
“Let America listen to the rest of the world – and the rest of the world is saying, ‘Give the inspectors time.’”
Organizers of the New York rally estimated the crowd at anywhere from 375,000 to 500,000. New York Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly said about 100,000 people were in the crowd....
Other demonstrators, including about 1,000 in Manhattan, supported the possibility of U.S. military action.
“I want him to defeat the evil in Iraq, no matter what it takes,” said Gerry Timler, 72, who carried a sign reading, “God Bless America and President Bush.”
* * *
Veterans Working Together for Peace & Justice Through Non-violence.
Wage Peace!
Veterans for Peace, Inc. is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational and humanitarian organization dedicated to the abolishment of war. VFP was founded in 1985 by ex-service members committed to sharing the horrors they experienced.
We know the consequences of American foreign policy because once, at a time in our lives, many of us carried it out. We find it sad that war seems do delightful, so often, to those who have no knowledge of it. We will proudly, and patriotically, continue to denounce war despite whatever misguided sense of euphoria supports it.
Wage Peace!
* * *
February 14, 2003
Spotlight
Former Iraqi nuclear scientist speaks out
By Dr Imad Khadduri
A former Iraqi nuclear scientist who was instrumental in Iraq's nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s and early 1990s has charged that recent allegations concerning the competence and progress of the Iraqi nuclear weapons programme are baseless and untrue. In a series of three articles published by YellowTimes.org, Imad Khadduri paints a dismal picture of Iraq's scientific community, with many scientists and engineers unemployed and scrounging for work, after the Kuwait War and subsequent allied bombing reduced any nuclear hopes to rubble. Khadduri also charges Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi scientist with whom Khadduri worked, with fabricating and exaggerating his importance in Iraq's nuclear programme in the book Saddam's Bombmaker.
Shortly after Yellowtimes.org published Khadduri's third article on 7 February 2003, in which he refuted US Secretary of State Colin Powell's allegations, made at the UN Security Council two days earlier, that Iraq was continuing with its nuclear weapons programme, the site was shut down by its hosting company for "technical reasons".
Below we publish all three of Khadduri's articles.
Iraq's nuclear non-capability
The war storm swirled by the American and British governments against Iraq, particularly the issue of Iraq's nuclear capability, raises serious doubts about the credibility of their intelligence sources as well as their non-scientific and threadbare interpretation of that information. It is often stated that lack of insider information on this matter is scarce. Perhaps it is not too late to rectify this misinformation campaign.
I worked with the Iraqi nuclear programme from 1968 until my departure from Iraq in late 1998. Having been closely involved in most of the major nuclear activities of that programme, be it the Russian research reactor in the late 1960s, the French research reactors in the late 1970s, the Russian nuclear power programme in the early 1980s, the nuclear weapons programme during the 1980s and, finally, the confrontations with UN inspection teams in the nineties, it behoves me that I may ridicule the present American and British allegations about Iraq's nuclear capability.
It would be interesting to start my discourse in 1991. A week before the cessation of two months of saturation bombings of the target-rich Iraq, it came to the attention of the Americans that a certain complex of buildings in Tarmiah that was carpet bombed, for lack of any other remaining prominent targets, exhibited unusual swarming activity by rescuers the next morning. When they compared the photographs of that complex with other standing structures in Iraq, they were surprised to find an exact replica of that complex in the north of Iraq, near Sharqat, which was nearing completion. They directed their bombers to demolish that complex a few days before the end of hostilities.
My family, along with the families of most prominent Iraqi nuclear scientists and the top management of that complex, were residing in the housing complex. These two complexes were designed for the Calutron separators, the method used by the American Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic weapons that were dropped by the Americans on Japan.
At the end of 1991, and after the infamous UN inspector David Kay got hold of many of the nuclear weapons programme's reports, whose documentation and hiding I was in charge of until the start of the war, the Americans realized that their saturation bombing had also missed a most important complex of buildings, at al-Atheer, that was the centre for the design and assembly of the nuclear bomb. A mere one bomb, thermally guided, had hit the electric substation outside the perimeter of the complex, causing little damage.
The telling revelation about these two events is the dearth of any information, until 1991, in the coffers of the heavily subsidized American and British intelligence services about these building complexes. More importantly, they had no idea of the programmes that they harboured, which were on full steam for the previous 10 years.
What really happened to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme after the 1991 war?
Immediately after the cessation of hostilities, the entire organization that was responsible for the nuclear weapons project was directed to the reconstruction of the heavily damaged oil refineries, electric power stations and telephone exchange buildings. The developed expertise of the several thousand scientific, engineering and technical personnel manifested itself in the impressive restoration of the oil, electric and communications infrastructure in a matter of months.
Then, the UN inspectors were ushered in. The senior scientists and engineers among the nuclear personnel were instructed many times on how to cooperate with the inspectors. We were also asked to hand in to our own officials any reports or incriminating evidence, on pain of severe punishment, including the death penalty, for failing to do so.
In the first few months, the clean sheets were hung up for all to see. When the scientific questioning mounted, our scientists asked to refer to the scientific and technical reports that had been amassed during the 10 years of activity. But a crucial error was committed, in that an order was issued to return the project's documents, which had been travelling up and down Iraq in a welded train carriage, for depositing in their original location. That is where David Kay pounced on them in the early morning hours in September 1991. Among the documents were those of al-Atheer and the bomb specifications.
In the following few years, the nuclear weapons project organization was slowly disbanded; by 1994, its various departments were either elevated to independent civilian industrial enterprises or absorbed into the Military Industrial Authority under Hussein Kamil, who later escaped to Jordan in 1996 and then returned to Baghdad where he was murdered.
Meanwhile, the brinkmanship with the UN inspectors continued. At one heated encounter, an American inspector remarked that the nuclear scientists and engineers were still around, accusingly hinting that they may be readily used for a rejuvenated nuclear programme. The retort was, "What do you want us to do to satisfy you? Ask them to commit suicide?"
In 1994, a report surfaced claiming that Iraq was still intent on manufacturing a nuclear bomb and had been continuing this work since 1991. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors brought the report to Baghdad, demanding a full explanation. Being responsible for the proper issuance and the archiving of the scientific and engineering reports for the nuclear weapons project during the 1980s, my opinion on the authenticity of the report was requested. The report was well written, most probably by someone who had detailed knowledge of the existing documentation procedures. However, it was immediately pointed out to the IAEA inspectors that certain words used in the report would not normally be used by us, but by Iranians, and an Arabic-Iranian dictionary was brought in to verify our findings. The IAEA inspectors never referred back to that report.
During these years, the spectre of hyperinflation began to appear. In the following years it would spell the end of the careers of most of Iraq's nuclear scientists and engineers.
In 1996, Hussein Kamil, who was in charge of the spectrum of chemical, biological and nuclear programmes, announced from his self-imposed exile in Amman that there were hidden scientific caches in his farm in Iraq. Apparently, he had his security entourage stealthily salvage what they thought were the most important pieces of information and documentation in these programmes. The UN inspectors pounced in, and a renewed, strenuous series of confrontations unfolded until they were asked to leave Iraq in 1998.
In the final years of the 1990s, we struggled hard to produce a satisfying report, to the best of our knowledge (and sometimes memory), for the IAEA inspectors on the whole gamut of Iraq's nuclear activities, including the weapons programme. The IAEA finally issued its report in October 1997 mapping in great details these activities and vaguely raising some "politically correct" queries.
In the meantime - and this is the gist of my discourse - the economic standing of the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers (along with the rest of the civil servants and the professional middle class) had crumpled pathetically to poverty levels. Even with occasional salary inducements and some flimsy benefits, many of this highly educated elite had been forced to sell their possessions just to keep their families alive. Needless to say, their spirits had sunk very low and their cynicism had risen high.
A relatively few had managed to leave Iraq. But, because of family ties, poverty and fear of the brutal security apparatus, the majority are too frightened even to consider a plan of escape. Their previous determination and drive of the 1980s have been crushed by the harsh economic realities, their knowledge and experience rusting with age and distance from research and work in their fields.
Until my departure from Iraq in late 1998, and having often visited most of the newly created industrial enterprises commandeered by the previous nuclear scientists and engineers, as well as the barely-functioning Nuclear Research Institute at Tuwaitha, one cannot but notice the pathetic mere shadow of their former selves. The dreaded fear of those who work in them is that of retirement - on a pension equivalent to 2 US dollars per month.
Yet, the American and British intelligence services, more likely tainted by war-hungry political considerations, seem to blow a balloon full of holes. A consignment of aluminium pipes may, perhaps, could and might possibly end in kilometres-long (according to Western scientists) highly technical centrifugal spinners. One would hope not to put it beyond the intelligence of the US and British intelligence services to, for once, point out to their leaders that there are no remaining qualified Iraqi staff to set up and run these supposed enrichment spinners.
Last month, on a recent guided tour by journalists to a suspected, maybe, possible uranium extraction plant in Akashat in western Iraq, an Iraqi pointed to the demolished buildings and asked a rhetorical, tongue-in-cheek question: "Who would make any use of these ruins? Maybe your experts would tell us how."
While the Iraqi nuclear scientists and engineers have not committed suicide, the difference between that and their present existence is, by now, is academic.
Bush and Blair are pulling their publics by the nose, once again covering their hollow, patriotic jingoism with shoddy intelligence. But the two parading emperors have no clothes.
** This article was originally published by Yellowtimes,org on 21 November 2002.
Saddam's bombmaker
is full of lies
The book Saddam's Bombmaker, recently published by Khidhir Hamza, recounted the author's 22 years of experience with the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). Hamza exaggerated to a great extent his own role in the nuclear weapons programme. As I personally know the author and have worked with him during these two decades, I wish to clarify the following untruths and misinformation that have been postulated by him in his book.
There is a huge difference between those who worked with the government for scientific and professional reasons despite being under the sharp sword of government security agencies, and those who try to hide their fear with a fig leaf. A few scientists who believed in their work realized the slippery road they were treading and tried to leave before and after the 1991 Gulf War. While some were able to flee Iraq, others, such as Dr al-Shahrastani (who was also charged with other offences), ceased his work despite the penalty of death given to such rebellious actions.
But when the bells of fear first started to ring in Hamza's mind in 1974, when he prepared the first nuclear weapons project report at the request of the government, he decided to stay in Iraq until it was convenient for him to go abroad. In the 1970s and 1980s, it would have been much easier and less risky to leave, yet he wallowed in Iraq in nice Mercedes cars while attending scientific conventions with lavish stipends. He kept deluding himself, as he naively mentions in his book, that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the CIA would contact him and magically whisk him out of Iraq as if on a flying carpet.
Even though he was the head of the physics department in the nuclear research centre for 10 years during the 1970s, his deep inner fear of radiation prevented him from ever entering the reactor hall or touching any scientific instruments, probably because of his continual fear of an electric jolt that he experienced as a child, as his book mentions.
Hamza's aversion to scientific experimentation drove him to insist on working solely on the highly theoretical three-body-problem during the 1970s, far removed from any of the initial work on fission that was carried on during that period at the Iraqi Nuclear Research Centre. He did not, even remotely, get involved in any scientific research, except for journalistic articles, dealing with the fission bomb, its components or its effects. The testimony to this is the recorded archive of the IAEC for the 1970s that point to the efforts of others in this field, and none to the self-proclaimed "bombmaker".
At the end of the 1970s, he completely refused to take any responsibility in the Iraqi-purchased French research reactor, and left that task to the great Egyptian scientist, Dr Yehya El-Meshad, who was assassinated by the Israeli secret service Mossad in Paris in 1980.
After he again withdrew from any leadership responsibility for the nuclear weapons project which started in earnest in 1980 in direct response to the Israeli attack on the OSIRAK reactor, leaving it to one of Iraq's great physicists, Hamza was merely assigned the gaseous diffusion project. He did, in fact, spend some effort in buying the fine filters needed for that project, but his fear of entering the project hall was a cause of many hilarious puns.
In the mid 1980s, Hamza was asked by Hussein Kamil to write a report on the progress of the weapon programme to present to the government. In response to this report, the whole programme was put under the control and guidance of Hussein Kamil himself in 1987. The pace of work accelerated immensely until 1991. However, during that time, the "bombmaker" was kicked out of the programme at the end of 1987 after he was accused of stealing a few air conditioning units from the building assigned to his project. This he conveniently omitted to mention in his book, but cited frequent travels abroad to garner assistance and equipment, while in fact he was an outcast in the project and did not attend any seminar or brainstorming sessions during that intense period.
The "bombmaker" did make a great deal in his book of his role in building the al-Atheer weapon manufacturing centre during the late 1980s, while in fact he was going round in circles doing nothing at the Tuwaitha Research Centre, as a mere has-been, and did not even have office space in al-Atheer. He was, in fact, assigned the peripheral job of writing a report on the American Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) project and spent his time collecting whatever information was available in the library from newspapers and scientific journals. He spent all his time during these critical years in the library and, in 1989, was made a sort of consultant, still loosely attached to the IAEA, but also taught at a university two days a week, far removed from any bomb making.
In addition, he was thoroughly annoyed and bitter because of the CIA's rejection of his appeal for them to take him, through the auspices of the Iraqi National Congress representative in the north of Iraq, where he fled alone, leaving his family behind, in 1994. He pathetically thought that the CIA was not aware of his miniscule role in bomb making, especially after the weapon programme's scientific report fell in the hands of the IAEA inspectors in 1991. He claimed to be a repository of secrets while in fact he was only regurgitating them. Worse than that, he claims in his book that in 1995 the CIA fabricated a story published in an English newspaper about his submitting a report on the supposedly continuing Iraqi nuclear programme just to ferret him out of his hiding place. Being a teacher at that time at a Libyan university is not a place to hide, to say the least.
The extent of his fear climaxed when the Iraqi government sent his son to Libya to persuade him to return. He rejected his son's appeals and again scrambled to Europe, knocking desperately at the doors of the IAEA and the CIA, who again gave him the cold shoulder. But then, it is most probable, the CIA reconsidered his case in the light of the escape of Hussein Kamil to Jordan and his revelation of yet more hidden technical reports at his chicken farm in Iraq. The CIA thus hoped that Hamza might fill in some small gaps in information and took him under their wings, helping him and his family to settle in the US under their protection and strings.
I can only recall the image of "the bombmaker" straggling for two decades during the 1970s, the 1980s and early 1990s with his tail between his legs, looking over his shoulders and running to whomever gave him a piece of bone with some meat on it, then suddenly springing from his cocoon at the end of the 1990s as a Don Quixote with an American mask. Brandishing his wooden sword in the small arena afforded to him by the CIA, he counted on the silence of his colleagues, either out of fear of the Iraqi security agencies or the blind cruelty of the American ones, not to expose his phoney claims in his book, which may be rendered as a repayment to the CIA for their services to him. His appearances on the weekly American talk shows are truly a reflection of his present allegiances.
The reader might question the motive of my writing on this sensitive subject and the personal tack apparent in it. All I can say is that, even if silence is golden, not to speak out at this time against such fallacies would be the stuff of cowards.
*** This article was originally published by Yellowtimes.org on 27 November 2002.
* * *
The nuclear bomb hoax
In his speech in front of the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003, US Secretary of State Colin Powell did not offer any credible new evidence concerning Iraq's nuclear weapons capability, which Bush and his entourage continue to wave as a red flag in front of the eyes of the American people to incite them shamefully into an unjust war.
On the contrary, the few flimsy so-called pieces of evidence that were presented by Powell regarding a supposed continued Iraqi nuclear weapons programme serve only to weaken the American and British accusations and reveal their untenable attempt to cover with a fig leaf their threadbare arguments and misinformation campaign. The false and untrue pieces of evidence follow:
Powell, in a theatrical query, asked why the Iraqi scientists were asked to sign declarations, with a death penalty if not adhered to, not to reveal their secrets to the International Atomic Energy (IAEA) inspection teams. Exactly the opposite is true. The four or five, as I recall, such declarations, which I read in detail, held us to the penalty of death in the event that we did not hand in all of the sensitive documents and reports that may still be in our possession! Had Powell's intelligence services provided him with a copy of these declarations, and not depended on the testimonies of "defectors" who are motivated solely by the desire for self-promotion in the eyes of their "beholders", and availed himself to a good Arabic translation of what these declarations actually said, he would not, had he in any way been abiding by the truth, mentioned this as "evidence".
This is exactly the cause of the second untruth brandished by Powell: that Iraq is hiding or is still working (it is hard to discern from the tangle of his word what is really meant) on its "third" uranium enrichment process by referring to the cache of documents seized in the house of Faleh Hamza.
Faleh, according to my interpretation of the above declarations, did not consider the reports on his work to be covered under this declaration for the following reason: Faleh did dabble during the 1980s at the Physics Department in the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Centre itself - but not under the nuclear weapon programme activities which came under the label of the PetroChemical 3 (PC3) programme - with the uranium laser enrichment process using a couple of medium range copper lasers.
His low-key research concluded that it was not yet viable to pursue this line of enrichment on a production scale and the whole project folded up after it reached a cul-de-sac in 1988. He packed up and then joined the PC3 working on the Calutron enrichment method in 1989. Furthermore, this was well documented and explained in our final report to the IAEA inspectors in late 1997, which they confirmed and referred to in their own final report on the matter.
Yet, fully aware of this fact, the James Bondian and insulting manner with which UNMOVIC (following in the footsteps of their CIA-infiltrated UNSCOM predecessors) invaded the home of Faleh and searched it, even the private belongings of his family, in the glare of the cameras, added insult to injury and exponentially increased Faleh's position vis-a-vis the authorities who were trying to protect the scientists from such American theatrics.
Arrogantly, the Americans are wondering why other scientists are not coming forward. Even worse, Blix chose to wave this torn flag in front of the Security Council in his report on 27 January 2003. This fact alone was one of the reasons I have decided to come out. Even Mohamed Baradei, the head of the IAEA, chided Blix the following day for not taking into account the IAEA's knowledge on this matter, which was that the 3,000 pages of documents were financial statements and Faleh's own lifetime research work, and had nothing to do with the nuclear weapons programme. That is why he kept them at his home. It was becoming apparent that Blix was succumbing to the American pressure tactics and leaned over backwards to provide them with flimsy "proof" at the expense of his supposed fairness and mandate as a UN official. Powell grasped even this straw.
Powell only accused but did not provide any evidence that Iraq had tried to get nuclear-grade fissile material since 1998. He vainly gave the impression that everything was set and readily waiting for just this material to be acquired and that the atomic bomb would be rolling out of the other door. He did not bother to ask himself the following questions:
Where is the scientific and engineering staff required for such an enormous effort when almost all of them have been living in abject poverty for the past decade, striving simply to feed their families on 20 US dollars a month, their knowledge and expertise rusted and atrophied under heavy psychological pressures and dreading their retirement pension salary of 2 US dollars a month?
Where is the management that might lead such an enterprise? The previous management team of the nuclear weapons programme in the 1980s exists only in memories and reports. Its members have retired, secluded themselves, or turned to fending for the livelihood of their families.
Where are the buildings and infrastructure to support such a programme? The entire nuclear weapons programme of the 1980s has been either bombed by the Americans during the war or uncovered by the IAEA inspectors. It is impossible to hide such buildings and structures. Powell should only take a look at North Korea's atomic weapons facilities, or perhaps even Israel's, to realize the impossibility of hiding such structures with the IAEA inspectors scouring everything in sight.
Powell need only ask those on the ground, the IAEA inspectors delegated by the UN upon America's request, to receive negative answers to all of the questions above. Instead, he chose to fabricate an untruth.
Finally, the infamous aluminium pipes that are supposed to be used in a centrifugal enrichment process. Powell and Bush should be able to relax regarding this point, for they would have at least a 10-year attack period before Iraq would be able to militarize these pipes.
According to the "American experts" themselves, such a process would need kilometres of strung out, highly tuned, delicately controlled spinners to fulfil their ill-wish for Iraq. Not to be noticed by their satellites, PowerPoint presentations and coloured arrows would then be an intelligence folly. This is not even mentioning the lack of a stable electric power supply in Iraq or the phantom of highly technical staff to run these kilometres long "very high grade and expensive" mortar casings that are not made to US military standards. Perhaps Powell's grievance was, "How dare Iraq think of such expensive mortars?"
Powell said: "Let me now turn to nuclear weapons. We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons programme." This verges on being humorous. But as the Arabic proverb goes: The worst kind of misfortune is that which causes you to laugh.
**** This article was originally published by Yellowtimes.org on 7 February 2003. Shortly after it was published, Yellowtimes.org was shut down by its hosting company for "technical reasons".
*Imad Khadduri has an MSc in Physics from the University of Michigan (United States) and a PhD in Nuclear Reactor Technology from the University of Birmingham (United Kingdom). Khadduri worked at the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission from 1968 until 1998. He was able to leave Iraq in late 1998 with his family. He now teaches and works as a network administrator in Toronto, Canada. He has been interviewed by the Toronto Star, Reuters, and various other news agencies in regards to his knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear programme.
February 17, 2003
U.S. MAY SEEK PLAN AUTHORIZING FORCE
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that a confrontation with Iraq is inevitable.
By Gina Holland, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Faced with broad opposition to war at the United Nations, President Bush’s national security adviser said yesterday that the White House might push a new U.N. plan to force a showdown with Saddam Hussein.
Condoleezza Rice said it was becoming more obvious that the Iraqi president would not disarm voluntarily and that the United Nations was letting him get away with it.
“Continuing to talk about more time and more time and more time is simply going to relieve pressures on the Iraquis to do what they must do,” Rice said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
The administration was evaluating all options after being rebuffed Friday at the U.N. Security Council, where members lined up behind France’s call for more weapons inspections and against military action.
Rice said on “Fox News Sunday” that the administration may ask the United Nations to take up a new resolution authorizing force against Iraq, although she said action was already sanctioned by a previous resolution.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said on the same program that the resolution being presented this week by the United States and Britain would likely call for “definitive progress” in Iraq’s disarmament.
“If that’s rejected, thin I think the United States of America is going to have to make some difficult decisions,” McCain said.
Rice, however, said: “We have not drafted the resolution. We’re working it with different parties, with our friends.”
The United States, she added, was ready to go to war with or without U.N. support....
“Putting this off is not an option,” Rice said.
France has led a formidable bloc calling for extended inspections and wants to wait on a resolution at least until March 14. Inspectors are to report on March 1 to the 15-member council.
Rice said a confrontation was inevitable with Saddam.
“Sooner or later, we believe sooner, the Security Council is going to have to say that he has not taken that final opportunity to comply, and the Security Council is going to have to act, or the United States will have to act with a coalition of the willing,” Rice said on Fox....
March 14, 2003
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
From David Ensor, CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security council outlining the Bush administration's case against Iraq.
"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.
Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification activities."
"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.
"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been resolved [in Iraq]," he said.
How were forgeries missed?
But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.
Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.
Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.
"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.
Close said the CIA should have known better.
"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."
A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it is.' "
If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to incompetence not malice.
"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said. "Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice, but I've never seen incompetence."
Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?
Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.
Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.
President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union address on January 28.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.
U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from another African country.
But officials would not say which nation and a knowledgeable U.S. official said that there was not much to that evidence either.
March 17, 2003
BUSH, ALLIES SEND U.N. AN ULTIMATUM ON IRAQ
Three leaders vow last-ditch effort at diplomatic end
By Karen DeYoung, The Washington Post
LAJES, Azores – President Bush and leading allies demanded yesterday that the United Nations act today on a resolution authorizing the use of force and that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein agree to “full and immediate disarmament” or face the onset of war.
“Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work,” Bush said in an appearance with Prime Ministers Tony Blair of Britain, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Jose Durao Barroso of Portugal after a one-hour meeting.
“We conclude that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world.”
Bush, Blair and Aznar avoided saying they had given up on the 15-member Security Council, and promised to make a last-ditch effort to persuade a majority of members to support the resolution.
The leaders’ options now appear to be limited to losing a vote on a resolution they have jointly sponsored to authorize the use of force, or withdrawing the measure and declaring they do not need United Nations approval to wage war.
After their brief meeting, Bush and the other leaders walked immediately to a set of podiums to read statements clearly prepared beforehand. Bush announced the ultimatum, denounced Saddam’s “history of mass murder” and vowed that “Iraq’s liberation would be the beginning, not the end, or our commitment to its people.”
Bush also raised again the possibility that Saddam could leave Iraq, although administration officials view that “as highly unlikely. “Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he’s interested in peace,” Bush said.
“You see the decision is his to make.”
The United States has massed more than 200,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region, most of them lining the Iraqi border with Kuwait and ready to move. More than 30,000 British troops are also expected to participate.
Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” yesterday morning, said that “we are approaching the point where further delay helps no one but Saddam Hussein.”
Additional delay, Cheney said, would give Saddam time to “position his forces to attack” and to “try to mount terrorist attacks” against the United States....
In three weeks of intense diplomacy since the resolution was introduced, Bush and Blair failed to win the nine of 15 security votes necessary for passage, as one nation after another resisted a deadline of today as too short, and refused to authorize an invasions before first settling additional disarmament tests for Iraq by U.N. inspectors.
France, Russia and Germany have been most prominent in opposing the use of force.
Yesterday, Bush and other senior member of his administration directed much of their ire at France, which has threatened to veto the measure. Bush, on March 6, was asked at a news conference whether he would demand a vote on the resolution even if it appeared doomed to failure. He replied, “You bet,” and said it was time for council members to “show their cards.”
Asked yesterday whether the vote would be canceled, Bush said with obvious irritation, “France showed their cards....They said they are going to veto anything that held Saddam to account. So cards have been played.”
Citing the French “track record” over a number of years, Cheney said “they have consistently opposed attempts to hold Saddam Hussein responsible.”...
March 17, 2003
BUSH: TODAY IS
‘MOMENT OF TRUTH’
Allies are prepared to act no matter what U.N. does
The New York Times
LEJAS, Azores – President Bush and the leaders of Britain and Spain issued an ultimatum to the U.N. Security Council yesterday, declaring that the diplomatic effort to win support for disarming Iraq would end today. They made it clear that they were ready to start a war to depose Saddam Hussein, with or without United Nations support.
After a hurried meeting at an air base on Terceira island in the eastern Atlantic, the leaders declined to say directly whether they would force a vote on the Security Council resolution they have sponsored declaring that Saddam must disarm, or withdraw it.
That decision, they said, would come today after one more attempt to persuade the six undecided members of the Security Council to vote to approve military action, and last-ditch pressure on France to refrain from exercising the veto it had threatened.
But Bush made it clear yesterday that the outcome at the United Nations made little difference, and that military action would begin soon.
“We concluded that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world,” Bush said.
The leaders’ statement came only hours after France proposed to give Iraq roughly 30 days to comply with inspections, but left vague what would happen at the end of that period.
Vice President Dick Cheney rejected the proposal: “It’s difficult to take the French serious and believe that this is anything other than just further delaying tactics.”
March 18, 2003
IRAQ’S ‘TYRANT WILL
SOON BE GONE’
By Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times
WASHINGTON - President Bush said last night that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has 48 hours to go into exile or face attack from the United States and a handful of allies.
“The tyrant will soon be gone,” Bush vowed as 250,000 American troops stood poised to strike.
In an address to the nation, Bush said the Iraqi leader and his two sons must leave the country. He warned diplomats, aid workers and journalists in Iraq to get out of harm’s way immediately...
For the president, the speech marked the end of a long period of diplomacy aimed at convincing skeptical allies like France and Germany, as well as the U.N. Security Council, that force would be necessary to disarm Saddam.
That diplomatic effort ended in failure and Bush was sharply critical last night of both France and the Security Council.
The United States now faces a war with only Britain, among allies, giving significant military support....
March 18, 2003
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NOON BRIEFING
By Fred Eckhard
Spokesman for the Secretary-General of the United Nations
UN Headquarters, New York
IRAQ: WITHDRAWAL OF UN INTERNATIONAL
STAFF UNDERWAY
>> The withdrawal of UN international staff from Iraq is continuing in accordance to the authorization given by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday.
>> The Secretary-General had informed the Security Council of that decision based on information which he had received from the United Kingdom and United States authorities regarding the continued safety and security of United Nations personnel.
>> At the end of the operation, more than 300 international staff will have departed. These are international staff in Iraq from the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Office of the Iraq Programme and United Nations agencies, programmes and funds implementing the Oil for Food Programme.
>> In addition, the Secretary-General has authorized United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM), which patrols the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait, to withdraw....
>> As a result of the withdrawal, all United Nations activities in Iraq will be suspended until further notice. However, the Secretary-General has stated that the United Nations will find a way to resume its humanitarian activities to help the Iraqi people and do whatever it can to provide them assistance and support....
IRAQI OIL EXPORTS UNDER UN PROGRAMME NET
$340 MILLION IN PAST WEEK
>> According to the Office of the Iraq Programme, during the week of March 8 through 14, Iraqi oil exports reached 12.7 million barrels generating approximately $340 million.
>> Asked about what would happen with the Oil for Food Programme in case of conflict, the Spokesman answered the UN’s Oil for Food Programme has the government of Iraq as a partner. In case of conflict, Eckhard added, it would be up to the Security Council to redefine the programme’s mandate and operating modalities. The Spokesman added that the Secretary-General is particularly eager to see that there is a continuation of the Oil for Food Programme, which is a big network to deliver a massive amount of humanitarian good.
>> Eckhard said that, in the event of war, we would want to see the goods that are currently in the pipeline be delivered by UN staff to the Iraqi population once the hostilities have ceased....
>> Asked about the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people now, the Spokesman said in case of conflict, according to international humanitarian law, the primary responsibility for meeting the humanitarian needs of the population falls on the occupying power. In a second phase, once the hostilities had ended, the UN agencies and their NGO partners could then move in and get to work.
>> Eckhard stressed that UN operations were temporarily suspended and that UN agencies were ready to go back to work as soon as possible....
The United Nations (www.un.org)
March 18, 2003
Probe for Iraqi weapons should have continued-Blix
UNMOVIC's Hans Blix briefing reporters
Speaking on the day the last United Nations weapons monitors were withdrawn from Iraq, the top inspector, Hans Blix, today said he feels the inspections should not have been stopped at this stage.
"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after three and a half months," Mr. Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in answer to questions during a briefing of the UN Correspondents Association in New York. He added that he did not think Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November, foresaw such a short inspection time.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday ordered the withdrawal of all UN personnel, including UNMOVIC inspectors, after receiving information from the United Kingdom and United States regarding the continued safety and security of UN personnel in Iraq.
Mr. Blix, who is to discuss a work plan of remaining disarmament issues tomorrow at the Security Council, also said the inspectors had never asserted that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction, only that there were a lot of things unaccounted for. It would be interesting, he added, to see what would come out when people go in and can go anywhere and examine the sort of intelligence the inspectors never had access to.
He also said he did not think Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons in a war with a US-led coalition, although it had the know-how to produce and deliver chemical weapons.
"I think it is unlikely they will do that because I think world public opinion, which they study quite a lot, is in large measure feeling that going to war is too early," he said. "So there is a fair amount of scepticism about armed action. That scepticism would turn immediately around if they used chemical weapons or biological weapons. My guess is they would not."
Asked if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government would care if it was about to be overthrown, he said: "Some people care about their reputation even after death."
United Nations website (www.un.org)
March 19, 2003
WORLD BRACES FOR WAR
Saddam’s decision to stay called ‘final mistake’
From New York Times and AP Dispatches
In prelude to war, Saddam Hussein mocked an American ultimatum yesterday to surrender power and leave Iraq, and the White House said Saddam had thus made his “final mistake.”...
At a series of top-level meetings, Saddam warned the “American, English and Zionist invading aggressors” that they faced defeat.
Using the Islamic references and the anti-Israeli virulence that have been a dominant feature of his recent speeches, he predicted a “holy war” that would wipe out the ranks” of invading U.S. troops.
Iraq’s envoy of to the United Nations, Mohammed Al-Douri, called the ultimatum “madness,” and said this was the first time in history that the president of one nation had ordered another to leave his own country.
In Baghdad, Saddam’s elder son, Odai, issued a statement calling Bush “unstable” and saying he “should give up power in America with his family.”
In Washington, Fleishcher said, “Saddam Hussein, if he doesn’t leave the country, will make his final mistake.”
March 19, 2003
UN Children's Fund warns of war's disastrous potential for Iraqi youngsters
By Carol Bellamy, United Nations
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) issued a stark warning today that the most vulnerable of Iraq's children may not have the strength to survive the impact of war.
"Conflict could very well have disastrous consequences for Iraqi children," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said. "Malnourished children, children who have not been immunized, children who are displaced from their homes - all these children are at very high risk."
Noting that children make up half the population of Iraq and that UNICEF had carried out nutrition and immunizations programmes to boost the resilience of the most vulnerable children, Ms. Bellamy added: "But still the questions remains, will they be strong enough to survive?"
There was no way of knowing how many children might perish during war or its aftermath, since that would depend on how long war lasts and how it affects civilian infrastructure, Ms. Bellamy said. But, she warned, "children will die in this war. That's a fact. The question is how many children we can protect. That has got to be a priority for all of us now."
UNICEF said it had positioned thousands of tons of emergency relief supplies in Iraq and neighbouring countries to help mount a rapid response, including essential medicines, water purification tablets, therapeutic milk and other life-saving supplies.
Following the withdrawal of UN international staff from Iraq on Tuesday, UNICEF's work in the country is now in the hands of its 160 national staff members.
Effects of Sanctions
"What we are doing is destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that."
-- Denis Halliday (former UN coordinator of the Oil-for-Food Program
and Nobel Peace Prize nominee)
The lack of clean water is the single biggest killer of children, the sick, and the elderly. The majority of patients in Iraq's hospitals are stricken with amoebic dysentery, gastroenteritis and other waterborne diseases. The effect of the 1990 Persian Gulf War was the destruction of much of the water delivery and sewage treatment infrastructure.
The U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War ended.
The sanctions repeatedly prevent the country from importing necessary spare parts and chemicals for the water treatment plants by declaring them 'dual usage'. The hospitals lack equipment and medicines to treat their patients according to their medical needs as we heard and saw first hand when we visited hospitals in Baghdad and Basrah.
Hundred thousands of Iraqi people died as a consequence of military attacks and sanctions against the country. And still they are dying every day because of simplest diseases. Mostly those who can least resist the combined pressures of malnutrition, infections and diseases -- the elderly and young children, women during pregnancy and childbirth.
Perhaps the most tragic causes have been the unavailability of clean water and medicine.
www.iraqwaterproject.com/sanctions.htm
THE IRAQ WATER PROJECT
The Iraq Water Project (IWP) is a project of Veterans for Peace, Inc, a national, veterans Peace & Justice organization based in St. Louis, MO. Our main partners in the IWP are Life for Relief & Development, a non-profit organization dedicated to alleviating human suffering around the world, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of Iraq (CISPI) who raise community awareness of the suffering of the Iraqi people and substantial funds for the IWP.
Thousands of families now have access to clean water
The Iraq Water Project has so far sent three teams of veterans to Iraq who paid for their own expenses and worked alongside the Iraqi laborers repairing water treatment plants. We are proud to announce that thanks to the IWP six water treatment plants in different cities and provinces of Iraq are now again serving clean water to more than 85,000 people....
But many more still don’t
As a consequence of bombing and sanctions the ordinary Iraqi people were impoverished and many of them deprived of basic necessities of life. Especially children, women during pregnancy and childbirth, the sick and the elderly are dying from simplest diseases and the lack of medicine. Access to clean drinking water is one of those basic necessities and we are determined to continue our work to end the sanctions and rebuild more water plants until the sanctions are lifted.
ECO-DOOM
The last
bird in the world
sits sadly on a broken branch
and sweetly sings a song to the
shattered
blue moon.
– James VanHise, Fragments
March 25, 2003
PROBE SOUGHT OF PENTAGON ADVISER RICHARD PERLE
By Jeremy Pelofsky
WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - A senior U.S. Democrat has called for an investigation of Richard Perle, an architect of the war on Iraq, for possible conflicts of interest in his roles as corporate adviser and Pentagon consultant.
Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, asked the Pentagon's inspector general to probe Perle's work as a paid adviser to bankrupt telecommunications company Global Crossing Ltd. and his guidance on investment opportunities resulting from the Iraq conflict.
"I am aware of several potential conflicts that warrant your immediate review," Conyers said on Monday in a letter to the Defense Department's inspector general, Joseph Schmitz. The letter was made available on Tuesday.
"Mr. Perle is considered a 'special government employee' and is subject to government ethics prohibition -- both regulatory and criminal -- on using public office for private gain," Conyers' letter said.
Perle did not return a call seeking comment on Tuesday but has said he has always followed ethics rules. A spokesman for the U.S. Defense Department declined to comment. Standard practice is for the inspector general to review such requests and determine whether an investigation is warranted.
"The president is confident that all laws will be followed by all people who are on all commissions," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to a question about Perle at his daily news conference.
Perle chairs the Defense Policy Board, created in 2001 to advise the Pentagon, but has no official policymaking role and is not paid.
A leading Washington hawk, he has played an influential role in developing the Bush administration's blueprint for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Critics have questioned Perle's activities when not advising Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
GLOBAL CROSSING REVIEW
Perle signed on to help Global Crossing, a bankrupt operator of an international fiber-optic network, win U.S. approval to sell a 61.5 percent stake to Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. and Singapore Technologies Telemedia Pte.
The plan has run into trouble with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Including Rumsfeld and other top national security officials, the panel can block mergers and acquisitions it feels could harm to U.S. interests.
Global Crossing began talks to restructure the deal after the committee raised concern that its network would be controlled by a company with strong ties to China. Hutchison is majority owned by Hong Kong's richest man, Li Ka-shing.
Perle has said he would be paid $125,000 for his advice and another $600,000 if the government approves the deal.
An article in The New York Times cited a March 7 affidavit in which Perle discussed his "unique perspective" on national defense and security and said he had contacted a government official on Global Crossing's behalf.
"The fact that Mr. Perle may be reconsidering filing the affidavit does not alter the existence of the alleged conflict," Conyers said, citing the newspaper article.
Conyers also asked the Pentagon to probe reports that Perle participated in a conference call sponsored by Goldman Sachs (GS) to discuss investment opportunities emerging from the war in Iraq and that he received stock options from a company doing business with the U.S. military.
"I would submit that it is a conflict of interest for a high-ranking government official to be proffering advice on how to profit from the war," Conyers said.
A Goldman Sachs spokesman had no immediate comment.
Conyers also pointed out that Perle sits on the board of Autonomy Corp. , which lists the U.S. Army and military as customers, and received stock options.
© 2003 Reuters
March 31, 2003
MISSING IN ACTION
Governments have trained hundreds of thousands of weapons scientists. And nobody knows where they are.
By Chana R. Schoenberger and Emily Lambert
THE SOVIET UNION trained 100,000 weapons scientists before the Cold War’s end. No one knows exactly where they all are. Toss in the two dozen other nations with active or dormant nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs, and you have a scary game of “Where Are They Now?”
It only takes a handful of white coats to set up a bomb factory or disease lab. “For a few bucks and with a few people who know what they’re doing, [a state] can really raise havoc,” says Edward Badolato, an international security expert with the Shaw Group. These countries have created the biggest threats.
RUSSIA
Most of the world’s weapons scientists speak some Russian, as the Soviets had by far the biggest program. After the Cold War many retired; others went off to grow potatoes. Hundreds emigrated, mainly to the U.S., Western Europe, and Israel.
The FSB, a descendant of the KGB, claims to monitor the former scientists, but Russia hands are skeptical. Several global programs, funded mainly by the U.S., employ Russian, Ukrainian, and Kazakh scientists.
The U.S. will spend $39 million this year on the program for 6,000 of them.
SOUTH AFRICA
Dismantled its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs in 1989. The 1,000 or so scientists were steered toward other jobs, at universities or as retail clerks. The government tries to track the nuke experts, but it can’t snoop too closely in a democracy.
Several dozen went mercenary, hiring themselves out to Libya to help build bioweapons factories.
PAKISTAN
Two top officials in the Pakistani program recently were detained on suspicion of passing nuclear secrets to al-Qaeda. Pakistani scientists are thought have helped Iran get its nuclear program started by building a gas centrifuge in the 1990s, as well as aiding North Korea.
One sales brochure recently turned up advertising the services of the main Pakistani centrifuge site for equipment sales and “consulting.”
NORTH KOREA
Russia and China helped build North Korea’s weapons program in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition to 3,000 native scientists, the country may have 2 to 4 Russians on retainer to work on its nukes, of which it may have one or two small exemplars.
IRAQ
Some 600 bioweaponeers on staff. Saddam has long ties to French nuclear scientists, some of whom built the reactor that Israel bombed in 1981, as well as to German and British firms.
Saddam probably employs a small handful of Russian scientists. They’re most likely middle managers; if Saddam had a top guy, he would have a bomb by now.
CHINA
Tens of thousands of scientists work on all areas of weapons development, though some work was supposed to be cut back after a 1972 biowarfare agreement, which China signed in 1984.
It is alleged to be producing viruses at Lop Nor in Central Asia.
UNITED STATES
The U.S. tries harder to track its scientists. Since last year the 1,000 labs working with weapons potential germs have had to register with the Centers for Disease Control or other agencies, and every scientist who wants to work on the bugs must get an okay from the Department of Justice, which vets researchers against intelligence databases.
Perhaps 100,000 scientists work for the Pentagon developing weapons of mass destruction.
Anyone with a nuclear weapons security clearance must file paperwork annually and alert the government about all foreign travel.
< < < FLASHBACK < < <
September 25, 2002
RICE ON IRAQ, WAR
AND POLITICS
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice talks with Margaret Warner about Iraq, the United Nations, the United States' new pre-emptive strike doctrine and recent criticism from Democratic leaders.
MARGARET WARNER: Welcome, Ms. Rice, thanks for joining us.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Thank you. It's nice to be with you.
MARGARET WARNER: As I'm sure you know, the Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle, went angrily to the Senate floor today and accused the president of politicizing this debate about going to war. What's your response to that?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The president has never politicized this concern about war and the national security of the American people. . . .
MARGARET WARNER: Now, the Hyde resolution also ties this to the War Powers Act, and would require the president to report back to Congress every 60 days. Would the president accept that?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, as you know, it has long been traditional in these matters that the president is willing to act consistent with the War Powers Act....
MARGARET WARNER: Now there are also some Democrats - this is not in the Hyde proposal - that somehow want to come up with language that would in some way - I don't want to say obligate the president - but would tie this use of force to first going through the U.N. and trying to get the weapons inspectors back in. How would the White House feel about that?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, we think it would be a mistake for the United States Congress to somehow tie its action to U.N. action. The president is going to the United Nations through the Security Council.
He has made that very clear; he has made very clear that we want a U.N. Security Council Resolution that will finally deal with the problem of Iraq and hold Iraq accountable, but he's also said that if the United Nations Security Council cannot find a way to act, then the United States and other states that may wish to go with us will have to find a way to act.
The key here is that the United States is leading the world toward a solution to the Iraq problem. The United States needs to speak with a united voice - executive and legislative branches.
And the United States needs to speak so that the U.N. knows that America is capable of acting with or without U.N. authorization.
Nonetheless, the president is committed to going to the U.N. and trying to work this out, but we think it would be a mistake to tie American action somehow to U.N. action. . . .
MARGARET WARNER: Let's turn now to the new national security doctrine that you all rolled out last Friday and I understand you had a great role in drafting.
And, as you know, there's been a lot of criticism particularly about the doctrine of pre-emption which you laid out in writing, and let me just - I'm going to read you just one - this comes from the French president, and he actually spoke even before you rolled this out - the piece of paper - but he's called the whole doctrine extraordinarily dangerous - "As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same."
What do you say to that?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well, I would say that the idea of preventive action is not a new concept. In fact, the idea that you have to wait to be attacked to deal with a threat seems to us simply to fly in the face of common sense.
The United States has always reserved the right to try and diminish or to try to eliminate a threat before it is attacked. It simply wouldn't make sense to sit and wait to be attacked if you thought that you could eliminate a threat. . . .
Now, to be sure, anticipatory self defense, or preemption has to be used carefully. One would want to have very good intelligence. You probably would have wanted to try a lot of other means before you move to eliminate the threat in this way --
MARGARET WARNER: Let me close by asking you a couple of questions about the joint inquiry into the pre-9/11 intelligence failures because you just referred to the attack without warning.
You had said back in May, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."
Now, as you know, the joint inquiry found otherwise; they found there was a lot of historical evidence that, one, terrorists planned and were capable of attacks in the U.S. - and two, that they talked a lot about using airplanes as weapons. Given everything that has come out, do you still believe that the attacks were unpredictable?
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Yes, I do still believe that the attacks were unpredictable. Look, the 1998 reports that apparently some intelligence analysts looked at and made an analysis that perhaps al-Qaida wanted to slam planes into buildings were simply not made available to the Bush Administration.
We weren't here in 1998, and I think you have to look at the fact that this was among a host of other intelligence analyses that suggested that car bombs and attacks against nuclear plants, and other means of terrorism were more likely.
But the fact is when I spoke in May about what was presented to the president on August 6, it is absolutely the case that what was presented to the president and what was analyzed for him and what was analyzed throughout the administration was traditional methods of hijacking - in fact that the hijacking might be to try and win release of al-Qaida prisoners or something like that.
There wasn't any mention or analysis of people slamming planes into buildings; it simply wasn't there.
MARGARET WARNER: I guess the question these hearings brought up is whether there should have been more information available to you - that there was a whole problem of coordination, there were all these disparate pieces of information out there -- that the U.S. Government was not structured in a way to really respond, that the FBI agents in the field didn't know George Tenet of the CIA declared war on al-Qaida.
I mean, you know the litany and I just wonder if you as the National Security Adviser, who's responsible for making sure that all these agencies ultimately coordinate for American security - that in retrospect you feel that perhaps you just didn't -you all didn't and the Clinton Administration before you - appreciate really the urgency of the threat and the need to change things to deal with it.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I think people appreciated the urgency and the threat, and I think both we and the Clinton Administration were trying to deal seriously and aggressively with al-Qaida - but we have learned since September 11, that there was inadequate intelligence sharing for a host of traditional and cultural and in fact reasons going to the very nature of who we are about what the FBI and the CIA could share.
And we know that now. It's why Director Mueller - Director Tenet - the president in the creation of a Homeland Security Department - are moving t o fix the stovepiping that obviously did exist. Everybody knows now that there was inadequate intelligence sharing prior to 9/11.
We've learned a lot of lessons from that. And organizational changes are being made to deal with that. A Homeland Security Department would, for instance, be a place that all of the vulnerabilities of the United States could be analyzed, that the intelligence that's coming in could be matched and mapped on to those vulnerabilities and that responses could be programmed and taken; that simply didn't exist in 1998, didn't exist prior to September 11.
We really do believe that the key here is to try and take what we've learned and to move forward and to make those organizational changes, and they are being made.
MARGARET WARNER: Condoleezza Rice, thanks so much.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Thank you very much.
Online NewsHour: Rice on Iraq, War and Politics -- September 25,
* * *
October 10, 2002
What She Really Said...
Condoleezza Rice at the
Waldorf Astoria
by KURT NIMMO, CounterPunch
On October 1, Dubya's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, delivered a speech at the exclusive Waldorf Astoria in New York. Members of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research were in attendance.
The Manhattan Institute is a CIA-sponsored far right "think tank" (founded in 1978 by William Casey, who subsequently became Reagan's CIA director). The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as "welfare reform" (dismantling social programs), "faith-based initiatives" (blurring the distinction between church and state), and "education reform" (destroying public education).
It is curious Rice would deliver a speech before the Manhattan Institute, considering the organization's close relationship with Charles Murray, a far right ideologue who wrote The Bell Curve in 1984, a book that essentially argues black people are genetically and intellectually inferior to white people.
Rice's speech consisted of a series of generalities related to various aspects of the Dubya Doctrine. These sorely need translation and clarification. What follows is a series of quotes lifted from Rice's speech, followed by commentary.
“Foreign policy is ultimately about security -- about defending our people, our society and our values, such as freedom, tolerance, openness and diversity.”
She is only partially right. Certainly, US foreign policy is about security -- the security of the only remaining post-colonialist super-power and the multinational corporations it fronts. This alliance is increasingly confronted with global resistance to its greedy desire for unimpeded access to labor and natural resources.
Freedom, tolerance, and diversity have nothing to do with it -- in fact, these lofty (and, in a predatory global business sense, impractical) ideals are significant obstacles. Even so, they sound inspirational when laced through an Orwellian speech delivered by a Dubya functionary with a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
“President Bush's new National Security Strategy offers a bold vision for protecting our nation that captures today's new realities and opportunities.”
The ideological foundation of Bush's National Security Strategy is simple: the US will no longer tolerate economic rivals such as Germany and Japan or possible military rivals such as China and Russia.
As Dubya's NSS document outlines, "America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." Or, as Dick Cheney said when he worked for Dubya's daddy, "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union."...
“We will defend the peace by opposing and preventing violence by terrorists and outlaw regimes.”
But only terrorists and outlaw regimes the US disagrees with. US-backed terrorist states -- Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others -- have nothing to worry about, so long as they don't get any funny ideas like Saddam Hussein. If they insist on going their own way like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, well, there will be trouble, maybe even a whole lot of dead people.
US allies -- or, more appropriately, client states -- are defined by their obedience, not their values. Iraq is a perfect example of a client state that became an "outlaw regime" after it served its usefulness and its leader became troublesome and disobedient.
The message of the brutal sanctions imposed on Iraq over the last decade is simple: the people of Iraq will suffer for allowing themselves to be ruled by a cruel dictator who once received ample US aid (including chemical and biological weapons).
“Pre-emption is not a new concept. There has never been a moral or legal requirement that a country wait to be attacked before it can address existential threats. As George Shultz recently wrote, ‘If there is a rattlesnake in the yard, you don't wait for it to strike before you take action in self-defense’.”
"Pre-emption" is a clinical substitute for "first strike."
Immanuel Wallerstein had something to say about this: "First strikes are against international law. First strikes are immoral. If it is a political error, we may survive that. An error in law (of this magnitude) undermines the very possibility of law. And an error in morality (some call it a sin) is one that transforms us, not visibly for the better."
As for rattlesnakes -- they usually don't bite unless threatened. Of course, it helps as well not to feed them, encourage them, and make sure they don't end up in the front yard.
“What none of us should want is the emergence of a militarily powerful adversary who does not share our common values.”
In other words, if a third world nation is against the IMF, World Bank, structural adjustment programs, "lower marginal tax rates," sweatshop conditions for workers, and US military bases -- the only "common values" worth consideration -- the leader of that nation will be deposed, possibly killed.
In the not too distant past, troublesome leaders were often assassinated by the CIA or its surrogates: Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, Rafael Leonidas Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Salvador Allende in Chile, and Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan. In the future, truly fortunate leaders who have fallen from grace will be allowed to share a prison cell with Manuel Noriega.
“The United States will fight poverty, disease and oppression because it is the right thing to do -- and the smart thing to do. We have seen how poor states can become weak or even failed states, vulnerable to hijacking by terrorist networks -- with potentially catastrophic consequences.”
This sincerely transcends the boundaries of doublespeak. In fact, the US is doing precisely the opposite of what Rice says here.
As the Institute for Economic Democracy points out, the World Bank, IMF, NAFTA, GATT, the "military colossus" of the United States is in fact insisting "other nations reduce their education, reduce their health care, eliminate supports for industry, reduce the wages of an already impoverished labor force... developing countries [are] expected to lower their living standards and export more minerals, lumber, and food, all to pay debts that did little for their economic development... for the enrichment of a reconstituted financial aristocracy, the emerging corporate mercantilists," otherwise known as multinational corporations. . . .
The US, following the path blazed by the NSS document and its architects, will create more "poverty, disease and oppression," not less.
“At the core of America's foreign policy is our resolve to stand on the side of men and women in every nation who stand for what the president has called the "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" - free speech, equal justice, respect for women, religious tolerance and limits on the power of the state.”
Except in Saudi Arabia, of course. So strong is the sense of "human dignity" in Saudi Arabia that women are severely discriminated against in employment, education, and family relationships. Even small infractions by women -- such as drinking orange juice in public -- are punished by the al-Mutawa'een, or the religious police, usually with beatings.
By late September 2000, at least 104 Saudis and foreigners had been beheaded, exceeding in nine months the total of 103 that Amnesty International recorded in 1999. The government does not allow criticism of its policies or any independent thought or activity that might challenge the status quo. The minority Shi'a Muslim community is at constant risk of indefinite detention without charge or trial. For its respect of "human dignity," Saudi Arabia receives $3 billion a year in military aid from the US.
The "non-negotiable demands of human dignity" are only cited when an enemy, such as Saddam Hussein, is to be vilified. No such criticism is forthcoming for "democracies" such as Israel, a nation that continually violates UN resolutions and severely curtails the most basic human rights of Palestinians. As a reward, the US showers $2.1 billion in military aid and $600 million in economic support on Israel per year.
US foreign policy, as Condi Rice would have it, is not designed to ensure "human dignity," but rather to erect authoritarian bulwarks against the aspirations of millions of people in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central and South America.
“We do not seek to impose democracy on others, we seek only to help create conditions in which people can claim a freer future for themselves. Germany, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey show that freedom manifests itself differently around the globe -- and that new liberties can find an honored place amidst ancient traditions.”
Condi may wish to ask the people of Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey -- or the people who fall under the purview of these favored nations -- about the condition of their freedom.
In Indonesia, torture is commonly used to punish, intimidate, extract confessions or extort money from suspected supporters of independence movements and people involved in land and labor disputes. So freedom-loving was the government of Indonesia in 1975 that it invaded East Timor and -- with US provided equipment and Henry Kissinger's blessing -- killed 200,000 people for the crime of demanding independence.
When the East Timorese population voted against continued integration with Indonesia in 1999, militia thugs and Indonesian security forces killed an additional 2,000 people. As a reward for slaughtering voters in East Timor, Indonesia was the largest recipient of US foreign aid among East Asian countries in 1998-2002, according to the Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress.
In South Korea, under the dictates of the National Security Law, students, activists, trade unionists, publishers, and others are arrested and detained for belonging to student or activist groups with left-wing views and ideas. According to Amnesty International, political prisoners are often detained without a warrant, deprived of sleep for several days, questioned throughout the night, threatened and sometimes beaten. At least three criminal suspects are reported to have died in custody between late 1997 and the early months of 1998 as a possible result of ill treatment.
As for Turkey, the Anti-Terror Branch of the Security Directorate of Turkey's Ministry of the Interior is notorious for torturing and mistreating political detainees and prisoners. "Torture methods are constantly updated and improved to inflict pain but to avoid marks or bruises that can be documented by human rights groups within Turkey or state forensic doctors filling out mandatory detention medical reports," reports Human Rights Watch.
Kurds, which comprise approximately 20% of the Turkish population, suffer immensely. 30,000 Kurds fighting for national self-determination have died at the hands of the Turkish military since 1984. Considering Turkey's impeccable human rights record, the US has decided to reward the nation with $17.5 million in military aid.
“We have the ability to forge a 21st century that lives up to our hopes and not down to our fears. But only if we go about our work with purpose and clarity. Only if we are unwavering in our refusal to live in a world governed by terror and chaos. Only if we are unwilling to ignore growing dangers from aggressive tyrants and deadly technologies.”
The US will focus on the "growing dangers" and "deadly technologies" of official enemies -- members of a proscribed "axis of evil," such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea (a list that will undoubtedly grow and shrink as new enemies are created and eliminated).
The terror of client states will continue to be rewarded with ample foreign aid; meanwhile, in America, the corporate media will conceal or gloss over any uncomfortable facts, such as the daily murder of Palestinians or the 5,000 children who die every month in Iraq as a direct result of US and UN imposed sanctions.
"The goal of conservative rulers around the world, led by those who occupy the seats of power in Washington, is the systematic rollback of democratic gains, public services, and common living standards around the world," writes Michael Parenti.
Condoleezza Rice's vision of the 21st century is one of perpetual war, incessant conflict devised to capture the planet's natural and human wealth for a very small number of people while impoverishing the rest. In the post-Cold War era -- now that the US has no rival, no counter balance -- the gloves are off and the sky is the limit.
Now talk of nuclear war is bandied about as if it were nothing more than another tool for conquest. As the US gears up for the second salvo in this war -- against the people of Iraq -- fear, loathing, and hatred of the US government and its leaders grows.
If anything is certain about the future Bush, Rice, and the chicken hawk neocons have mapped out for us, it is that we can expect more war, more terrorism, more suffering -- and maybe, with nuclear weapons -- the use of which Dubya put back on the table with his Nuclear Posture Review earlier this year -- the end of the planet as we know it.
"We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights," Robert Bowman, Vietnam veteran and bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach, Florida, writes.
"We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism and in the future, nuclear terrorism."
– Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He can be reached at: nimmo@zianet.com. . .
Kurt Nimmo: Condoleezza Rice at the Waldorf Astoria
Condoleezza Rice, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
Corporate Connections:
Chevron; Charles Schwab;
Transamerica Corp.
What’s a girl gotta do to get a 130,000-ton oil tanker named after her? Ask Condi Rice. The new national security adviser so charmed Chevron’s board of directors that they named one of the company’s tankers after her. In addition to sitting on Chevron’s board, Rice was also a director at two other multinationals——brokerage firm Charles Schwab and insurance company Transamerica Corp.*
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
* Transamerica Corp.’s foreign parent company is Aegon NV, Netherlands
Presidential Profile: George W. Bush's Cabinet
PEACE ON EARTH - GOOD WILL TO MEN
December 25, 2002
N. KOREA STARTS
NUCLEAR PLANT REPAIRS
Official blames U.S. ‘hawks’ for growing crisis
By Christopher Torchia, Associated Press
SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea ratcheted up its standoff with Washington yesterday, starting repairs at a long-frozen nuclear reactor and warning that U.S. policy is leading to an “uncontrollable catastrophe” and the “brink of nuclear war.”...
North Korea officials removed U.N. seals from more nuclear facilities and began repair work at a reactor that had been frozen since 1994, a U.N. agency said. The North Koreans will need “a month or two” to make their Soviet-designed 5-megawatt reactor at Yongbyon operational, said Mark Gwozdecky, chief spokesman at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.
Alarming governments around the world, North Korea has swiftly taken steps toward a possible reactivation of nuclear facilities that experts believe were used to make one or two weapons in the 1990s. . . .
North Korea, which has accused the United States of plotting an invasion, has said it is willing to settle the nuclear issue if Washington signs a nonaggression treaty.
The North’s defense minister, Kim Il Choi, said in a report on KCNA, the North Korean news agency, that “U.S. hawks” were “pushing the situation on the Korean Peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war.”...
The North’s nuclear facilities at Yongbyon were at the center of a crisis in 1994 that some say nearly led to war.
Conflict was averted when North Korea agreed to freeze the facilities in a deal with the United States.
But Pyongyang said Dec. 12 that it planned to reactivate them to produce electricity because Washington had failed on a pledge to provide energy sources. U.S. officials say the primary purpose of the facilities is weapons production.
In South Korea, President-elect Roh Moo-hyun appealed to Russia, China and Japan for help in finding a peaceful solution....
June 28, 2002
Return of the Vampire:
Elliot Abrams Named to
Security Council
Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Thursday named Elliott Abrams, who was involved in the Iran-contra scandal during Ronald Reagan's presidency, to a senior position at the White House National Security Council.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice announced that Abrams had been appointed to the position of senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations. The position does not require Senate confirmation.
In 1991, Abrams pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges of withholding information from Congress related to the Reagan administration's secret scheme to sell arms to Iran and use the proceeds to fund the Contra rebels fighting Nicaragua's leftist government. He received a pardon from the president's father, the then President George Bush.
Abrams admitted that he withheld from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in October 1986 his knowledge of Lt. Col. Oliver North's Contra-assistance activities.
"I consider this one of the most bizarre appointments imaginable," said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, an independent policy research organization.
The White House said Bush had confidence in Abrams. "Mr Abrams is eminently qualified for his new position. He is the best person for the job," said White House spokesman Sean McCormack.
The appointment followed Bush's nomination of two controversial conservatives to work on Latin American policy. One of those was Cuban-born conservative Otto Reich, Bush's nominee to head Latin American policy at the State Department as assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs.
Reich, a controversial member of the Cuban-American exile lobby, ran the Reagan administration's Office of Public Diplomacy from 1983 to 1986. The office was accused of using illegal means to promote public support for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels. Democratic senators have vowed to oppose the appointment of Reich, a corporate lobbyist for rum producer Bacardi who favors tightening the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba.
Bush picked Roger Noriega, an aide to North Carolina Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, as U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States, the hemispheric forum of 34 nations. Bush has made a point of emphasizing the importance of good North-South relations.
Birns said the selections represented "a very dangerous trend for the future of U.S.-Latin American relations" at a time of rising nationalism in the region.
"It clearly is a very provocative move," he said.
The Hawks Squawk:
Open Letter to the President
19 February 1998
Dear Mr. President,
Many of us were involved in organizing the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf in 1990 to support President Bush's policy of expelling Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Seven years later, Saddam Hussein is still in power in Baghdad. And despite his defeat in the Gulf War, continuing sanctions, and the determined effort of UN inspectors to fetter out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein has been able to develop biological and chemical munitions. To underscore the threat posed by these deadly devices, the Secretaries of State and Defense have said that these weapons could be used against our own people. And you have said that this issue is about "the challenges of the 21st Century."
Iraq's position is unacceptable. While Iraq is not unique in possessing these weapons, it is the only country which has used them -- not just against its enemies, but its own people as well. We must assume that Saddam is prepared to use them again. This poses a danger to our friends, our allies, and to our nation.
It is clear that this danger cannot be eliminated as long as our objective is simply "containment," and the means of achieving it are limited to sanctions and exhortations. As the crisis of recent weeks has demonstrated, these static policies are bound to erode, opening the way to Saddam's eventual return to a position of power and influence in the region. Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion.
For years, the United States has tried to remove Saddam by encouraging coups and internal conspiracies. These attempts have all failed. Saddam is more wily, brutal and conspiratorial than any likely conspiracy the United States might mobilize against him.
Saddam must be overpowered; he will not be brought down by a coup d'etat. But Saddam has an Achilles' heel: lacking popular support, he rules by terror. The same brutality which makes it unlikely that any coups or conspiracies can succeed, makes him hated by his own people and the rank and file of his military. Iraq today is ripe for a broad-based insurrection.
We must exploit this opportunity.
Saddam's long record of treaty violations, deception, and violence shows that diplomacy and arms control will not constrain him. In the absence of a broader strategy, even extensive air strikes would be ineffective in dealing with Saddam and eliminating the threat his regime poses. We believe that the problem is not only the specifics of Saddam's actions, but the continued existence of the regime itself.
What is needed now is a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime. It will not be easy -- and the course of action we favor is not without its problems and perils. But we believe the vital national interests of our country require the United States to:
>> Recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq.
>> Restore and enhance the safe haven in northern Iraq to allow the provisional government to extend its authority there and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded.
>> Lift sanctions in liberated areas. Sanctions are instruments of war against Saddam's regime, but they should be quickly lifted on those who have freed themselves from it. Also, the oil resources and products of the liberated areas should help fund the provisional government's insurrection and humanitarian relief for the people of liberated Iraq.
>> Release frozen Iraqi assets -- which amount to $1.6 billion in the United States and Britain alone -- to the control of the provisional government to fund its insurrection. This could be done gradually and so long as the provisional government continues to promote a democratic Iraq.
>> Facilitate broadcasts from U.S. transmitters immediately and establish a Radio Free Iraq.
>> Help expand liberated areas of Iraq by assisting the provisional government's offensive against Saddam Hussein's regime logistically and through other means.
>> Remove any vestiges of Saddam's claim to "legitimacy" by, among other things, bringing a war crimes indictment against the dictator and his lieutenants and challenging Saddam's credentials to fill the Iraqi seat at the United Nations.
>> Launch a systematic air campaign against the pillars of his power -- the Republican Guard divisions which prop him up and the military infrastructure that sustains him.
>> Position U.S. ground force equipment in the region so that, as a last resort, we have the capacity to protect and assist the anti-Saddam forces in the northern and southern parts of Iraq.
Once you make it unambiguously clear that we are serious about eliminating the threat posed by Saddam, and are not just engaged in tactical bombing attacks unrelated to a larger strategy designed to topple the regime, we believe that such countries as Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose cooperation would be important for the implementation of this strategy, will give us the political and logistical support to succeed.
In the present climate in Washington, some may misunderstand and misinterpret strong American action against Iraq as having ulterior political motives. We believe, on the contrary, that strong American action against Saddam is overwhelmingly in the national interest, that it must be supported, and that it must succeed. Saddam must not become the beneficiary of an American domestic political controversy.
We are confident that were you to launch an initiative along these line, the Congress and the country would see it as a timely and justifiable response to Iraq's continued intransigence. We urge you to provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Solarz
Former Member, Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House of Representatives
Hon. Richard Perle
Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant Secretary
of Defense
Hon. Elliot Abrams
President, Ethics & Public Policy Center; Former Assistant Secretary of
State
Richard V. Allen
Former National Security Advisor
Hon. Richard Armitage
President, Armitage Associates, L.C.; Former Assistant Secretary of
Defense
Jeffrey T. Bergner
President, Bergner, Bockorny, Clough & Brain; Former Staff Director, Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
Hon. John Bolton
Senior Vice President, American Enterprise Institute; Former Assistant
Secretary of State
Stephen Bryen
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
Hon. Richard Burt
Chairman, IEP Advisors, Inc.; Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany; Former
Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs
Hon. Frank Carlucci
Former Secretary of Defense
Hon. Judge William Clark
Former National Security Advisor
Paula J. Dobriansky
Vice President, Director of Washington Office, Council on Foreign
Relations; Former Member, National Security Council
Doug Feith
Managing Attorney, Feith & Zell P.C.; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Negotiations Policy
Frank Gaffney
Director, Center for Security Policy; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear Forces
Jeffrey Gedmin
Executive Director, New Atlantic Initiative; Research Fellow, American
Enterprise Institute
Hon. Fred C. Ikle
Former Undersecretary of Defense
Robert Kagan
Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Director, Strategy and Doctrine, RAND Corporation
Sven F. Kraemer
Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council
William Kristol
Editor, The Weekly Standard
Michael Ledeen
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Former Special Advisor to
the Secretary of State
Bernard Lewis
Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Ottoman Studies, Princeton
University
R. Admiral Frederick L. Lewis
U.S. Navy, Retired
Maj. Gen. Jarvis Lynch
U.S. Marine Corps, Retired
Hon. Robert C. McFarlane
Former National Security Advisor
Joshua Muravchik
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Robert A. Pastor
Former Special Assistant to President Carter for Inter-American Affairs
Martin Peretz
Editor-in-Chief, The New Republic
Roger Robinson
Former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs, National Security
Council
Peter Rodman
Director of National Security Programs, Nixon Center for Peace and
Freedom; Former Director, Policy Planning Staff, U.S. Department of State
Hon. Peter Rosenblatt
Former Ambassador to the Trust Territories of the Pacific
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld
Former Secretary of Defense
Gary Schmitt
Executive Director, Project for the New American Century; Former
Executive Director, President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Max Singer
President, The Potomac Organization; Former President, The Hudson
Institute
Hon. Helmut Sonnenfeldt
Guest Scholar, The Brookings Institution; Former Counsellor, U.S.
Department of State
Hon. Caspar Weinberger
Former Secretary of Defense
Leon Wienseltier
Literary Editor, The New Republic
Hon. Paul Wolfowitz
Dean, Johns Hopkins SAIS; Former Undersecretary of Defense
David Wurmser
Director, Middle East Program, AEI; Research Fellow, American Enterprise
Institute
Dov S. Zakheim
Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense
Organization affiliations given for identification purposes only. Views reflected in the letter are endorsed by the individual, not the institution.
-- Open Letter to the President - 2-19-98
From Al Martin Raw
Return of the Animal Farm
by Al Martin
The Bush Cabal's Liability Control Group is Back
The New Bush Administration continues to resurrect the Old Bush Cabal.
According to recent press reports, the infamous, sinister and dreaded Elliot Abrams has been appointed to the National Security Council as senior director for democracy, human rights and operations. Not to be forgotten is the fact that Elliott Abrams is a liar par excellence - and a known shredder of documents.
Elliott Abrams actually originated the phrase "Shadow Government" designating the machinations of the Bush Cabal during the Iran Contra years.
During the Reagan-Bush Administration, former Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams was in charge of a propaganda office in the State Department known as the Inter-American Affairs Office, ostensibly set up to provide a liaison between the Nicaraguan contras, the CIA and the National Security Council.
Within the purview of the Inter-American Affairs office, Abrams was responsible for dispensing duly authorized Congressional humanitarian aid to the Nicaraguan contras. At the time, Congress made three separate appropriations totaling $300 million in 1985 and 1986 for so-called "humanitarian aid."
During the Hughes Commission probe of 1988, Congressman Hughes discovered that the State Department could only account for $27 million of the $300 million expended.
As Hughes reported in his final summary report, which was then forwarded to the general counsel of the Tower Commission, the remaining $273 million seemed to have disappeared into a variety of "CIA-connected offshore accounts."
All the major participants had code names during Iran-Contra. Elliot Abram's official code name was "The Snake." His equally sinister underling, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Kozak was code-named "The Weasel."
Bill Casey, then director of the CIA, often thought up these codenames himself. Casey admitted publicly before he died that the code names he used were based on his perception of people's characters.
Around 1985, Clair George, then deputy Director of the CIA, was in charge of all CIA sanctioned narcotics operations.
Clair George, by the way, was one of the passengers in that Twin Beech Baron aircraft that Miami Customs inadvertently forced to land at Tamiami Airport in November 1983. A sizable quantity of cocaine was found in the plane, and Clair George was actually the so-called "high ranking unnamed CIA official" that the FBI didn't want to name in the famous 12B-151 FBI internal Memorandum.
The last time I had seen Clair George, in 1985, he told me that Bill Casey's opinion of Elliott Abrams was that he thought that Abrams "had all the intestinal fortitude of a bowl of jello."
Casey also said that if Elliott Abrams was just given a few volts of electro-shock he'd "sing like a friggin bird."
It should also be mentioned that Elliot Abrams' other claim to fame was the December 10, 1985 meeting with Manuel Noriega. He met Noriega along with Michael Kozak and Bill Walters in the conference room of the Hotel Intercontinental in Panama City to discuss Noriega's grievances that he wasn't being paid enough per kilogram of cocaine that was passing through his country. This was pursuant to Oliver North's "guns for drugs" operation. That meeting was Elliott Abrams' one claim to fame - and even that meeting didn't go well.
Elliott Abrams didn't want to give Noriega any extra money, because by this time, (December 1985), Bill Casey and George Bush were growing nervous about the administration's closeness to somebody they were seeing as increasingly unreliable. So Abrams was sent down to placate Noriega.
By the way, Noriega was still upset about a lot of the little things that had happened to him. There was the $5 million of his money that Oliver North swiped that was supposed to be given to Don Aronow to build those gunboats for the Panamanian Navy.
No one seems to know where the five million actually went. It was five million in cash.
When North left Noriega in Panama City, he stopped in San Jose Costa, Rica to see Joe Fernandez, the Costa Rican CIA Station Chief.
It's interesting to note that later that day there was a $2 million cash deposit to the North-controlled account of Intercontinental Industries S.A. of San Jose, Costa Rica. The deposit was made into their account at the Banco de Popular. This was discovered by interviewing the general manager of the Dominican branch of the Banco de Popular, during a related investigation.
Bill Walters, who was also "negotiating" with Noriega, is of course Bush's newly appointed "drug czar."
The logical conclusion is that George Bush Jr. is trying to put together the old RAG-1 (Restricted Access Group 1). He is reassembling the group of which Elliott Abrams and Dickie Armitage were former members. There was also Frank Carlucci, then National Security advisor and then Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aronson.
Restricted Access Group 1 was chaired by the Vice President, George Bush Sr. It was the highest restricted group that existed in the Iran-Contra operations. It directly reported to the Vice President, who was after all ultimately in charge of all Iran-Contra operations, insofar as all Iran-Contra operations were consolidated under his office.
RAG-1 had monthly meetings and they communicated with each other. They acted as the Vice President's and Bill Casey's eyes and ears throughout all the other agencies,. They were the ultimate group that controlled political and legal liability for the Reagan-Bush administration vis-a-vis Iran-Contra activities. They were the ultimate liability control group.
They enforced directives by making recommendations to the Vice President which would then be forwarded to Director Casey. The recommendations would include the destruction of documents, the prosecution or inconveniencing of people who knew too much, and they would even make recommendations that individuals be liquidated.
What individuals were to be pressured, harassed, exiled, intimidated, falsely convicted of something. Who was to be set up. Who would be made a scapegoat. And what other suppressive activities were to take place within the RAG-2 group. The RAG-2 Group included George Terwilliger of the Department of Justice and Bobby Gates of the CIA.
The linkage between the groups was their mandate. The reason that Restricted Access Groups exist is that every Restricted Access Group has deniability from the Restricted Access Group below it. It's ultimately to build buffers between those at the very top actually running an illegal covert operation of state and those who are charged with the execution of said policies. This was the original concept to maintain deniability as espoused by "Wild Bill" Donovan.
In the future we should look for future appointments like George Terwilliger, Frank Carlucci and Bernie Aronson, any of the old RAG characters, to see how many of them are brought back into the Bush Jr. Administration.
These include old cabalists like former DCI Robert Gates, former Deputy Attorney General George Terwilliger, former White House Counsel and George Bush Sr.'s personal counsel C. Boyden Gray (AKA "Charles Smith" of October Surprise fame) - all document shredders par excellence.
Those familiar with secretarial skills measured by WPM, or typing (Words Per Minute) will understand that future candidates for Bush Administration positions must now list their DPM on their curriculum vitae.
Salary bonuses will be offered for speeds above 100 DPM. A special DPM test will most likely be administered: how many Documents Per Minute can you shred, otherwise known as DPM?
The reappointment of former Bush Cabalists demonstrates that Bush Family members -George Sr., George Jr., Jeb, Neil, Prescott and Wally - are still concerned to this day about their Iran-Contra liability.
We would challenge those who would maintain that Iran-Contra is past history because the liability it represents is still very much with us.
Furthermore, the second reason that this Restricted Access Group is being put together again is to manage political and legal liability vis-a-vis the United States Government's current covert and illegal operation to rearm China.
The reconstitution of this access group would indicate that even more egregious covert illegal activities in the future are going to take place - an acceleration of the rearming of China in order to make China the New Designated Enemy of the 21st Century. This policy will be stepped up and even more egregious acts will be committed.
This frightens some people. The concept of a RAG-1 Group being put back together frightens some people who know too much about the Bushes -- both past and present. This usually indicates that assassinations or liquidations will begin to take place.
When the original RAG-1 Group was put together during Iran-Contra years, it was immediately thereafter that citizens who knew too much began to die under clouded circumstances. (See Chapter 15 of "The Conspirators" on the deaths of Johnny Molina and George Morales).
Suddenly there was a spate of prosecutions. People who know too much like Michael Riconosciuto are incarcerated on questionable evidence.
So what are the names of the Control and Cover-up Crowd?
Look for the return of the "Snake," the "Weasel" and other operatives with similar Animal Farm-like names. It will validate our assertions that Bush is attempting to reassemble a liability control group.
And what does it mean?
The current operation to illegally arm China is going to be ratcheted up and it will take on decidedly more sinister overtones.
~ ~ ~
AL MARTIN is America's foremost whistle-blower on government fraud and corruption. A retired US Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra.
Al Martin is the author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; order line: 1-866-317-1390.) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence.
His column "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt Conspiracy (www.almartinraw.com).
# # #
HAWKS vs. DOVES
~ ~ ~
WHICH FLOCK WILL YOU FLY WITH?
A) THE HAWKS ?
OR
B) THE DOVES ?
PERSONS OF ALL NATIONALITIES, RACES, SEXES, AGES, AND RELIGIONS ARE FREE TO ASSEMBLE AND TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINIONS AT:
STILL NOT DECIDED?
Then, GO TO
\/
\/
\/
Birds that Drink from Cesspools
Tarnished Wings: The Greed at Lockheed
The United Defense Industries Matrix
~ o ~
MORE OF THE CATBIRD’S FAVORITE LINKS
~ o ~
###
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
###
Last Update August 14, 2008, by The Catbird