World Affairs: September 2002 Archives

"Those soft-on-Saddam appeasers in the liberal media are still busy undermining the White House case for unilateral war. Those blame-America-first types are saying we sold Iraq biological and chemical weapons, and that the President is wrong about Baghdad's nuclear weapons program.

Oh, sorry -- that isn't the liberal media, it's the Washington Times. The ultra-right-wing Beltway daily not only scooped the rest of the press corps, but published an important story last Friday that is highly unfavorable to the President and his position on Iraq. Apparently reporter Joseph Curl called the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna to request a damning report cited by Bush on Sept. 7. "

Joe Conason comments and provides some good pointers on the story I mentioned yesterday. 

Protesters, some holding signs that said "No Blood for Oil," blamed Cheney for pushing the nation toward war. Police estimated about 2,500 people turned out for the peaceful event.

Not to be cynical, but I wonder how many of the protesters, attending the recent gatherings around the country, drove.  I'm sure there's no way to find out, but it would make an interesting sociological study I would think.

In a press conference with Tony Blair on September 7th, Blair cited a new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency showing new activity at an Iraqi nuclear installation. 

"The point that I would emphasize to you is that the threat from Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, potentially nuclear weapons capability, that threat is real. We only need to look at the report from the International Atomic Agency this morning showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapons sites to realize that. And the policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to. So the purpose of our discussion today is to work out the right strategy for dealing with this, because deal with it we must. "

That same day, the IAEA's spokesman said there was no new report.

Now, the same agency is saying the "Iraq could have a nuke in 6 months" conclusion drawn by Bush and friend is based on another non-existant report

""We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations."

Oops.  Is anyone at the Whitehouse (or 10 Downing Street for that matter) doing research?

"viameta"

Turkish officials announced Saturday they had seized a box filled with nearly 35 pounds (15 kilograms) of uranium. But Muzaffer Dilek, the mayor of Sanliurfa, a Turkish city near the Turkey-Syria border, said Sunday that the material amounted to only 140 grams -- about five ounces.

Wonder what all the folks screaming that this was the evidence against Iraq will say now.  The rush to judgement on the right was creating a bit of a traffic jam.

"There's a lot of talk about Iraq on our TV screens, and there should be, because we're trying to figure out how best to make the world a peaceful place. There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again. You've got to understand the nature of the regime we're dealing with. This is a man who has delayed, denied, deceived the world. For the sake of liberty and justice for all, the United Nations Security Council must act, must act in way to hold this regime to account, must not be fooled, must be relevant to keep the peace. "

The official transcript of Bush's "foolishness."  At least they didn't change it.

"The contemplation (of a new war) is enough to make me cry," Bissell said. Surveying the crowd that filled two blocks of the 16th Street Mall, he observed that "this is very much like the beginnings of the Vietnam War protests - mostly young people and people of color. But it will overwhelm Bush like it overwhelmed Nixon and Johnson. He's not paying attention to what people are saying."

A good article from the Denver Post on the protest yesterday.

The IMF protests in Washington were estimated at 2000 people.   They get all sorts of press because of the violence, but a larger peaceful protest in Denver, where the President is speaking seems to have gotten no national coverage.  This is what is wrong with the media.

Bush spoke today in Denver at the Adam's Mark Hotel, across the street from my office.   Approximately 3000 protesters showed up, making it the largest peace protest in Denver since Vietnam.  I wonder if anyone noticed?

"Like many Democrats, I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq. Some in my own party have criticized me for that support. But this is a case that deserves to be made on the basis of policy, not politics. It's clear that in a world plagued by terrorism, protecting our national security means worrying about where terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Around the world, Iraq is the No. 1 candidate for spreading those weapons. We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must."

Dick Gephard responds to Bush's recent actions.  Looks like he got Bab's fax.

"Members of Congress! Be faithful to your oaths of office and to the traditions of your branch of government. Think of the country, not of your re-election. Assert your power. Stand up for the prerogatives of Congress. Defend the Constitution. Reject the arrogance--and the ignorance--of power. Show respect for your constituents--they require your honest judgment, not capitulation to the executive. Say no to empire. Affirm the Republic. Preserve the peace. Vote against war in Iraq. "

A (hopefully) thought-provoking open letter to Congress from The Nation admonishing the whole bunch for failing to provide a voice of opposition to the imperial plans of George the II.

"viameta"

Madeleine Albright, the US secretary of state under Bill Clinton, on Thursday accused some members of the Bush administration of an "irrational exuberance for this conflict" with Iraq.

Speaking before the Senate committee on foreign relations, Ms Albright said: "It is not an American trait to want war.

"And it is not a sign of sound leadership to understate the risks of war or to offer constantly shifting rationales - as this administration has - for undertaking such a venture," Ms Albright said.

More Democratic opinions on the war.  I think this reflects my general feelings on the issue.  I don't understand why Bush, and some of his supporters, seem almost gleeful at the prospect of beating Saddam down.

"viadrudge"

" Today, Arab intelligence sources believe they have the answer. They assert that Jarrah was not part of Al Qaida. Instead, he was lent by a secular Palestinian terrorist group to help in the 9/11 attack in evidence that could provide the smoking gun of Iraqi involvement. "

This is a subscription only article, but demonstrates why I've purchased a subscription.  Not everything they mention turns out to be true, but they do seem to have a pretty good track record (WorldTribune, the publisher, and collaborator Middle East NewsLine are frequent sources of Matt Drudge).  The basic message, from an unamed Arab intelligence source, is that Ziad Samir Jarrah, raised Catholic, not at all interested in Islamic extremeism, and one of the Flight 93 hijackers has demonstrated links to a Palestinian terror group supported by Libya, the Fatah Revolutionary Council.  The leader of this group was none other than Abu Nidal, the Palestinian uber-terrorist that recently "commited suicide" in Baghdad.  Abu Nidal has been supported (in retirement) by Iraq since the Gulf War, and the contention of the article is that Iraq was covering tracks by staging Nidal's suicide after being tipped off that the US was building a case against Iraq through the ties to Jarrah. 

I have no idea if its true, since its all based on unamed sources.  I'm not going to cover the whole article, since its a subscription service, but I encourage you to subscribe and take a look for yourself.

"Mr Buffett said: "We're in a long correction, because we had an incredible 'mass hallucination', 'bubble', whatever you want to call it. That carries a price with it, which has not been fully paid but which we've made a good downpayment on so far."

He added: "It's only in the rinse cycle that you find out how dirty the laundry's been. We're in the rinse cycle now.""

Warren Buffett on the continuing slide of the economy.  Not something I normally comment on, but I loved the quotes above.

"viadrudge"

Sharply stepping up the political rhetoric about Iraq, Democrats and Republicans traded shots Wednesday over whether the Bush administration was exploiting the possibility of war for political gain.

Looks like the Democrats, inspired perhaps by Gore, are stepping up to the plate to provide a bit of opposition.  Joe Conason agrees.

Salon has brought together a nice summary of international opinion on Bush's foreign policy aims.

A good summary of the main points of Tony Blair's dossier.

"Imagine driving a car that not only doesn't pump out any greenhouse gas emissions, but also acts as a generator to power your house at night, and feeds any excess energy back to the power grid. It's a dream that goes by the name of "distributed generation" and it's based on the idea that hydrogen is the next great power source. "

A good interview on Salon with Jeremy Rifkin , the author of "The Hydrogen Economy" discussing the impending appearence of hydrogen fuel cells in our homes and cars, and some of the barriers in the way.

"The anticipated dossier of British intelligence on Iraq's arsenal and intentions contained little new. According to Tony Blair, Saddam is trying to obtain nuclear materials in Africa, wants to extend the range of his handful of missiles (which now can't reach beyond 400 miles), and plans to use chemical weapons again if threatened. As Maj. Charles Heyman of the authoritative Jane's World Armies remarked, "It does not produce any convincing evidence, or any 'killer fact', that says that Saddam Hussein has to be taken out straight away. What it does do is produce very convincing evidence that the weapons inspectors have to be pushed back into Iraq very quickly." "

As Joe Conason points out on Salon, Blair's dossier has provided no new evidence of Saddam's imminent danger to the free world.  In fact, according to Jane's, it would seem to enforce the UN's case for immediate inspections.

"The United States will outline plans today to transform Nato from a defensive military pact into an alliance with a 20,000-strong rapid reaction force able to tackle rogue states and terrorist threats."

What, you expected us to take over the world by ourselves?

"He blasted Bush for failing to stabilize Afghanistan, nine months after routing the Taliban from power. He accused Bush and the Republicans of cynically using Iraq as a political issue in the weeks leading up to November's midterm elections. He charged that Bush's stated policy of unilateral action is turning even allies against the United States. And he warned that the new doctrine announced last week by the administration, asserting the right of the United States to take unilateral, preemptive action against any country perceived as a threat, would set a precedent encouraging other countries to take preemptive action, creating a global "reign of fear." "

Salon's take on Gore's comments.

"On Tuesday the British Government issues a dossier on Iraq's arms programme which it will use to justify military action against President Saddam Hussein, and there are a number of key factors to look for. "

Tomorrow's the day we find out what we're trying to take over the world for.  Hope its good stuff.

"Three retired four-star American generals said today that attacking Iraq without a United Nations resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine America's long-term diplomatic and economic interests."

Not that this will dissaude the chickenhawks, but when the guys that make their living fighting tell you to think twice, you should think twice.

In his first major speech on the Iraq situation, the once and possibly future Democratic presidential candidate accused Bush of abandoning the goal of a world where nations follow laws.

"That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the president of the United States," he said.

"If other nations assert the same right, then the rule of law will quickly be replaced by the reign of fear," and any nation that perceives itself threatened would feel justified in starting wars, he said.

Gore comes out swinging.  Later in the article it says he'll be deciding in December if he'll be running in 2004, so I imagine he's feeling out public opinion on the issue.   I'm looking forward to hearing more of what he'll have to say, since if nothing else, he doesn't appear to fear floating "new" ideas.  Now if only we could figure out where Ralph Nader's gone.

"The specter of America's deepening weakness seems counter-intuitive to what people see and experience in a time of apparent continuing prosperity--and contradicts everything they are told by authoritative voices. But the quicksand is real. We are already in up to our knees. "

A good article in The Nation by William Greider discussing how plans for Empire America may run into a slight financial problem.  Very enlightening, and in an odd way, comforting.

"Prominent members of the U.S. Congress warned on Sunday that a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq could draw in Israel and lead to a wider Middle East war."

Joe Biden, Richard Shelby, Carl Levin, and unnamed others speak on the danger of U.S. action.  Its good to see our elected leaders thinking clearly again.

"SECRET PLANNING DOCUMENT SEES EXPANSION OF U.S. MILITARY ROLE ABROAD"

So far, this is the best reference to the Defense Planning Guidance draft leaked in 1992 to the New York Times.  I wonder how the New York Times feels about the fact that the Baobob Press has their articles from 1992 available, but the Times doesn't.

The Bush 'fool me once' video seems to be fairly popular.  As such, here's a better copy (high, low) of the video, including commentary from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

"The report is the first Bush has issued under a 1986 law requiring the president to present Congress with an annual strategic statement. Overall, it gives the United States a nearly messianic role in making the world "not just safer but better.""

Comments on Bush's National Security Strategy from the Washington Post

""If one were to compare the scraps of information the government had before Sept. 11 to the volumes we have today about Iraq's pursuit of [weapons of mass destruction], Saddam Hussein's history of aggression and hostility toward the United States, and factor in our country's demonstrated vulnerability after Sept. 11, the case the president made should be clear," Wolfowitz told the committee. "

Now you see bin Laden.  *Poof*   Now you don't.

This is a bit sickening.  Wolfowitz and Armitage are visiting the committee to discuss the 9/11 attacks and manage to flim-flam the committee's focus onto Iraq.  Good article though.

"So what's Iraq about? In the end, it's not about that nasty man or the nasty things he's collecting. It's about what the policy wonks call "destabilization." It's about taking the next step into a regional and a global chaos that could wreck this planet.

So what do we do when the government's careening toward disaster, the anti-war movement's comatose, and the media keep us on perpetual spin? For starters, we dare to risk unilateral rationality. Which tells us that we've yet to begin to develop an effective strategy for coping with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, let alone the imminent fracturing of dozens of nations. "

A very insightful article by a former Marine intelligence officer on the mess we are in.  It pretty effectively summarizes my feelings on the current situation as well.  He has a book too, which is now on my wish list.

An interesting thread on Plastic about Oil's influence over US foreign policy.

"On Friday, the Bush administration will publish its first comprehensive rationale for shifting American military strategy toward pre-emptive action against hostile states and terrorist groups developing weapons of mass destruction. The strategy document will also state, for the first time, that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged the way it was during the cold war."

Analysis from the NY Times.

Bush's "National Security Strategy" was released today.  It advocates pre-emptive strikes against "emerging threats before they are fully formed".  I haven't read it closely, and have yet to see any serious analysis of it, but as I do I will update.

These texts spring from the Dominators' quasi-religious cult of "American exceptionalism," the belief in the unique and utter goodness of the American soul -- embodied chiefly by the nation's moneyed elite, of course -- and the irredeemable, metaphysical evil of all those who would oppose or criticize the elite's righteous (and conveniently self-serving) policies.

Anyone still "puzzled" over the Bush Regime's behavior need only look to these documents for enlightenment. They have long been available to the media -- which accepted Bush's transparent campaign lies about a "more humble foreign policy" at face value -- but have only now started attracting wider notice, in the New Yorker magazine this spring, and this week in the Glasgow Sunday Herald.

An article from the Moscow Times about the PNAC document and its predecessor, the 1992 "Defense Policy Guidence" document.  The article lays out how these documents are the guiding forces behind Bush's foreign policy.

I've already linked to the Glasgow Sunday Herald article here before.  And here's the New Yorker article mentioned above. 

The New Yorker article mainly focuses on the opportunity 9/11 presented to the Bush administration to put these ideas into action:

"Inside government, the reason September 11th appears to have been "a transformative moment," as the senior official I had lunch with put it, is not so much that it revealed the existence of a threat of which officials had previously been unaware as that it drastically reduced the American public's usual resistance to American military involvement overseas, at least for a while. The Clinton Administration, beginning with the "Black Hawk Down" operation in Mogadishu, during its first year, operated on the conviction that Americans were highly averse to casualties; the all-bombing Kosovo operation, in Clinton's next-to-last year, was the ideal foreign military adventure. Now that the United States has been attacked, the options are much broader. The senior official approvingly mentioned a 1999 study of casualty aversion by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, which argued that the "mass public" is much less casualty-averse than the military or the civilian élite believes; for example, the study showed that the public would tolerate thirty thousand deaths in a military operation to prevent Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. (The American death total in the Vietnam War was about fifty-eight thousand.) September 11th presumably reduced casualty aversion even further."

The New Yorker article also mentions a book, "From Containment to Global Leadership" by Zalmay Khalilzad, our current special envoy to Afghanistan, which presents clearly the ideas initially introduced in the 1992 "Defense Policy Guidence" document.  I plan on picking it up to get a bit more insight on what goes on in President Cheney^H^H^H^H^H^HBush's head. 

"WHITE HOUSE GAME SHOW: MURDOCH NET PLANS 'AMERICAN CANDIDATE'; WINNER TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT '04 Move over American Idol. Here comes American President: A Rupert Murdoch game show that may choose the outcome of the next White House race!

Cable channel FX is set to mount an ambitious two-year endeavor that will culminate in the American public choosing -- a "people's candidate" to run for president of the United States in 2004! "

I'm not sure if this is terrifying, inspired, or just plain idiotic.

I've mentioned Thomas Friedman's "Lexus and the Olive Tree" here before.  He has a web site which I just discovered, and a new book compiling his post 9/11 writings.  I haven't read it yet, but its on my wish list.

[via InstaPundit]

"Now we know just how vicious Saddam Hussein can be. Agreeing to unconditional United Nations inspections at a time when our president had his heart set on war is just the sort of mean-spirited treachery that one can expect from this modern-day Hitler.

The only greater betrayal will be if it turns out, upon inspection, that Iraq is not still building weapons of mass destruction and has no nuclear capability after all. "

A short but entertaining article on where Saddam's offer to the UN leaves Bush, and some of the reason's he can't say no to a war.

I love the Internet.  I knew enough poking around would turn up some video of Bush's 'fool'-ish comments in Tennessee. 

[via What Really Happenned]

Did anyone else see Bush stumbling in his speech in Tennessee the other day?  I really have been good about not poking fun at the man's intelligence, but things like this scare me.  I saw this on the news but, surprisingly, can't find the text of the speech anywhere.  In any case, the rough transcript goes something like this:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee.  I know its in Texas, probably Tennessee, that says (pause with confused look) Fool me once (pause, thinking) Shame on (pause, move around, look confused) Shame on you (more confused pausing) a fool (mumble mumble) can't get fooled again"

Huh? 

"The United Nations is likely to throw into disarray America's war plans for Iraq by introducing a timetable for weapons inspections that could give Saddam Hussein a breathing space of almost 12 months."

WWBD (what will bushie do)

While diplomats and generals debate what should be done if Iraq has acquired weapons of mass destruction, a website run by a tiny Virginia nonprofit is giving ordinary citizens a glimpse of what may be Saddam Hussein's biological, chemical and nuclear arms-making facilities.

By publishing its analysis of commercial satellite pictures, GlobalSecurity.org is doing more than educating the Internet-going public. The group is beginning, in minute ways, to affect the moves of world players as well.

An interesting article at Wired about the non-profit GlobalSecurity.org.  A good quote:

"The volume and granularity of information is so much greater in the hands of government decision makers that it induces a sense of arrogance," he said. "The great unwashed don't know what's going on and don't have to be consulted. Well, now we all know what we're talking about."

"The Pentagon is preparing to consolidate control of most of the global war on terrorism under the U.S. Special Operations Command, according to government sources, signaling an intensified but more covert approach to the next phase in the battle against al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups."

Its good to see that at least some of the Pentagon has some idea of how to fight a "4th Generation" opponent. 

""Glasgow's Sunday Herald draws attention to 'a secret blueprint for US global domination' written in the run-up to the 2000 election by the Project for A New American Century, a right-wing think-tank chaired by the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol. "

Some interesting discussion on Plastic including some good links to related articles.

"Hundreds of American Special Operations forces have been quietly moved to a military base in East Africa for missions against fighters with Al Qaeda who are believed to be hiding throughout the region, but especially in Yemen, Pentagon officials said today."

Another front opens...

"UNITED NATIONS - Iraq unconditionally accepted the return of U.N. weapons inspectors late Monday, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

"I can confirm to you that I have received a letter from the Iraqi authorities conveying its decision to allow the return of inspectors without conditions to continue their work.""

Great news, but lets see how the Bushies react.  It would seem that this would put off any impending action for a fair amount of time.  Assuming, of course, that all the talk about Saddam having weapons of mass destruction isn't just a front for the Bushies desire to seize Iraqi oil fields.

"When excerpts of the document first appeared in the New York Times in the spring of 1992, it created quite a stir. Sen. Joe Biden, now chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was particularly outraged, calling it a prescription for "literally a Pax Americana," an American empire.

The details contained in the draft of the Defense Planning Guidance(DPG) were indeed startling.

The document argued that the core assumption guiding U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century should be the need to establish permanent U.S. dominance over virtually all of Eurasia. "

More on Cheney & Friends Grand Strategy for the world.  This draft was written in the course of their official government duties, as opposed to the New American Century document.  The original draft was leaked to the New York Times, and an article published on March 8, 1992.  Unfortunately, the Times web archive only goes back to 1996.  I'm working on finding a copy of it somewhere. 

"A SECRET blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.

The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)."

I smell something interesting here, and I'm going to delve a bit deeper.  Oddly enough however, the website for New American Century (and home to the mentioned document) is inaccesible.  I'll be following up on this, provided I can ever see the actual document. 

I doubt this story will make it much furthur than Glasgow's paper, but Counterpunch has noticed. 

Bush frightens me. (obDickQuote)

"viachimp"

"Nobody could justifiably accuse the Bush administration of wanting to wage war on Iraq solely as a favour to its friends in the oil business and the military-industrial complex. But many of the companies that stand to gain most from a war enjoy remarkably close ties to senior figures in the administration. And some of the President's closest confidants have shown extraordinary elasticity down the years in their attitudes to President Saddam, America's on-again, off-again public enemy number one."

If its good for the oil companies, it must be good for America.  Oh yeah, and it'll stop those darn terrorists too.

"viachimp"

""When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

A few years ago there was quite a stink about a Clinton policy that basically said "we won't ask and you won't have to tell" about your personal life. With all of the fuss surrounding this policy, it was amazing that the sky just did not cave in. Today we have an administration that has a similar policy with much more far reaching effects. It's called "Don't Ask because We Tell Nothing." If you have the audacity to ask, you will be labeled as unpatriotic and they don't have to tell anything about any subject because they have their magic shield of "executive privilege.""

Granted, the source seems to be a bit lefty, but this article does have some good questions that have yet to be answered.  I know I've wondered about the answers to some of them.

"viachimp"