First off, some of this information is "borrowed" from some other Bloggers, who will be given credit where due:
Based on news reports and bloggers in the position to know, the "war plan" cooked up by the Secretary of Defense and his ilk walled for a brigade of the 3rd ID, an MEU, the 101st Airborne, the Brits, and air power only. This was based, according to Brad DeLong on wishful thinking and cost concerns by the White House, and taht the current force represents the worst case scenario.
So now we're moving in the 3rd Armored Cavalry, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th ID, 3rd Cavalry, and maybe the 1st Armored. All of this means there is no reserve force available. This had led to the obvious questions from the media and backpedalling by the White House on the time table.
There's also been criticism from current and former generals of the whole mess, and despite Colin Powell's outburst, these guys do still have access to information, and they know just as much as he or Rumsfeld do about fighting wars.
So here we are with American and British soldiers in the field, with a bad war plan that has come apart, little or no "Shock and Awe", and some significant problems with a guerrilla war, courtesy of the Fedeyeen, who the Pentagon wants to declare illegal combatants. I guess this means that if we get invaded most of us will be illegal combatants, too. Bot that I approve of the Fedeyeen's tactics -- fake surrenders and executing prisoners is immoral, illegal, and just bad form.
The Fedeyeen issue has a variety of consequences. OUr advance has slown to a crawl, with the 3rd ID digging into the positions they've been in for three days, the Marines holding some bridges to the south, and neither having gotten resupply recently (according to MSNBC this morning). Of course supplies may be an issue, because our supply convoys are floating around without security detachments, and the field commanders are learning they do need to have flank and rear-area security in place after all, which reduces overall combat power to the front.
An it isn't like the Fedeyeen are a surpirse either, just that the intelligence reports they show up on were "discounted" by the Bush Administration. That's right, the chicken hawks decide that the intelligence reports didn't fit their world view, so more Americans ill end up wounded, killed, or captured.
Entirely made out of flowers. This flag is on the grounds of Vandenderg AFB, California.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0313/lee.php
Some Iraqis will have a lot to answer for. If this is the treatment that American POWs can expect, this will indeed be a "war to the knife", with the only peace being the peace of the dead.
Make no mistake, if our forces believe that they will be killed if they surrender, they won't even try, which will result in more deaths on both sides. It may also affect the ability of Iraqis to surrender, particularly if they continue to fake their own surrenders to Allied forces.
This could get really ugly.
Now that the war has started, I won't keep harping on about how I'm not sure we should be fighting. Rather, let's look at some of the issues that have crept up since the fighting began - like that not all of our forces had even arrived in the region when Messrs. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz decided to kick things off. Yes, the President is the man who actually ordered the strikes, but these two clowns are the ones who developed the "plans" and advised the President on how to fight the bloomin' thing.
BTW, it looks like they're doing a collosally bad job of it. For some reason they really thought that a few missiles and bombs would do the trick and the Iraqis would just roll over for us. In buying into the garbage, they happen to be ignoring some really important items.
1. You don't own a piece of land until you stick an 18 year-old with a rifle on it, and even then, you only own that little bit. Air strikes won't do this.
2. The air war during Desert Storm was successfuly because it was overwhelming and long. It lasted a month before ground troops went in. We hit everything. When it was over, there was virtually no Iraqi C3I left to coordinate a ground defense.
3. We didn't really invade Iraq, and we weren't threatening anyone with war crimes trails.
4. All of our forces were in place before the ground phase began, not sailing around looking for dry land.
More to follow...
Thanks to CalPundit for this update:
I GUESS IT REALLY IS ALL ABOUT OIL....John Herrington was Energy Secretary under Ronald Reagan, and today in the LA Times he has a bright idea for replacing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve you know, the half billion barrels of crude that we're storing in salt domes in Louisiana. His answer: replace it with a bigger salt dome.
Isn't it reasonable to make Iraq the answer to our desire for energy independence? Shouldn't Iraq be our strategic petroleum reserve? Shouldn't Iraq be our answer to OPEC and oil blackmail?
This is not an out-of-context quote, either. He really means it: we should take over Iraq, install a really friendly government, open up development solely to American companies, control the spigots, and sell Iraqi oil only to the United States. And we should do this for, um, a long time:
In return for a secure supply of oil at market prices for the rest of this century, we would help Iraqis spend their new wealth to benefit Iraq's people.
Ah, yes, we would help the Iraqis spend their money. For the rest of the century.
And you know what? We deserve it thanks to our unflagging support for the IMF, the World Bank, the UN (!), the liberation of Kuwait, etc. etc. It's really no different from the Turks charging for oil that flows through their pipeline to the Mediterranean.
My jaw just dropped as I was reading this, and the worst part is that since it was published on the op-ed page of the LA Times it's obviously meant to be taken seriously. Did someone in the Bush administration get him to send this idea up the flagpole to see what kind of reaction it gets?
UPDATE: It's one thing for a liberal like me to criticize this kind of talk, but it would sure make me feel better if some conservative war supporters stepped up to the plate on this kind of looniness. OxBlog? Drezner? Volokh? Reynolds? This guy is out in left field, right?
IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL, PART 2....A couple of posts down I talked about John Herrington's LA Times op-ed in which he suggests, essentially, that we should take control of Iraqi oil for the next century and sell it back to ourselves at reasonable prices. I asked, hoping I was wrong, "Did someone in the Bush administration get him to send this idea up the flagpole to see what kind of reaction it gets?"
I was hoping Herrington's view was just an isolated instance of overactive conservative looniness, but apparently not. A few minutes ago I got an email from a correspondent I trust who said that he recently had dinner with a relative who's an energy economist and does some government consulting:
He gave me the impression that something along these lines is under serious consideration in some quarters in the government. He was all for it, but doesn't think it's going to happen because, according to him, American oil producers like OPEC which restrains Gulf producers from engaging in vigorous price competition with domestic suppliers.
At any rate, I don't think your fears are misplaced.
So the main thing keeping the Cheney crowd from following Herrington's prescription is that the domestic oil guys don't want competition from cheap Iraqi oil? That makes me feel better....
it turns out that a lot of the anti-Dixie Chicks backlash is being coordinated by that bastion of Free Speech, Freerepublic.com, one of the most virulently conservative outfits I've heard of. You can get all the dope on how it works here.
Needless to say, a lot of stations are getteing pressure by the group of partisans from outside their local area, which means that maybe there isn't a great deal of backlash after all. At least the local (Denver) stations have had the sense to keep playing their music despite disagreeing with their statements.
If you want to show your support for the Dixie Chicks, go sign the support petition, even if you don't buy their music or go to a show.
This one is from Michael Moore and published at AlterNet.org.
*********
A Letter to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
By Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com
March 17, 2003
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually no one in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are passionate about wanting to kill Iraqis. You won't find them! Why? 'Cause no Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans the ones who never elected you are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: Two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a Sin. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only one (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't think so? Well, hey, guess what we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.
Well, cheer up there is good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there aren't a lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam Hussein. After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity polls as everyone loves a winner and who doesn't like to see a good ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third world ass!). So try your best to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course, that's still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har while we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the election! See, start thinking like that! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
Not so much dissent for the sake of being obstreperous, but a thinking, careful, open-minded questioning of those in power. Our system of Republican Democracy requires that the electorate (that's us) be informed and responsible for choosing those who set government policy and protect our interests. This is true during war and peace. In theory, it ensures that the needs and preferences of all Americans are taken into account.
Patriotism is not blind support for our leaders, it is not blind support for policies that put us on the path to war. Patriotism is upholding the ideals this nation was founded on against all enemies foreign and domestic, nothing more, nothing less. Patriots may support the coming war, or not. Patriots will support support the members of the military and their families even if they don't agree with invading Iraq, because they are ours.
A patriot will still speak his mind, still vote his consience, still protest policies they disagree with. That's what makes us Americans. Anything else is unpatriotic.
There are others who will claim that this isn't so. They have always been with us, and always will be. Some will call it treason. They would be wrong.
Some Dare Call It Treason
By Bill Berkowitz, WorkingForChange.com
March 19, 2003
ABCNEWS reported on March 18 that "the government will begin detaining dozens of suspected Saddam Hussein sympathizers in at least five U.S. cities this week."
According to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, "Iraqi state agents, Iraqi surrogate groups, other regional extremist organizations and ad hoc groups, and disgruntled individuals may use this time period to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States and our interests either here or abroad."
Saddam Hussein has rejected President Bush's ultimatum to leave Iraq. At home, the Department of Homeland Security raised the terror alert to orange, indicating a high risk of attacks. When history's deadliest one-day display of air power hits Iraq, thousands of Iraqis will be shocked, awed and killed and President Bush will be well started on his road to empire building.
What will happen to the US anti-war movement when the bombs start falling on Iraq?
As Paul Loeb and Geov Parrish recently wrote on this site, before the 1991 Gulf War "major protests surged through American and European cities, hoping to stop the war before it started. But once the war began, mainstream debate over the wisdom of war quickly became supplanted by the insistence that anything other than relentless cheerleading was disloyal to the troops and to the country."
If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush's pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.
With even the mildest Congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush Administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try to rush through the Justice Department's newly drafted "Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003," aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government's powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day.
Over the past few months, as the US moved closer to war, pro-war columnists and radio and television gas bags began a campaign to demonize protesters, labeling them anti-American, Communists, or apologists for Hussein. Religious people and groups speaking out against the war, Hollywood celebrities, dissenting academics, "human shields" in Iraq, people committed to non-violent civil disobedience, and the all-too-few-but-gutsy politicians have all come under fire from pro-Bush critics.
For quite some time, the Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly has been saying that dissent reflects America's freedom of expression before the advent of hostilities but after the war starts, anti-war protesters should take their signs and go home.
On a recent edition of his nightly program, O'Reilly said that "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up. Americans, and indeed our foreign allies who actively work against our military once the war is underway, will be considered enemies of the state by me.
"Just fair warning to you, Barbra Streisand and others who see the world as you do. I don't want to demonize anyone, but anyone who hurts this country in a time like this, well, let's just say you will be spotlighted. Talking points invites all points of view and believes vigorous debate strengthens the country, but once decisions have been made and lives are on the line, patriotism must be factored in."
In early March, Fox News reported that Senator Lindsay Graham had asked Attorney General John Ashcroft "to provide him with a legal assessment of those Americans headed to or already in Iraq to offer themselves as 'human shields.'" Graham compared Americans acting as human shields with John Walker Lindh.
"It is my opinion that any American who voluntarily engages in conduct to impede a potential American military operation, and who thereby endangers the lives of our nation's men and women in uniform, is participating in a program designed to weaken the power of the United States to wage war successfully. I strongly believe efforts to impede a potential military operation against Iraq should be strongly dealt with and I am seeking your assistance in this matter."
A recent column by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin echoed Senator Graham's sentiments: "What color is a human shield?" Malkin writes. "Crayola needs to invent a new hue weaker than lemonade and paler than jaundice: Traitor Yellow." Malkin says that the human shields are as "willfully treacherous as American al Qaeda enemy combatant John Walker Lindh. The only place that's fit for these stateless turncoats to call home is a detainee bunk bed at Guantanamo Bay."
In "An Open Letter To The Hollywood Bunch" dated March 4, the Nashville-based country western singer Charlie Daniels wrote: "Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America. You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little, 'fact finding trip' to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think that we didn't have the stomach for war."
As demonstrators were preparing for the February 15th anti-war rally march in New York City, the conservative New York Sun ran an editorial referring readers to Article III in the Constitution which says, "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." The editorial suggested that "'anti-war' protesters we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein."
The Web site of Michael Savage, host of a popular daily talk-radio show and a weekly television program on MSNBC, features a banner headline: "The Sedition Act Time to Act. Time to Arrest the Leaders of the Anti-War Movement, Once we Go To War? We Must Protect Our Troops! Sponsor The Paul Revere Society!"
Silencing dissent
Although right wing hectoring has not deterred the anti-war movement, you can bet that folks like Richard Perle, who recently labeled journalist Seymour Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist"; Ann Coulter, whose new book set to be published sometime this spring is called "Treason"; and talk-radio's Rush Limbaugh and Savage will crank out the vitriol. In the name of "patriotism," their goal will be to silence dissent.
And while the Bush administration has repeatedly portrayed anti-war protests as evidence of our very freedom, the US has in equal measure a history of suppression of dissent. Between 1917 and 1919, Congress passed legislation aimed at suppressing all forms of dissent.
The Espionage Act of 1917 made it a crime punishable by a fine of $10,000 and 20 years in jail to "convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies and whoever when the United States is at war, shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal to duty."'
Read Section 3 of the U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 carefully:
"Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall willfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall willfully make or convey false reports, or false statements... or incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct... the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, or... shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States... or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully... urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production... or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both."
Section 4 allows the Postmaster General to instruct postmasters at any post office to refuse delivery of mail construed to be in violation of the Act. Said mail will be stamped "undeliverable... and all such letters or other matter so returned to such postmasters shall be by them returned to the senders."
According to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2001, these laws were "vaguely worded and broadly interpreted, [and] they resulted in over 2,000 prosecutions, mostly against radicals and the radical press."
Eugene Victor Debs, president of the American Railway Union and founder of the American Socialist Party, was arrested in 1918 for opposing World War I. He was convicted under the Sedition Act. In his "Statement to the Court Upon Being Convicted of Violating the Sedition Act" Debs said: "I look upon the Espionage Law as a despotic enactment in flagrant conflict with democratic principles and with the spirit of free institutions... "
A mid-March report by United Press International pointed out that "The most contentious provisions in the draft [of Patriot Act II] would allow the government to collect DNA from suspected terrorists or other individuals involved in terror investigations, and the power to revoke the citizenship of, and deport, naturalized citizens suspected of terror activities or of providing 'material support' to terrorist groups."
Robert Higgs, a senior fellow in political economy at the Oakland, Ca-based Independent Institute told UPI, "In my mind, if that doesn't absolutely epitomize totalitarianism I would like to know what does. They can categorize the most innocent action from signing a petition or making a charitable contribution as an act of terrorism."
Americans who care about democracy and civil liberties need to make sure Higg's nightmarish vision does not become reality. Silence will be our biggest enemy.
If the yahoos in Washington decide to raise the terror threat level, anyone on the street will be considered a terrorist first, and questions will be asked later, at least in New Jersey.
Basically what they're saying here is that if someone decides a terrorist attck is coming that we have no rights, that the Constitution is null and void. That's even worse than Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War.
I'm wondering how anyone can give a Supreme Court Justice an award for protecting Free Speech, when he instists that electronic media not be allowed to cover the event.
This ocurs the day after he said that the Constitution is just the minimums of our freedoms and that there is plenty of room for those to be scaled back as being beoyind what is Constitutionally required.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised: after all he's one of the "Felonius Five" who decided that we really don't have a right to vote.
From NathanNewman.org: Evidently the IMF is admitting that there is no evidence whatsoever that their policies have actually helped the world economy. That they haven't helped is no big surprise. That they'll admit to it, however, is.
Why isn't this nation-wide news? If this guy had been an Arab there would be updates every 15 minutes until the police got fed up and shot him. Yep, we're safer now than we were 2 years ago. Really.
If even MSNBC and the Washington Post are catching on, why isn't anyone else?
Robin Cook is the British Parliamentary leader who resigned recently over the whole Iraq fiasco. The full text of his speech is here, but I've pulled out a couple of interesting bits...
******
French intransigence?
France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.
It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.
We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
********
It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.
********
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
********
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
********
Israeli breaches
Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.
Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.
I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
*******
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
Anyone who has read even a little bit of this site willknow that I question the validity of the coming war. However, I support all the troops and hope they come home quickly and safely. I also expect that they and their families will recive the support of the nation while they are gone and when they come home.
Part of the support they receive is the protection of their jobs. Federal law requires employers to hire back anyone who is called up for deployment. Sadly, some employers try to get around that requirement. It would appear that automotive repair and supply giant Pep Boys is one of those employers.
There are plenty of other repair outfits around who give their military employees a fair shake, so, if it turns out that the allegations against Pep Boys are true, they've had their last dollar from me.
The Customs service opened and seized an unclassified FBI document that was sent via FedEx from a Miami based journalist to one in the D.C. area. This was done at FedEx's Indianapolis hub without a warrant and without notification to either journalist or to the AP.
The justification is that Customs has the right to inspect any random package coming into the United States, but, of course, this one was travelling internally.
So the questions are: why open it, and why seize an unclasified document? you be the judge...
As reported in Buzzflash, it would appear that the White House uses a lot of pressure to make sure that any quote used in the media is pre-approved and sometimes re-edited at the request of Ari Fleisher.
This update at poynter.org implies that this is an isolated issue, but if it has occuredonce, then chances are it has been at least attempted before.
This speaks to the overarching concern of the Bush Administration that only its interpretation of even its own comments reaches those fewpeople that are paying attention.
One of the effects of the sloppy and/or biased journalism in the United States is that more and more Americans (like myself) are going abroad for their news -- if only for variety.
A sad commentary on the tactics used to justify anything the Bush Administration wants. BTW, did you know that WWII was the most easily preventable war ever? Ari says so, and he isn't talking about the restrictions placed on the Weimaw Republic, or reparations either...
The time has come for Americans to decde whether they will meekly submit to the wishes of the President, or if we will rejoin the world with open eyes and truly examine what is going on with Iraq.
The stories from the head of the inspections teams, Hans Blix are radically different from what is pawned off on us by the Bush Administration on its media puppets.
Why puppets? Why else would they suppress reports at home and abroad that an Iraqi defector confirmed the destruction of most or all of Iraq's WMDs.... Seee the report from FAIR below:
FAIR-L
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and activism
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed:
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
February 27, 2003
On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the
Iraq
crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD
[weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still
exist,"
the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons
chief
who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had
destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and
banned missiles, as Iraq claims.
Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning
to
Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions
about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had
advanced.
But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections
for
more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing
by
officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the
U.N.
inspections team known as UNSCOM.
Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its
chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver
them,"
Barry wrote. All that remained were "hidden blueprints, computer disks,
microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly,
in
order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday
resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6
were
told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected
with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD
stocks."
But these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order
to
"bluff Saddam into disclosing still more."
CIA spokesman Bill Harlow angrily denied the Newsweek report. "It is
incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue," Harlow told Reuters the day the
report
appeared (2/24/03).
But on Wednesday (2/26/03), a complete copy of the Kamel transcript--
an
internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped "sensitive"-- was obtained by
Glen
Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who in early February
revealed
that Tony Blair's "intelligence dossier" was plagiarized from a student
thesis. Rangwala has posted the Kamel transcript on the Web:
http://casi.org.uk/info/unscom950822.pdf.
In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: "All weapons--
biological,
chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."
Who is Hussein Kamel?
Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his
departure from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past
weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In
1999, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM
reported
that its entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into
two
parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in
August 1995, of Lt. General Hussein Kamel."
Kamel's defection has been cited repeatedly by George W. Bush and
leading
administration officials as evidence that 1) Iraq has not disarmed; 2)
inspections cannot disarm it; and 3) defectors such as Kamel are the
most
reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons.
* Bush declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several
years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military
industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit
that
it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly
biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had
likely
produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of
biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of
killing millions."
* Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N.
Security Council claimed: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that
it
had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of
VX
on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came
out
after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection
of
Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."
* In a speech last August (8/27/02), Vice President Dick Cheney said
Kamel's story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned
more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection
regime itself."
* Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley recently wrote in the
Chicago Tribune (2/16/03) that "because of information provided by
Iraqi
defector and former head of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programs,
Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it
cheated
on its nuclear non-proliferation commitments."
The quotes from Bush and Powell cited above refer to anthrax and VX
produced by Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The administration has cited
various quantities of chemical and biological weapons on many other
occasions-- weapons that Iraq produced but which remain unaccounted
for.
All of these claims refer to weapons produced before 1991.
But according to Kamel's transcript, Iraq destroyed all of these
weapons
in 1991.
According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in
August
1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to
Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated
citations of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the
weapons no longer exist-- suggests that the administration might be
withholding critical evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the
credibility of Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was
widely hailed at the time for its persuasiveness. To clear up the
issue,
journalists might ask that the CIA release the transcripts of its own
conversations with Kamel.
Kamel's disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by
hawkish commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on
the New York Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of
claims
about Iraq's weapons programs--never noting his assertions about the
elimination of these weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war
with
Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that
Kamel and other defectors "reported that outside pressure had not only
failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more
cleverly
spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be." The
release
of Kamel's transcript makes this claim appear grossly at odds with the
defector's actual testimony.
The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough
reevaluation
of U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted
that
the nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media
Advisory, "Iraq's Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,"
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-weapons.html .) Kamel's
testimony
is not, of course, proof that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of
chemical
or biological weapons, but it does suggest a need for much more media
skepticism about U.S. allegations than has previously been shown.
Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The
magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous "Periscope" section with
a
generic headline, "The Defector's Secrets." Worse, Newsweek's online
version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the
importance of the story: "Before his death, a high-ranking defector
said
Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions." So far, according to a
February
27 search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspapers or national
television news shows have picked up the Newsweek story.
***
Read the Newsweek story:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp
***
Read Glen Rangwala's analysis of the Kamel transcript:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html
***
If you'd like to encourage media outlets to investigate this story,
contact information is available on FAIR's website:
http://www.fair.org/media-contact-list.html
----------
Please support FAIR by subscribing to our bimonthly magazine, Extra!
For more information, go to: http://www.fair.org/extra/subscribe.html .
Or call 1-800-847-3993.
FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at
FAIR's online store:
http://www.merchantamerica.com/fair/
FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130
stations in the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you,
visit http://www.fair.org/counterspin/stations.html .
FAIR's INTERNSHIP PROGRAM: FAIR accepts internship applications for its
New York office on a rolling basis. For more information, see:
http://www.fair.org/internships.html
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses,
to fair@fair.org .
You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site: http://www.fair.org . Our
subscriber list is kept confidential.
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair@fair.org
I don't listen to their music much, but my wife does, and what I've heard isn't bad, just not my normal stuff. I'm think about going out and buying a bunch of their stuff, though.
Why? You ask? Because Natalie Maines, their lead singer said she was ashamed that the President was from Texas, and that they were against the war in Iraq. Pretty strong words, but her right as an American to say.
Unfortunately, her remarks have caused a bunch of country stations to pull their music from the air, despite a clarification and sort of apology saying that she respects the office of the President, and our troops, just not the war.
So, buy a CD or two, and if you listen to country stations, let them know that you'll change the channel if they attempt any censorship.
A judge is finally allowing Jose Padilla access to an attorney. For those who don't remember, the FBI arrested Padilla for plotting to set off a "dirty bomb" in the U.S. as part of an al-Qaeda attack.
The Feds quickly decided that he was an "unlawful enemy combatant" despite the fact that Padilla wa apprehended in the United States and is a citizen. You can expect more of that type of thing if the now ifmanous Pattriot II ever becomes law.
The following is the text of a letter from a veterans group to President Bush
Veterans' Letter to the President
By Veterans For Common Sense
March 11, 2003
The following letter was signed by 1,000 war veterans and given to the President on March 10, 2003.
March 10, 2003
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
We, the undersigned veterans who have served our country in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the 1991 Gulf War and other military conflicts, respectfully request an opportunity to meet with you about the threat of war between the United States and Iraq.
Mr. President, we are patriotic citizens and veterans who respect the office of the President and the ethics and values binding us together as Americans.
As such, we feel duty-bound to share with you our serious concerns regarding issues of national security, the appropriate use of our military strength, and the health and welfare of our active duty soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Those of us who are veterans of the 1991 Gulf War can offer particular insight into the ongoing troubles in the Middle East, and the likely consequences of another war in that volatile region.
A dozen years ago, we helped liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, and in the course of combat operations came face to face with brutality and the consequences of modern warfare. We learned how unpredictable the nature of war can be. And we learned that war-related losses are not simply experienced on the battlefield.
Following the 1991 Gulf War, we collectively failed to prevent Saddam Hussein's violent repression of a popular uprising and the unprecedented refugee flight that ensued. As a result, tens of thousands of innocent civilians died. In addition to those deaths, the war and immediate post-war conditions resulted in the excess deaths of 46,900 children under the age of five, according to the New England Journal of Medicine (Sept. 24, 1992).
Over the long term, the 1991 Gulf War has had a lasting, detrimental impact on the health of countless people in the region, and on the health of American men and women who served there. Twelve years after the conflict, over 164,000 American Gulf War veterans are now considered disabled by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. That number increases daily.
The possibility of large-scale war between the U.S. and Iraq looms before us once again. For this urgent reason we would like to meet with you to discuss steps the United States and its allies can take to protect U.S. soldiers, allied forces, and Iraqi civilians from known and suspected hazards that would result from military operations.
We understand the risks that come with war and that there are times when such risks are necessary. However, we strongly question the need for a war at this time. Despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's report to the Security Council and the testimony of others in the administration, we are not convinced that coercive containment has failed, or that war has become necessary.
Our own intelligence agencies have consistently noted both the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq and reliable evidence of cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Again, we question whether this is the right time and the right war.
Further, we believe the risks involved in going to war, under the unclear and shifting circumstances that confront us today, are far greater than those faced in 1991. Instead of a desert war to liberate Kuwait, combat would likely involve protracted siege warfare, chaotic street-to-street fighting in Baghdad, and Iraqi civil conflict. If that occurs, we fear our own nation and Iraq would both suffer casualties not witnessed since Vietnam. We fear the resulting carnage and humanitarian consequences would further devastate Iraqi society and inflame an already volatile Middle East, and increase terrorism against U.S. citizens.
Our concerns about the potential human and material costs of a military conflict in Iraq are well substantiated. In the event of a war, the UN warns that 1.26 million children under the age of five in Iraq will be at risk of death. Within the initial weeks of conflict, the World Health Organization estimates 500,000 Iraqis would need immediate medical attention. Ten million Iraqis would need immediate humanitarian assistance and over two million Iraqis would be made homeless.
The scale of the crisis would be so large that the international community would be unable to prevent widespread suffering. For these reasons and more, it remains in our nation's best interest to avoid another war. The risk of excessive civilian casualties like those predicted by the UN pose a grave risk to our national security, making the U.S. more of a target of retaliatory attacks by terrorists.
Mr. President, as our Commander-in-Chief, we recognize the immense responsibility you have to protect our homeland and keep our nation secure. As veterans who honorably served our nation in its wars, we believe that our perspectives, knowledge and expertise can aid you at this crucial time, as you continue to deliberate on whether or not to commit our nation to war.
We therefore request a meeting at your earliest possible convenience. We look forward to any opportunity to come together with you to discuss the matters we have raised.
Sincerely,
Vice Admiral Ralph Weymouth, USN, Retired
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN, Retired
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA, Retired
Colonel David H. Hackworth, USA, Retired
Colonel Larry Williams, USMC, Retired
Colonel James E Unterseher, USA, Retired
Colonel James B. Burkholder, USA, Retired
Colonel Roger F. Strand, USAF, Retired
Colonel Virginia A. Metcalf, USA, Retired
Colonel Mary H. Yeakel, USA, Retired
Colonel Henrik O. Lunde, USA, Retired
Colonel Bruce S. Jarstfer, USA, Retired
Colonel Thomas Patrick Chisholm, USA, Retired
Colonel James Steven Chandler, USA
Colonel James J. Kent, USA, Retired
Colonel Grace E. Squires, USA, Retired
Colonel Carol Anne ODonnell, USA, Retired
Captain Kris Kristofferson, USA, Retired
Captain Thomas C. Tindall Jr., USNR, Retired
Captain Herbert A. Blough, USN, Retired
Captain M. David Preston, USCG
Lieutenant Colonel Elizabeth K. McGillicuddy, USMC, Retired
Read the names of the rest of the veterans who signed the letter at Veterans For Common Sense. Another veterans' group, Veterans Against Iraq War is organizing three days of protest in Washington D.C. from March 22 to March 24.
I really prefer to fly Delta than any other airline I've travelled on, but it will be a long time before I do so again, if I ever do.
Delta is rolling out another bogus Big Brother security system that will automatically run background checks on everyone who books a flight, including criminal history, credit history, and other items in an attempt to secure their planes. Based on what is found the system assigns passengers a rating to indicate whether the passenger should be subjected to further screening, given a pass, or refused service altogether.
This occurs after you purchase a ticket. Delta hasn't said what happens to your money if they decide you aren't to be trusted on an airplane.
So what's my problem with this? If I pay for my fare, Delta has no business checking my credit. Not for any reason. I don't know that they even have cause for looking at criminal history. My thought is that if you've served your time, you've payed your debt to society -- unless you commit another crime.
So on top of all the other asinine garbage we deal with at airports, Delta wants to delve into our secrets. I'm thinking it's time to look into rail travel.
I'm not sure if it's strange that this hasn't been widely reported, or not. It would certainly put a slightly different spin on the whole North Korea crisis.
It is obvious that the Republican Party is about as far from its claimed roots as it can possibly get. I'm not talking about the abolition of slavery as a root, that was more of an off-shoot. I'm talking about the concept of support for the Constitution of the United States, and the debate necessary for the mainenance of the Republic. The Republican Party wouldn't exist today if it weren't for the Lincoln-Douglass debates and those that came, but for some reason the modern Perpublican Party has forgotten that past.
Today the are all about stifling the debate on any issue they hold dear. It's a radical change.
The most recent attempt at stifling comes from House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, who has been criticizing Howard Dean's opposition to the coming war against Iraq, comparing Dean to Nevill Chamberlain and Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Both comparisons are a stretch.
In a society where the politicial leaders are supposedly chosen in free and open elections, the only way the electorate can choose candidates is to listen to the debate on the issues that face them. That includes war, peace, trade, education, the environment, and security issues. They affect us all, and we select leaders based on their public stances on these issues. That makes questioning policy a patriotic duty rather than subersive, and it is our birthright as Americans. Candidates like Mr. Dean are just what we need to remind us of that.
And just how would the Bush Administration react if they discovered that other nations, including friends and allies were eavesdropping on our diplomatic delegations at the UN and elsewhere.
I ask, because that appears to be exactly what we're doing to other countries on the UN Security Council. No wonder people don't trust us.
More evidence that the Saudis have direct, high-level links to Ossama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda, which begs the question: Why aren't we going after Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?
Part of it is obviously that invading Saudi Arabia would unleash a high level of Islamic terrorism against the U.S., U.K., and our interests. The other reasons are a bit more interesting and troublesome...
Obviously, there are some contacts between the Bushes and the Saudis, particularly the bin Laden family that are problematic at best, especially if it turns out that Saudi officials are bankrolling Ossama and his cohorts, or if the Bushes friends in the family aren't as distanced from him as they claim.
