If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
toto wrote in message . ..
On 11 Jul 2003 11:45:14 GMT, (Catherine Woodgold) wrote: They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar somehow, and the US called them on it. And I want us to continue our current course in Iraq until it is truly a free country or proves itself to be unrecoverable. Which ever. It's my understanding that the people in charge of the U.S. government do not intend either to promote or to allow free, democratic elections in Iraq. -- Cathy I think that we have to wait and see about that. The US occupying forces just called off elections a week or so ago. The "problem" is that if an actual democratic election were held, the sort of government likely to be voted in would likely not be the sort of government the US elite wants to see in a country with the world's second largest oil reserves. I do find it interesting that Noah Feldman (who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish household) has been appointed to lead the writing of the new Constitution. But, in a truly "democratic" Iraq, shouldn't Iraqis themselves be electing representatives who will draft a constitution rather than someone handpicked by the occupying forces, however good his qualifications may be? His qualifications are actually good and he seems not to be opposed to the possibility that an Islamic government may be able to implement such a democracy which is highly unusual among those who advise Bush. Whether or not he is allowed any power and whether or not the Shi'ites and Sunnis will cooperate with him remains to be seen. If he can bring this off, it would certainly change the middle east and much of the world, for that matter. I hope you are right, Dorothy, but given the USA's past history in the region I am extremely pessimistic. The USA has a long history of hostility towards "democracy" in Arab countries, at least in my dictionary's sense of the word. Some information about Feldman he http://tribunetimes.com/news/opinion...0306108143.htm The interesting part of the article to me is this quote: In Feldman's book, "After Jihad: America and the Struggle for Islamic Democracy," he argues that one of the biggest problems with U.S. policy in the region over the years has been a Machiavellian willingness to support thugs so long as they were pro-American. Saddam Hussein himself is a classic example of this tradition. We hear about how he killed his own people with chemical weapons, but it is seldom mentioned in the mainstream US press that the USA sent him the chemical precursors necessary to make those weapons. And after he massacred thousands of Kurds in Hallabja, back in 1988, Donald Rumsfeld personally flew to Baghdad to shake that mass murderer's hand for a photo op. We also sent Saddam live strains of anthrax and botulism for use in making biological weapons. After the Gulf War, these exact same strains were found being used in his biological weapons program. "Western governments that pride themselves on their own democratic character ... embrace dictators for reasons of short-term self-interest, forgetting that in the long run the support of autocracy undermines their own democratic values and makes enemies of the people who are being oppressed with Western complicity." In the USA, civil liberties and privacy are under attack by the administration of a President who was not elected, but got into power by means of a judicial coup. In at least two cases that I am aware of, US citizens are being held without charges and without access to lawyers in flagrant violation of their civil rights, not to mention hundreds of non-citizens in Guantanamo Bay. Once the proposed PATRIOT II draft legislation becomes law, the government will have the power to strip any US citizen of their citizenship and treat them just like the other Guantanomo detainees. This is the "democratic character" with which America "prides" itself. Chris (USA) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
This is it. This is what war is really all about.
Chris (USA) http://www.app.com/app2001/story/0,21133,765265,00.html 'I'm Hurting Right Now, Mom' As war deaths mount, Toms River family waits for son's return By Michael Amsel The Asbury Park Press (New Jersey) Sunday 13 July 2003 Spc. Shaun Cunningham always prided himself on his mental toughness. As a chemical operations specialist with an Army field hospital near Baghdad, Cunningham saw the horrific realities of the war, helping retrieve bodies of fallen comrades from the field, shooting several enemy fighters in gunbattles, trying his best not to be shocked at the level of violence he witnessed. But this was too much to bear. At his feet were three U.S. soldiers who had been killed when their UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter crashed into the Tigris River. One body was nearly decapitated. It was Cunningham's job to clean them up and put them in body bags so they could be shipped back to the United States for proper funerals. As Cunningham searched their pockets, looking for IDs, he realized he'd met the men; they were flight medics he had helped outfit with protective gear. A knot formed in his throat. Then, he came upon pictures of their children and tears welled in his eyes. "That's when the war really hit home with him," said his father, Richard Cunningham. As the war fades from our collective consciousness, families like the Cunninghams of Toms River wait and worry, hoping their sons and daughters will return home safely, and the nightmare will end. Each day, the pain and longing gets more excruciating. And the death toll mounts. Since the war with Iraq started March 19, at least 210 U.S. fighters have died. At least 80 have died since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1. Gen. Tommy Franks gave a stark assessment of the situation late last week, warning that U.S. troops may have to remain in Iraq for another four years. Each day, it seems, another U.S. soldier gets killed in a firefight or a sneak attack. Letters and e-mails from overseas bring comfort to concerned parents, but they often carry with them images of abject horror. Images hard to stomach. Poignant letter Two weeks ago, Richard and Kathleen Cunningham received a letter dated May 9 from Shaun, a 1997 graduate of Toms River High School East. He wrote about a helicopter striking a power line before going down in the Tigris River and told of the trauma he felt putting men into body bags. "I had blood all over me, and all I could think about was this guy's wife and kids who were in his wallet staring at me," Cunningham wrote. "I'm hurting right now, mom, and I just needed to write and vent my feelings. The war is over? Yeh, tell that to these guys' families." Kathleen Cunningham said she can stomach the graphic detail of her son's letters; it's the uncertainty of his future that gnaws at her insides. "My heart breaks that my son has to see and endure things like that," Cunningham said. "I keep thinking: Will he be able to put all he has seen aside when he comes home and live a normal life? These soldiers are seeing so much, experiencing so much, I just don't know if they will be able to go forward. I sincerely hope the Army helps them with therapy because they certainly will need it." Shannon Cunningham said she feels "beyond proud" when she reads her brother's letters. "It's overwhelming. There is no other way to say it," said Cunningham, 20. "I never thought I would read stuff like that, written by my brother. I can't tell you how proud I am of the things he has done." The past week has been especially grueling for the Cunningham family. Shaun is with the 21st Combat Support Hospital, A Company, in Balad, just north of Baghdad, and his camp, Anaconda, has been under constant attack. Friday, a female soldier in his camp committed suicide by shooting herself in the stomach. Shaun e-mailed his parents about the suicide and said his comrades are "getting real scared." In another e-mail, dated July 8, Shaun wrote: "We have been getting hit with mortars every night, and they are rocking the camp!!!! There was a major gunbattle last night, and I got to take part in it. No one was hurt on our side, but we killed many Iraqi. For the first time since I have been over here, I was a little scared, with all the rounds coming in. Some people are having trouble sleeping and are developing the shakes. Not me, though." Later in the e-mail, almost as an afterthought, Shaun informed his parents that he was getting promoted to sergeant and had received a Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor. The award honors outstanding heroic deeds performed above and beyond the call of duty. "He said he would trade in all his medals just to come home," Rich Cunningham said. When life was different Life was so simple, so carefree for the Cunninghams in 2001. Richard and Kathleen were still basking in the glory of their youngest son, Chris, a member of '99 Toms River East Little League team that made it to the United States championship final in Williamsport, Pa. Shannon, then 18, had secured a job as the hostess at the Olive Garden restaurant in Toms River, and she was working with her brother Shaun, a waiter. The two were inseparable. Shannon had struck up a friendship with one of the cooks, Rob Rusiecki of Manchester, and Shaun had become friends with another waiter, Tom Denning of Lacey's Lanoka Harbor section. Two years later, the foursome remains linked. But now it is the Iraq war that binds them together. Sgt. Rob Rusiecki, Shannon's fiancee, is serving in Kuwait. Spc. Shaun Cunningham is in Balad, a hotbed of activity, and Sgt. Tom Denning is at an undisclosed area in the Persian Gulf. "It's just so scary for me," Shannon said. "I know both Shaun and Rob are targets. I read their letters and see the things they are going through, and I get so frightened. The only thing that gets me through this is thinking about when they all come home. How strong their friendship is going to be. How special a bond they will have because of the war." To relieve stress, Shannon has signed up for six summer-school courses, three at Ocean County College, three at William Paterson University in Wayne. "I focus on school, my tests and my papers," Shannon said. "Anything to divert my attention away from the war." Letters home While Shannon studies, her mother rereads letters from Shaun to ease the pain, the longing. In a letter dated, April 18, Shaun wrote: "Welcome to Baghdad, Iraq! I made it!!! The real exciting part was driving through all the towns. The people were cheering and waving homemade American flags. I gave this little Iraqi boy some water and candy and he gave me a hug and said, 'No more Saddam.' He smiled and walked back to his mom." "That letter really tugs at my heart," Kathleen Cunningham said. "It reminds me that the Iraqi people are happy we did this for them. It tells me that Shaun has a true sense of why we went over there." Kathleen Cunningham said the letters always bring tears to her eyes -- especially the most recent one, dated May 9. In it, Shaun wrote: "Mom, I'm telling you right now that if something should happen to me, know that you and daddy are the best and I love my family a lot. People are getting killed every day, and the look on their faces will stay with me forever. I'm sure that you will hear about this (helicopter) crash before this letter gets to you. Know that we acted honorably and the doctors did everything they could to bring the men back to life. Say a prayer for them and tell the church to also pray. Good soldiers, good men, now with God." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...7945990.column
A Firm Basis for Impeachment By Robert Scheer Los Angeles Times Tuesday 15 July 2003 Does the president not read? Does his national security staff, led by Condoleezza Rice, keep him in the dark about the most pressing issues of the day? Or is this administration blatantly lying to the American people to secure its ideological ends? Those questions arise because of the White House admission that the charge that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger was excised from a Bush speech in October 2002 after the CIA and State Department insisted it was unfounded. Bizarrely, however, three months later - without any additional evidence emerging - that outrageous lie was inserted into the State of the Union speech to justify the president's case for bypassing the United Nations Security Council, for chasing U.N. inspectors out of Iraq and for invading and occupying an oil-rich country. This weekend, administration sources disclosed that CIA Director George Tenet intervened in October to warn White House officials, including deputy national security advisor Stephen Hadley, not to use the Niger information because it was based on a single source. That source proved to be a forged document with glaring inconsistencies. Bush's top security aides, led by Hadley's boss, Rice, went along with the CIA, and Bush's October speech was edited to eliminate the false charge that Iraq was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger to create a nuclear weapon. We now know that before Bush's January speech, Robert G. Joseph, the National Security Council individual who reports to Rice on nuclear proliferation, was fully briefed by CIA analyst Alan Foley that the Niger connection was no stronger than it had been in October. It is inconceivable that in reviewing draft after draft of the State of the Union speech, NSC staffers Hadley and Joseph failed to tell Rice that the president was about to spread a big lie to justify going to war. On national security, the buck doesn't stop with Tenet, the current fall guy. The buck stops with Bush and his national security advisor, who is charged with funneling intelligence data to the president. That included cluing in the president that the CIA's concerns were backed by the State Department's conclusion that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are highly dubious." For her part, Rice has tried to fend off controversy by claiming ignorance. On "Meet the Press" in June, Rice claimed, "We did not know at the time - no one knew at the time, in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery." On Friday, Rice admitted that she had known the State Department intelligence unit "was the one that within the overall intelligence estimate had objected to that sentence" and that Secretary of State Colin Powell had refused to use the Niger document in his presentation to the U.N. because of what she described as long-standing concerns about its credibility. But Rice also knew the case for bypassing U.N. inspections and invading Iraq required demonstrating an imminent threat. The terrifying charge that Iraq was hellbent on developing nuclear weapons would do the trick nicely. However, with the discrediting of the Niger buy and the equally dubious citation of a purchase of aluminum tubes (which turned out to be inappropriate for the production of enriched uranium), one can imagine the disappointment at the White House. There was no evidence for painting Saddam Hussein as a nuclear threat. The proper reaction should have been to support the U.N. inspectors in doing their work in an efficient and timely fashion. We now know, and perhaps the White House knew then, that the inspectors eventually would come up empty-handed because no weapons of mass destruction program existed - not even a stray vial of chemical and biological weapons has been discovered. However, that would have obviated the administration's key rationale for an invasion, so lies substituted for facts that didn't exist. And there, dear readers, exists the firm basis for bringing a charge of impeachment against the president who employed lies to lead us into war. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/opinion/15KRUG.html
Pattern of Corruption By Paul Krugman The New York Times Tuesday 15 July 2003 More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods? How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence. Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link that assault to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security. So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war. The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism. As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia. And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses - just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose. What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days. It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing - and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce. So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff - but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses." Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Senator Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president." In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3063361.stm
Core of Weapons Case Crumbling By Paul Reynolds BBC News Online Sunday 13 July 2003 Of the nine main conclusions in the British government document "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction", not one has been shown to be conclusively true. The confusion evident about one of the claims, that Iraq sought uranium from Niger despite having no civilian nuclear programme, is the latest example of the process under which the allegations made so confidently last September have been undermined. The CIA has admitted that the claim should not have been in President Bush's State of the Union speech. The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa President George W Bush in State of the Union address It turns out that the CIA and the British intelligence agency MI6 passed each other like ships in the night and did not share information. Correspondents attending a Foreign Office briefing last week were astounded when an official remarked that there had been no duty on Britain to pass its information on Niger, which it obtained from "a foreign intelligence service", to Washington as it was "up to the other intelligence service to do so." Apparently there is a protocol among intelligence services which could not be broken despite the grave nature of the information and the use to which it was put - in this case, to help justify going to war. Even a CIA statement of explanation issued late last week was not quite correct. It said that the President's famous 16 words were accurate in that the "British Government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa." Mr Bush did not in fact simply mention a British "report" on the uranium. He actually said that the British had "learned" that Iraq had sought these supplies. He therefore hardened up the position. Democratic Senator Carl Levin said on Sunday that this suggested intent by the White House to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. The nine main conclusions and the broad evidence which has emerged about them are these: 1. "Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents." No evidence of Iraq's useable capability has been found in terms of manufacturing plants, bombs, rockets or actual chemical or biological agents, nor any sign of recent production. A mysterious truck has been found which the CIA says is a mobile biological facility but this has not been accepted by all experts. 2. "Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles... He is determined to retain these capabilities." He may well have attached great importance to the possession of such weapons but none has been found. The meaning of the word "capability" is now key to this. If the US and UK governments can show that Iraq maintained an active expertise, amounting to a "programme", they will claim their case has been made that Iraq violated UN resolutions. 3. "Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of shells, bombs, sprayers and missiles." Nothing major has been found so far. There was one aircraft adapted with a sprayer but its capability was small. 4. "Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons... Uranium has been sought from Africa." The UN watchdog the IAEA said there was no evidence for this up to the start of the war and none has been found since. It is possible, though, that a case could be made from a shopping list of items needed for such a programme. These include vacuum pumps, magnets, winding and balancing machines - all listed in the British dossier. No details about these purchasing attempts have been provided. A claim that aluminium tubes were sought for this process was not wholly accepted by the British assessment though it was by the American and has subsequently not been proved. The uranium claim is currently under question, though the British Government stands by its allegation. 5. "Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the Scud ballistic missile." No Scuds have been found. The British said Iraq might have up to 20, the CIA said up to 12. 6. "Iraq's current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons." That may have been the case but direct evidence from serving Iraqi officers will be needed to prove it. 7. "The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons (chemical and biological) within 45 minutes of a decision to do so." The 45 minute claim is currently under question. It is said to come from "a single source" probably a defector or Iraqi officer. It has not been proven. 8. "Iraq... is already taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment." This is a focus of the current American and British investigation being carried out in Iraq by the Iraq Survey Group. One Iraqi scientist has come forward to say that he hid blueprints of centrifuges under his roses but that was in 1991. If a pattern of concealment can be established, it would add to the credibility of the allegations that Iraq wanted to defy the UN. 9. "Iraq's chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programme are well funded." Evidence will be needed from serving Iraqi officials backed up by documents. Again, if a pattern of funding can be established, a case against Iraq could be made but if the actual programmes did not exist, was the funding of much use and in any case, how much was it? President Bush and Prime Minister Blair will be meeting in Washington later this week when they will discuss their strategy to justify the claims. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/sto...6p-90699c.html
Bush Could be a One-Termer By Michael Kramer The New York Daily News Sunday 13 July 2003 President Bush could lose the 2004 election. Before now, I didn't think that was possible. Considering Bush's general popularity, political skills that dwarf his father's and the prospective Democratic alternatives, I thought Bush would win reelection - and probably easily. What's changed? The prospect for a major scandal involving the administration's arguments for going to war against Iraq and, specifically, the President's cavalier, even arrogant, responses to the charge that he and his aides distorted or exaggerated the intelligence on which the case for battle rested. This story, only now unfolding, is getting uglier every day. Right now, the focus is on Bush's assertion, made in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, that deposed dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to develop a nuclear weapons program by buying uranium in Africa. The intel on which that claim was based, relying as it did on forged documents, has now been shot down. The key question is this: Did the administration know the intelligence was bogus when the President used it to help justify toppling Saddam? Over the past week, the White House position has shifted. At first, the Bushies pointed to the careful way in which the President had said it was the British who had uncovered the uranium evidence. Then, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "The CIA cleared the [State of the Union] speech in its entirety." In that broadside, Rice went further, saying that if CIA head George Tenet had said, "'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone." Next, on Friday, the President echoed Rice: In Uganda, Bush said, "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services." Hours later, Tenet fell on his sword. In a written statement, the CIA chief confirmed the President's account and said the 16-word sentence in Bush's speech should "never" have been included, a mistake for which he took responsibility as the agency's director. One other piece of the drama deserves noting. A few days after Bush's State of the Union address, Secretary of State Powell made the case for war at the UN and pointedly refused to repeat the uranium charge - a reluctance apparently based on the fact that State's own spooks had told him the assertion couldn't be supported. As the flap unfolded a few days ago, Powell told CNN's Larry King that while he wasn't sure how the uranium allegation made it into Bush's address, it was "not a deliberate attempt by the President to mislead or exaggerate." That claim, Powell added, "is just ridiculous." The White House believes Tenet's mea culpa will put the controversy to rest, but there's something else about Bush's handling of this mess that leads me to conclude the President's reelection could be in jeopardy. A day before saying the "intelligence services" had "cleared" his State of the Union speech, Bush told reporters, "One thing is certain: [Saddam Hussein] is not trying to buy anything right now." Leaving aside the administration's new admission that Saddam's still alive - and therefore the chance that he might be trying to buy something right now - the President's comment was an arrogant dismissal of those who think this is a big deal, which it is. Arrogance is something voters don't like. We want our leaders to be confident - and to project confidence. We'll even accept the macho jingoism in which this particular President often couches his confidence. But the line between confidence and arrogance is thin, and when it's crossed, all bets are off. Recall that the first President Bush lost in 1992 because he seemed to arrogantly dismiss the concerns many voters felt about the economy. "Message: I care," Bush 41's infamous attempt to connect with voter anxiety, was taken by many as proof that their patrician President didn't even understand their pain, let alone feel it. Bush 43 is a looser guy and a smarter pol than his dad, and in dealing with today's economic troubles, he has not - or at least not yet- made the same mistake. But Bush's off-the-cuff comment about Saddam is a mistake in the same zone of arrogance. If he keeps it up, it could cost him dearly. No matter how Tenet and other administration figures move to protect the President, the Democrats are sure to highlight the flap during the 2004 campaign. Clinton factor Now the difference between '92 and 2004 can be summed up in a name: Bill Clinton. In other words, this Bush won't lose unless the Democrats run a similarly charismatic candidate capable of appealing to the vast center that determines presidential elections. So far, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is exuding the most energy on the Democratic side, yet he is the most left-leaning of the major wanna-bes. In the end, it's hard to see Dean beating Bush, although it isn't hard to see him capturing the Democratic nomination. But it's still early in the '04 cycle, other Democrats could emerge and Bush suddenly seems tone deaf to the trouble he's causing himself. We could have a race after all. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://www.sundayherald.com/35264
Niger and Iraq: the War's Biggest Lie? By Neal Mackay The Sunday Herald (UK) Sunday 13 July 2003 Investigation: Neil Mackay reveals why everyone now accepts that claims Saddam Hussein got uranium from Africa are fraudulent ... except, that is, Britain's beleaguered prime minister and his Cabinet supporters In February 1999, Wissam Al Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See in Rome, set off on a series of diplomatic visits to several African countries, including Niger. This trip triggered the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy tons of uranium from Niger -- a claim which could yet prove the most damning evidence that the British government exaggerated intelligence to bolster its case for war on Iraq . Some time after the Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence service came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the British to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . The forgeries were then used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congress and Parliament into supporting war. There are an increasing number of claims suggesting Bush and Blair knew these documents were forged when they used them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was putting together a nuclear arsenal. The truth behind claims that Blair's government 'sexed up' intelligence reports that Saddam could mobilise weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes may never be known, but the Niger forgeries lie like a smoking gun covered in Britain's fingerprints. At some point Tony Blair is going to have to answer questions about what the British government and MI6 were up to. The fact that the documents were forged matters less than the purpose to which they were put. On September 24, 2002, Blair's dossier Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government said: 'There is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Iraq has no active civil nuclear power programme of nuclear power plants and, therefore, has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium.' On January 28, 2003, Bush, in his State of the Union address, said: 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' Bush didn't stop there -- later, there was talk of 'mushroom clouds' unless Saddam was taken out. It was the International Atomic Energy Agency which rumbled the documents as forgeries -- a task that their experts were able to complete in just a matter of hours. Here are just four examples of how easy it was to work out the documents were, as one intelligence source said, 'total bull****': In a letter from the President of Niger a reference is made to the constitution of May 12, 1965 -- but the constitution is dated August 9, 1999; Another letter purports to be signed by Niger's foreign minister, but bears the signature of Allele Elhadj Habibou, the minister between 1988-89; An obsolete letterhead is used, including the wrong symbol for the presidency, and references to state bodies such as the Supreme Military Council and the Council for National Reconciliation are incompatible with the letter's date; It wasn't until just before the war began that Mohamed El Baradei, IAEA director-general, told the UN Security Council on March 7 that his team and 'outside experts', had worked out that ' these documents ... are in fact not authentic'. Exactly who was behind the forgeries is unclear but the finger of suspicion points towards some disaffected or bribed official in Niger . What looks more certain is that Bush and Blair were warned the documents were rubbish before El Baradei told the UN. The IAEA says it sought evidence about the Niger connection from Britain and America immediately after the US issued a state department factsheet on December 19, 2002, headed 'Illustrative Examples of Omissions from the Iraqi Declaration to the United Nations Security Council'. In it, under the heading 'Nuclear Weapons', it reads: 'The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger. Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?' But the IAEA, despite repeatedly begging the UK and US for access to papers, wasn't given any documents until February 2003 -- six weeks later. Well before the IAEA rained on the pro-war parade, the CIA was telling its masters in the Bush administration that the British intelligence on the Niger connection was nonsense. Vice-President Dick Cheney's office received the forged evidence in 2002 -- before Bush's State of the Union address on January 28 this year -- and passed it to the CIA. The CIA then dispatched former US ambassador Joseph C Wilson to Africa to check out the claim. Wilson came back saying the intelligence was unreliable and the CIA passed Cheney the assessment. Nevertheless, Bush kept the claim in his speech, and Cheney said, just days before the war began in March, that: 'We know (Saddam's) been absolutely trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.' He also poured scorn on the IAEA for saying the documents were forged. 'I think Mr El Baradei frankly is wrong ... (The IAEA) has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to be lieve they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.' Wilson said it was Cheney who forced the CIA to try to come up with a credible threat from Iraqi nukes. 'I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretences,' he wrote. Wilson also said: 'It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war. It begs the question: 'What else are they lying about?'' Wilson is no rogue official. He was lauded by George Bush Snr for 'fighting the good fight' after he became the last US diplomat to confront Saddam in the run-up to the first Gulf war. The irony isn't lost on Wilson, who says: 'I guess he didn't realise that one of these days I would carry that fight against his son's administration.' Greg Thielmann, director of the State Department's Office of Strategic, Proliferation and Military Issues, says the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research ruled the Niger connection implausible and told US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Thielmann also said Iraq posed no nuclear threat, and Team Bush distorted intelligence to fit its drive for war. Richard Kerr, a former CIA deputy director now leading a review of the agency's pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMDs, says intelligence was ambiguous and the CIA was under pressure from the Bush administration. The CIA, in what one British intelligence source described as a 'wise attempt at an ass-saving manoeuvre', also tried to have reference to Iraq's uranium links to Niger deleted from Bush's State of the Union address. CIA officials say they 'communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence'. Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, disputes the claim, saying the CIA cleared the reference made by Bush. The CIA also tried to save Blair's ass too. In September, before publication of the UK dossier citing the Niger connection, the CIA tried to persuade Britain not to use the claim. CIA figures say the agency was consulted by the UK and 'recommended against using that material'. Blair, however, continues to defend the allegation, claiming the UK has separate intelligence -- or 'non-documentary evidence' -- to back up the Niger claim, proving Britain wasn't solely reliant on the forgeries. That's quite a different tack to the White House, which shamefacedly admitted on Monday that Bush's uranium claim was based on faulty British intelligence and shouldn't have been included in the State of the Union address. But Bush is determined not to find himself in the same situation as Blair -- facing calls for his resignation over claims that he lied. On Friday, CIA director George Tenet said he was to blame for Bush's use of the bogus uranium claim . He said the insertion was a 'mistake', the CIA cleared the speech and ' the President had every reason to believe the text presented to him was sound'. But that doesn't tally with high-level intelligence that the Niger claim was written into the President's Daily Brief -- one of the most top-level intelligence assessments in the US, prepared by the CIA and given to Bush and other very senior officials. Also significant was the refusal by Colin Powell to use the uranium claim when he addressed the UN on February 5 calling for war. On Thursday, Powell said it was not 'sufficiently reliable'. With Bush trying to get off the hook, Blair looks as if he could be twisting in the wind -- unless he has this 'other evidence' to back up the Niger connection. It should be pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for Niger to sell uranium in quantities large enough to be weaponised as its mines are controlled by France and its entire output goes to France, Japan and Spain. E xperts say it couldn't be smuggled out unnoticed. One western diplomat said: 'As far as I know, the only other evidence Britain has about the Niger connection is based on intelligence coming from other western countries which saw the same forgeries. Blair's claim that he has other evidence is nonsense. These foreign intelligence agencies are basing their claims on the same forgeries as the Brits.' The diplomat's accusations tally with a letter sent in April, before the White House climbdown, by the State Department to Democrat House of Representative's member Henry Waxman, who has been demanding answers on the deception carried out against the American and British people. In it, the State Department admits that it received intelligence from the UK and another 'western European ally' -- which many believe to be Italy -- that Iraq was trying to buy Niger uranium. But it adds: 'not until March 4 did we learn that, in fact, the second western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the US that was subsequently discredited'. In other words, as one intelligence source said: 'It was based on the same crap the British used'. Given the letter is dated April 29, this information invites the question: why did it take until last week for the White House to admit the Niger connection was rubbish? Another State Department letter to Waxman makes the astonishing admission that when America handed the Niger documents to the IAEA they included the qualification 'we cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims' -- hardly the same tune that Bush and Blair were singing with their claims that Saddam was chasing down Niger uranium. We know that Blair's 'other' evidence backing the Niger connection includes second-hand or even third-hand intelligence -- and that it doesn't come from the UK. Nor has this intelligence been passed to the IAEA (in accordance with UN resolution 1414). The Foreign Office says: 'In the case of uranium from Niger, we did not have any UK-originated intelligence to pass on.' Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says the Niger uranium claim was based on 'reliable evidence', which was not shared with the US. Although the Foreign Affairs Select Committee hasn't seen the evidence either, Straw told its chairman, Donald Anderson, the 'good reasons' for withholding the intelligence from the US in a private session. Blair won't say why the information is being kept under wraps , but he tells the nation there is no reason to doubt its credibility. Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien said on June 10 that all relevant information on Iraqi WMDs had been sent to weapons inspectors -- but less than a month later he was contradicted by another Foreign Office minister, Denis MacShane, saying the UK didn't give the IAEA any information on Iraq seeking uranium. One senior western diplomat told the Sunday Herald: 'There were more than 20 anomalies in the Niger documents -- it is staggering any intelligence service could have believed they were genuine for a moment. 'I know that the IAEA told Britain and America, two weeks before El Baradei made his statement to the UN in March, that the documents were forgeries, that the IAEA was going to publicly state the documents were faked. At that point, the IAEA gave them a chance -- they asked the US and UK if they had any other evidence to back up the claim apart from the Niger forgeries. Britain and America should have reacted with shock and horror when they found that the documents were fake -- but they did nothing, and there was no attempt to dissuade the IAEA from its course of action. 'The IAEA had said it would follow up any other evidence pointing towards a Niger connection . If the UK and US had had such evidence they could have forwarded it and shut the IAEA up -- El Baradei would never have gone public if that had happened. My analysis is that Britain has no other credible evidence.' The source added: 'The weapons inspectors have friends in the CIA and the State Department . They made sure the documents made their way to the IAEA as they knew fine well they'd be exposed as forgeries. 'If I was prosecuting someone in a court of law and I brought in what I knew to be forgeries in an attempt to convict you, the case would be thrown out immediately and it'd be me in the dock. The case wasn't thrown out against Iraq, however, and what we are left with is an ominous sense of the way intelligence was treated to promote war. There are only two conclusions: one is that Britain has intelligence but kept it from the weapons inspectors, which they should not have done under international law, or that they don't have a thing. If they did have intelligence, then why not show it to the world now the war is over'. An IAEA source said the issue was 'now a matter for the UK and the USA to deal with'. The IAEA, as well as UNMOVIC inspectors, feel discredited and humiliated after their bruising encounters with the UK and US. One UN diplomat said: 'They're bitter, but perhaps now they may have some solace as the truth seems to be coming out. It's obvious that we could have done this without a war -- but the evidence shows war would have happened regardless of what the inspectors could have done as that was the wish of Bush and Blair. Everyone, it seems, was working for peace -- except them.' |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
[OT] What Is "Terrorism?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0714-01.htm
Intelligence Unglued by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Monday 14 July 2003 MEMORANDUM FOR: The President of the United States FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart-with grave consequences for the nation. The Forgery Flap By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff are alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet's extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic-I confess; she did it. It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech. But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson's findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson's mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed. Rice's denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports. Secretary of State Colin Powell's credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as "not totally outrageous" was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful. Whatever Rice's or Powell's credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been-well, incredible. The British have a word for it: "dodgy." You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community. The Vice President's Role Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher's remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly-as if drawing on well memorized talking points-that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility. To those of us who experienced Watergate these comments had an eerie ring. That affair and others since have proven that cover-up can assume proportions overshadowing the crime itself. All the more reason to take early action to get the truth up and out. There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well. Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons-a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a "mushroom cloud" being the first "smoking gun" we might observe. That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections-a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process. The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq. It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that "we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that "most analysts" agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: "we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons." Mr. Russert: ...the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program; we disagree? Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree...we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong. Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts-those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons-judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right. Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote. It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president's state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy. Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney's request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud "what else they are lying about." Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit. This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew's resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight. Recommendation #1 We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney "not guilty." His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney's immediate resignation. The Games Congress Plays The unedifying dance by the various oversight committees of the Congress over recent weeks offers proof, if further proof were needed, that reliance on Congress to investigate in a non-partisan way is pie in the sky. One need only to recall that Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has refused to agree to ask the FBI to investigate the known forgery. Despite repeated attempts by others on his committee to get him to bring in the FBI, Roberts has branded such a move "inappropriate," without spelling out why. Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co-chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss' loyalties lie can be seen in his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney's insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee-an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation. (Congress has its own capability to investigate such leaks.) Henry Waxman's recent proposal to create yet another congressional investigatory committee, patterned on the latest commission looking into 9/11, likewise holds little promise. To state the obvious about Congress, politics is the nature of the beast. We have seen enough congressional inquiries into the performance of intelligence to conclude that they are usually as feckless as they are prolonged. And time cannot wait. As you are aware, Gen. Brent Scowcroft performed yeoman's service as National Security Adviser to your father and enjoys very wide respect. There are few, if any, with his breadth of experience with the issues and the institutions involved. In addition, he has avoided blind parroting of the positions of your administration and thus would be seen as relatively nonpartisan, even though serving at your pleasure. It seems a stroke of good luck that he now chairs your President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Recommendation #2 We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq. UN Inspectors Your refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq has left the international community befuddled. Worse, it has fed suspicions that the US does not want UN inspectors in country lest they impede efforts to "plant" some "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, should efforts to find them continue to fall short. The conventional wisdom is less conspiratorial but equally unsatisfying. The cognoscenti in Washington think tanks, for example, attribute your attitude to "pique." We find neither the conspiracy nor the "pique" rationale persuasive. As we have admitted before, we are at a loss to explain the barring of UN inspectors. Barring the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for such weapons defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, have precisely the expertise required. The challenge is as daunting as it is immediate; and, clearly, the US needs all the help it can get. The lead Wall Street Journal article of April 8 had it right: "If the US doesn't make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war." As the events of last week show, that skepticism has now mushroomed here at home as well. Recommendation #3 We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead. If Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity can be of any further help to you in the days ahead, you need only ask. Ray Close, Princeton, NJ David MacMichael, Linden, VA Raymond McGovern, Arlington, VA Steering Committee Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|