Protest 'anarchy' in San Francisco. More than 1,600 people have been arrested in San Francisco while taking part in protests against the war
http://www.guardian.co.uk/antiwar/story/0,12809,919544,00.html Protest 'anarchy' in San Francisco More than 1,600 people have been arrested in San Francisco while taking part in protests against the war Duncan Campbell in Los AngelesSaturday March 22, 2003The Guardian More than 1,600 people have been arrested in San Francisco while taking part in protests against the war as demonstrations continued throughout the US. There were mainly peaceful protests in Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Boston, Chicago, Salt Lake City and Austin, Texas. By far the biggest was in San Francisco, the traditional home of war protest, where demonstrations led to what police called described as "absolute anarchy". They began early on Thursday morning with blocked streets in the financial district and continued into the night. About 800 people were kept in jail overnight. Most will be charged with minor offences but the police said that 20 would be charged with felonies connected with assaults. "This is the largest number of arrests we've made in one day and the largest demonstration in terms of disruption that I've seen," said the assistant police chief, Alex Fagan. "We saw a ratcheting-up from legal protest to absolute anarchy." Sergeant Rene Laprevotte told the San Francisco Chronicle: "After 16 hours of fighting communists and anarchists, a Red Bull can help us go another 16 hours. We're here as long as they are." "The actions will continue as long as the bombs are dropping," said Leda Dederich, one of the organisers of Direct Action to Stop the War. "Yesterday was just the beginning of a rolling campaign." In Berkeley 120 people were arrested as they tried to take over a campus administration building. About 2,000 protested in San Diego, a main base for the shipment of troops. Protesters in Boston, Atlanta and Chicago closed streets and in Philadelphia about 100 were arrested. Protesters in Times Square, New York, lay down in the street and 21 were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. In Los Angeles 12 people were arrested near the Federal Building in Westwood. The LAPD police chief, William Bratton, said the conduct of an officer caught by a news channel striking women demonstrators with his truncheon on Wednesday would be investigated. Forty people were arrested, 10 of them secondary school students. One of the women struck, Anna Christiansen, 58, lodged a complaint yesterday. More protests are planned to disrupt the Oscars ceremony in Hollywood tomorrow.
Redeem This Day of Shame
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,918782,00.html Redeem This Day of Shame Andrew MurrayFriday March 21, 2003The Guardian The assault on Iraq which began yesterday is a war the British people do not want. Never before, at least since public opinion first became a serious political consideration, has this country gone to war with only a minority of the population in support. Tens of thousands across the country drove that point home yesterday, in the biggest ever display of coordinated civil disobedience on the streets of our towns and cities. Many more will march for peace in London tomorrow. Tony Blair's appeal for national support for the war effort is already falling on deaf ears. Despite the government's efforts over the past few days to re-spin the attack on Iraq as if it were now supported by a new national consensus, the anti-war movement - unprecedented in its scope and representativeness - is clear: we cannot and will not support this war. The logic is simple. If it is right to oppose a crime when it is being publicly contemplated, how much more important is it to do so when it is in the process of commission. It is not those who oppose the war who need to justify themselves, but those Labour MPs who assured their local parties as recently as last weekend that they would never support war without UN authority, only to do just that days later. Ministers will, of course, play on the sympathy of many people for British troops. Yet the fact remains that they are not fighting in the interests of the British people, nor on behalf of any international community, but for a reactionary and dangerous US administration to which Tony Blair has subordinated our country. The prime minister was, however, clearly right when he told the Commons this week that the conduct of this crisis will shape world politics for the next 20 years. For him, that apparently means a generation in which international affairs will be conducted on the basis of a disregard for law and UN authority, and an unconditional subordination to US imperial power. That outlook is not shared by the other major powers, France, Russia, China and Germany among them. The great majority of the countries of the world appear no more ready to embrace the hegemony of the US today than they did that of the British empire a century ago. The most sobering aspect of the great power split provoked by George Bush's unilateralism is the reminder that, in the past, neo-colonial conflicts like this one have often led to much larger wars. So now is the time to speak out, or risk becoming complicit in a repetition of some of the worst crimes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Blair's responsibility for this crisis cannot be concealed by the week's big lie - that it is all the fault of the French. The prime minister did not get the second security council resolution which he so craved because the majority of the council opposed him and the US administration was not interested anyway. It is far more likely that, had Britain adopted the firm position of France and Germany from the beginning, a peaceful solution to the crisis could have been found. Instead, he has given comfort to the wild men in charge in Washington throughout by denying them the total international isolation their policies warrant. As it is, it is the prime minister himself who is isolated. His war is opposed by most of the people he was elected to represent, and denounced by virtually every expert on international law except the attorney general, as well as by almost every other country he would like to claim as a friend. The course of events in the Gulf itself is unpredictable. Blair is banking on a sense of fatalism and powerlessness to immobilise the majority opposed to the aggression; but he knows he has no margin for error in either military or political events as they unfold. Beyond the coalition of Conservatives and the minority of Labour backbenchers supporting the invasion, public opinion is unlikely to tolerate either British military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties on any significant scale, given that it was never convinced of the case for war in the first place. It should have been possible to avoid the possibility of either. But Tony Blair has chosen loyalty to the US president over the people of this country. As a result, tomorrow will see the largest-ever demonstration against a war in which British troops are fighting, while they are doing so. That is the pass to which Tony Blair has brought the country, even before the British people start to reap the inevitable whirlwind the prime minister is sowing in the Middle East. This is a day of shame for Britain. Only the actions of ordinary people standing up for peace and democracy can now redeem it. · Andrew Murray is chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, which has called tomorrow's demonstration in London [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0321-06.htm Published on Friday, March 21, 2003 by Reuters Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy WASHINGTON - A third U.S. diplomat has resigned partly because of opposition to U.S. policy toward Iraq, a State Department official said on Thursday. Mary Wright, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ulan Bator, Mongolia, cited U.S. policy toward Iraq, North Korea and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as reasons for her decision to step down, said the official, who asked not to be named. The official did not know when Wright's resignation took effect. "I strongly believe that going to war now will make the world more dangerous, not safer," Wright, the senior-most U.S. diplomat to step down over Iraq, said in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell that quoted by the Washington Post. The newspaper said Wright also criticized what she called a "lack of policy on North Korea" and a "lack of effort" by Washington to try to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Wright followed John H. Brown, a former cultural attache at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and John Brady Kiesling, political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, in stepping down this year because of U.S. policy on Iraq. The United States began its war against Iraq on Wednesday by bombing targets on the outskirts of Baghdad and it attacked key sites in the Iraqi capital with cruise missiles on Thursday in an effort to end Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's rule. Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd
Familiar, Haunting Words
http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-nybres203181614mar20.story Familiar, Haunting Words Jimmy BreslinMarch 20, 2003At 8 o'clock last night, the Sikh in a blue turban in the subway change booth at 42nd Street gave me a little wave and I waved back. Suddenly, he was a front-line soldier in a war. I designate the subway at Times Square as a prime target in America in the war with Iraq.I had just been at the public library, where I discovered the speech that started World War II. I print much of it here. It is darkly familiar to what we have been hearing here, when for the first time in American history we became all the things we ever hated and invaded another country. Herewith the speech:Address by Adolf Hitler to the Reichstag, Sept. 1, 1939.For months we have suffered under the torture of a problem which the Versailles Diktat created - a problem that has deteriorated until it becomes intolerable for us ...As always, I attempted to bring about, by the peaceful method of making proposals for revision, an alteration of this intolerable position. It is a lie when the outside world says that we only tried to carry our revisions through by pressure. Fifteen years before the National Socialist Party came to power there was the opportunity of carrying out these revisions by peaceful settlements and understanding. On my own initiative I have, not once but several times, made proposals for the revision of intolerable conditions. All these proposals, as you know, have been rejected - proposals for the limitation of armaments and, even if necessary, disarmament, proposals for the limitation of warmaking, proposals for the elimination of certain methods of modern warfare ... You know the endless attempts I made for peaceful clarification and understanding of the problem of Austria, and later of the problem of the Sudetenland, Bohemia and Moravia. It was all in vain.It is impossible to demand that an impossible position should be cleared up by peaceful revision, and at the same time constantly reject peaceful revision. It is also impossible to say that he who undertakes to carry out the revisions for himself transgresses a law, since the Versailles Diktat is not law to us.In the same way, I have tried to solve the problems of Danzig, the Corridor, etc., by proposing a peaceful discussion. That the problems had to be solved was clear. It is quite understandable to us that the time when the problem was to be solved had little interest for the Western Powers. But time is not a matter of indifference to us ...For four months I have calmly watched developments, although I never ceased to give warnings. In the last few days I have increased these warnings ...I made one more final effort to accept a proposal for mediation on the part of the British government. They proposed, not that they themselves should carry out the negotiations, but rather that Poland and Germany should come into direct contact and once more pursue negotiations.I must declare that I accepted this proposal and worked out a basis for these negotiations which are known to you. For two whole days I sat in my government and waited to see whether it was convenient for the Polish government to send a plenipotentiary or not. Last night they did not send us a plenipotentiary, but instead informed us through their ambassador that they were still considering whether and to what extent they were in a position to go into the British proposals. The Polish government also said they would inform Britain of their decision.Deputies, if the German government and its leader patiently endured such treatment Germany would deserve only to disappear from the political stage. But I am wrongly judged if my love of peace and my patience are mistaken for weakness or even cowardice. I, therefore, decided last night and informed the British government that in these circumstances I can no longer find any willingness on the part of the Polish government to conduct serious negotiations with us.The other European states understand in part our attitude. I should like all to thank Italy, which throughout has supported us, but you will understand for the carrying on of this struggle ... we will carry out this task ourselves.This night for the first time, Polish regular soldiers fired on our territory. Since 5:45 a.m. we have been returning the fire and from now on bombs will be met with bombs. Whoever fights with poison gas will be fought with poison gas. Whoever departs from the rules of humane warfare can only expect that we shall do the same ... until the safety, security of the Reich and its rights are secured.***On that night, Hitler used this dry, unimaginative language to start a world war that was to kill 60 million, and they stopped counting.Last night, George Bush, after speech after speech of this same dry, flat, banal language, started a war for his country, and we can only beg the skies to keep it from spreading
Iran Oil Depot Hit by Rocket, Iran Warns U.S., UK
http://la.znet.com/~digitlfx/nu/yahoo.htm Iran Oil Depot Hit by Rocket, Iran Warns U.S., UK Fri Mar 21, 5:07 PM ET TEHRAN (Reuters) - An oil refinery depot in southwestern Iran close to the Iraqi border was hit by a rocket on Friday, officials said, and the Islamic Republic warned Washington and London to respect its airspace. Government officials, who asked not to be named, told Reuters it was not clear where the rocket, which hit the depot in the city of Abadan at around 7.45 p.m. local time (11:15 a.m. EST), had come from. "When it happened the city of Abadan shook," Hossein, a government employee, told Reuters by telephone from Abadan which is about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, and on the opposite side of the Shatt al-Arab estuary from Iraq (news - web sites)'s Faw peninsula. The Faw peninsula adjacent to Abadan was secured earlier on Friday by British forces advancing into Iraq as part of a land attack against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). Hossein said two guards at the Abadan depot were injured. Government officials were unable to give any further details on the extent of the damage. There was no indication that operations at Abadan's oil refinery were affected and no reports of any other missiles falling on Iranian territory. The official IRNA news agency, without referring directly to the Abadan incident, said Iran's Foreign Ministry had expressed its opposition to the violation of its airspace to the ambassadors of Britain and Switzerland, which represents U.S. interests in the Islamic Republic. Washington severed diplomatic relations with Tehran shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution. IRNA said the Foreign Ministry's director general of legal affairs Mehdi Danesh Yazdi asked the envoys, who represent the two counties with the largest military involvement in the attack on Iraq, "to prevent such events from happening in future." Heavy bombing by U.S. and British forces during the attack on Faw shattered windows and caused villagers to flee in panic in neighboring Iran, according to IRNA. Iran, which fought an eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s in which hundreds of thousands were killed on both sides, has condemned the U.S.-led attack on its western neighbor, but vowed not to be drawn into the conflict.
What do you say?
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/031903Burkett/031903burkett.html What do you say? By Bill BurkettOnline Journal Contributing Writer March 19, 2003I've sat in total grief for the past three years, watching the institutions of America being spent as if they were lottery winnings. I don't want to say it, "But I told you so." In January of 1998 and what seems like a full lifetime ago, I was stricken by a deadly case of meningoencephalitis. I was returning from a short duty trip to Panama as a team chief to inspect the hand over of Ft. Clayton to the Panamanians. I had been 'loaned' from the senior staff and state planning officer of the Texas National Guard to the Department of the Army for a series of these special projects after angering George W. Bush by refusing to falsify readiness information and reports; confronting a fraudulent funding scheme which kept 'ghost' soldiers on the books for additional funding, and refusing to alter official personnel records [of George W. Bush]. George W. Bush and his lieutenants were mad. They ordered that I not be accessed to emergency medical care services, healthcare benefits I earned by my official duty; and I was withheld from medical care for 154 days before I was withdrawn from Texas responsibility by the Department of the Army, by order of the White House. I was a pawn then caught in a struggle for right and wrong, but also caught within a political struggle between a man who would do anything to be 'king' of America and an institution of laws that we knew as America. For five years, I have fought my battles around two fronts; the personal retaliation that was waged against me and the individual organizational unlawful acts and practices waged against our institutions. But I first had to survive. Without a single bit of help, contact and in spite of threats against my life and that of my family, I have had to relearn to walk and to live. My daily pain is far worse than anything I could have previously imagined. I suffer from extreme constant headaches, body pain and even my hair hurts. I now have a severe seizure disorder which we are starting to gain slight control over. My mother faced her final four years guiding and supporting me through my struggle to live. My wife, Nicki, and our four wonderful children totally reshaped their lives in support of this struggle as well. But, only three dear friends from those military days dared to help me. CW3 George Conn gave up his career and was released from duty for his support. He is now a civilian personnel specialist in Europe for the US Army. CW4 Harvey Gough actively fought for medical care for me. He received a court martial and was kicked out of the Army after an illustrious 28-year career. He filed suit for some of the comments made within their retaliation at him; including calling him a "Goddamned Jew" and threatening him with actions by making comments such as "we're going to treat you worse than the Jews in Auschwitz". LTC Dennis Adams tried to operate within the system to get me medical support. When he was deposed and served as a witness within the district court case; Dennis was retired from service. The only benefits that we have received have come at the end of a court order; and they have been under constant challenge. Needless to say, we know the White House counsel personally. We know Dan Bartlett, Karen Hughes, Joe Allbaugh, Don Evans, and many others very personally. Dick Cheney used to be a close friend. No longer. So when asked by many "what should we do?" on this beautiful, but very sad morning, I can't help but remind everyone that for over three years, since the spring 2000 campaign, I have forecasted the actions that have taken place in great detail. I know GW Bush and his inner circle very well. As I said, a UN vote would not stop GW Bush from attacking Iraq. Nor will anything else. And weapons of mass destruction will be discovered in great quantities; but the entire affair will stink to high heavens because it will be as staged as the White House press conference you just viewed. The human death toll will publicly not be mentioned, yet in truth, it will far exceed 120,000. Our vast size and force will quickly break the back of any Iraqi resistance, yet we will not break their spirit. This is a society which has learned to live in troubled politics. They will go about their business while seething inside. There will be small uprisings, but they will quickly be crushed. The emotion and anger that we will have built will spill over into other countries and meld like an alloy with other problem areas of the Middle East, becoming a deeper seated problem. We will have insured that America's dynasty is nearing an end. While GW Bush will be cast as a conquering hero by his political team and accepted by the population as such, history will treat him as Napoleonic. Bush will reach a new lofty level of acceptance by fi
Saddam Decrees Rewards for Capture, Death of Enemy Troops
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=0943f522-15fa-4708-a8f8-1cb66f891e80 Saddam Decrees Rewards for Capture, Death of Enemy Troops Associated Press Friday, March 21, 2003 BAGHDAD -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has decreed that any Iraqi who kills an enemy soldier will get a reward equivalent to $20,000 Cdn, the official Iraqi News Agency reported. According to the presidential decree, $40,000 Cdn will go to anyone who captures an enemy soldier alive, the news agency reported. Shooting down an enemy fighter plane is worth $80,000 Cdn, a helicopter, $40,000 Cdn, and a missile, $8,000 Cdn. The agency reported that an Iraqi who shoots down an enemy fighter jet or helicopter and kills the pilot will get $20,000 Cdn, and twice as much if he captures the pilot alive. © Copyright 2003 The Associated Press
Turkish Troops Move Into North Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20030322/wl_nm/iraq_turkey_dc_51&printer=1 Turkish Troops Move Into North Iraq 20 minutes ago SILOPI, Turkey (Reuters) - A Turkish commando force of around 1,500 men crossed into northern Iraq (news - web sites) on Friday night, a precursor to eventual larger deployment, a Turkish military official told Reuters The United States has told Turkey it would not welcome a large unilateral Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, where Kurdish authorities are suspicious of Turkish motives. Turkey says it needs troops in Iraq to control refugees and forestall any attempt to create a Kurdish state. Kurdish groups have said they will resist any Turkish invasion. Turkey has kept a small garrison in northern Iraq for many years, to fight Turkish Kurdish rebels based there. After weeks of negotiations, Turkey said on Friday it had agreed to allow U.S. warplanes to overfly Turkish territory in attacks on Iraq, but rejected American demands it keep its troops out of the Kurdish-controlled north. Foreign Minister Abdulah Gul announced after the overflight agreement was announced that Turkish troops would move into Iraq to keep any refugees in camps on Iraqi territory and prevent them spilling over into Turkey. He also said Turkey had suffered from the activity of Turkish Kurdish rebels based in the north since the region went beyond Baghdad's control after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). "Turkish troops will go. A vacuum was formed in northern Iraq and that vacuum became practically a camp for terrorist activity. This time we do not want such a vacuum," he said. In Washington, a U.S. officials said in reaction to Gul's statement that the United States had not agreed to such a move. "We know the Turks think that it's necessary to use the military to establish a humanitarian corridor in the north but frankly we don't agree," the Bush administration official, who asked not to be named, said. "At this point we're still discussing with them, but we haven't agreed to and don't think the military is necessarily the way to do that, to take care of the humanitarian situation (in northern Iraq)," the official said.
African press vilifies Bush over Iraq war
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030321/wl_afp/iraq_war_press_africa_1 African press vilifies Bush over Iraq war Fri Mar 21,11:49 AM ET NAIROBI (AFP) - Newspapers across Africa poured scorn on US President George Bush on over the war in Iraq (news - web sites). AFP Photo In the South Africa, the weekly Mail and Guardian called Bush a "whore, who, more than any of his 42 predecessors, has prostituted himself to his country's industrial interests." "What a senseless war!" Kenya's Daily Nation lamented on its leader page. The paper warned that Bush "had embarked on a path that could make the world even more unsafe." "One thing is sure. In many parts of the world, this will not be seen as a war against the Iraqi dictatorship; it will be seen as an assault on a people and a religion. "That will do nothing for the cause of world peace," the editorial said. "The recklessness of the attack on Iraq may cause the existing world order to fragment. Iraq itself may break up into two or three ethnic units corresponding to the Ottoman provinces from which it was created," said Uganda's government-run New Vision. The newspaper lambasted the US for invading Iraq while giving "intransigent support" to Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians, saying this was "ultimately the greatest danger to the long-term security of the United States, not the fictitious threat from a tin-pot dictator." In Morocco, La Vie Economique wrote that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) "arose from the rubble of the first Gulf war (news - web sites)." "How many more bin Ladens will come out of the ruins of the second, when Mr Bush has finished his little game?" the paper asked. Aujourd'hui Le Maroc warned that "Bush's messianic crusade" would result in the polarisation of the world into different terrorist camps, while Maroc-Ouest newspaper concentrated on Moroccans' anger at the "intolerable injustice" of the Iraq war. It warned of "excesses and anarchy" and "fanatical religious movements... which are simply waiting for the right moment to ruin the country." Islamic newspaper Al Asr wondered if the United States was oblivious to the fact that the war could be seen as justifying "reactions against American interests around the world." Under the headline "Adventurism," Liberation wrote that the United States, which has "hardly ever" heeded distress calls from people of the developing world, "has this time invited itself in, uninvited and illegally, to deliver so-called freedom to the Iraqi people, in a hail of bombs and missiles." In Senegal, the Sud-Quotidien denounced "this illegal aggression and the possible end of international law," while Wal-fadjri said: "This war is neither legitimate nor justified, and it defies the international community." "With this second war against Iraq and the sidelining of the UN, most of the world's nations feel threatened by 'American unilateralism'," Le Soleil newspaper wrote, envisioning a "new geopolitical configuration" after the conflict. "The United States sees this as laying down the foundations for their enduring world supremacy, starting in a region that is situated at the crossroads of Africa, Asia and Europe, and that contains vast oil reserves," Le Soleil wrote. All of the daily newspapers in Tunisia ploughed a similar furrow. Le Temps warned that the war set a precedent for "law of the strongest" dominating international relations. "Humanity ... would do well to seriously rethink the United Nations (news - web sites) because a world without safeguards is inevitably destined for chaos," said the Quotidien. "It is totally paradoxical that America, which portrays itself as the defender of democracy and human rights, bombs and invades Iraq in the name of these same values," Essabah wrote.
Turkey to send troops to Iraq. Turkey Has Said it Will Send Troops into Northern Iraq Within A Few Hours, Despite Opposition From the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2874635.stm Turkey to Send Troops to Iraq Turkey Has Said it Will Send Troops into Northern Iraq, Despite Opposition From the US. The BBC correspondent in Turkey says there are reports that Turkish troops will cross the border within a few hours. The Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the action was aimed at stopping an influx of refugees from Iraq and preventing what he called terrorist activity". Earlier, Turkey agreed to let US warplanes fly over its territory with immediate effect. But the US did not agree to Turkish troops entering Iraq, fearing clashes between the Turks and Iraqi Kurdish forces, which control an autonomous area in northern Iraq. "We know the Turks think that it's necessary to use the military to establish a humanitarian corridor in the north but frankly we don't agree," a US Government official told Reuters news agency. Turkey already has several thousand troops a small distance into Iraq, but Iraqi Kurds oppose their presence, saying they threaten Iraq's territorial integrity. Turkey wants to prevent the Kurds from forming a separate state. Aid package withdrawn Earlier, Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul told reporters the airspace agreement with the US was "in Turkey's interests". He announced the decision after talks with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and senior military and civilian officials. Friday's agreement came after earlier talks between Turkey and US failed to resolve their differences. Before the deal was announced, US Secretary of State Colin Powell had said: "At the moment we do not see any need for any Turkish incursions into northern Iraq." The US originally asked Turkey to grant permission for 62,000 of its troops to use the country as a launch pad for an attack on Iraq. Turkey would have received a multi-billion-dollar compensation package in return. US officials say the financial package has now been withdrawn. Correspondents say Friday's agreement will make it easier for the US to fly supplies into Iraq. Before the announcement, Turkish officials had said any agreement for US aircraft to overfly the country would not extend to allowing them to refuel at Turkish airbases. Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/2874635.stmPublished: 2003/03/21 23:13:25© BBC MMIII
Key developments in Iraq
http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=D0FEF3C2-8008-430C-98B0-99F2B60D2151 Key developments in Iraq Canadian Press Latest developments in the Iraq crisis as of 5:25 EST. -- The United States and Britain escalated the war by launching their long-awaited massive campaign from the air, and pushed ground troops one-third of the way to Baghdad. U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and his lieutenants are ``starting to lose control of their country.'' -- Two U.S. marines died in combat in southern Iraq. One was battling Iraqi infantry to secure an oil pumping station. The second was fighting near the strategic port of Umm Qasr, which the U.S. marines eventually controlled. -- Eight British and four U.S. marines died when their helicopter crashed south of Umm Qasr. The cause was under investigation. No hostile fire had been reported. -- Iraq fired its sixth missile into Kuwait, but it was shot down by Patriot missiles. The Kuwaiti military identified the latest as an al-Fatah missile, among the banned weaponry UN inspectors were hunting for. -- Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers have surrendered to coalition forces in southern Iraq. -- Turkey agreed to allow U.S. warplanes to fly over its territory after an initial delay while the two sides worked out a disagreement over whether Turkey can move its own troops into northern Iraq. It was not immediately clear how the issue was resolved. -- Police clashed with anti-war demonstrators outside the U.S. Embassy in Yemen, triggering an exchange of gunfire that killed three people and injured dozens as outrage over the war erupted in cities around the world. © Copyright 2003 Canadian Press
2nd U.S. marine killed in attack on Iraq
http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=E64A082F-607D-4271-8FB3-DA77D6B26024 2nd U.S. marine killed in attack on Iraq Canadian Press; Associated Press Two U.S. marines have died in the attack on Iraq, the U.S. Central Command said Friday. The first marine, from the 1st Marine Division, died early Friday after leading his infantry platoon in a firefight to secure an oil-pumping station in southern Iraq. The marine was wounded while battling a platoon of Iraqi infantry and was transported by helicopter to a surgical company in Kuwait. The second marine, from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, died Friday at about 4 p.m. while fighting enemy Iraqi forces near the port of Umm Qasr. © Copyright 2003 Canadian Press; Associated Press
Iraqi Bunkers Called Virtually Indestructible. Serb, German Engineers: Swimming pool, Gourmet Kitchen 90 metres Below Baghdad Palace
http://www.canada.com/national/features/iraq/story.html?id=7FAA30D0-6E93-4CBA-9C95-DFA99A4280B1 Iraqi Bunkers Called Virtually Indestructible Serb, German Engineers: Swimming pool, Gourmet Kitchen 90 metres Below Baghdad Palace Isabel Vincent National Post Friday, March 21, 2003 Saddam Hussein's chances of surviving the U.S. bombing assault on his capital may depend on an elaborate series of underground tunnels and bunkers built for the Iraqi leader, mostly by Yugoslav engineers in the 1970s and 1980s. Although little is known about the fabled and labyrinthine network of underground tunnels that stretches for kilometres under the streets of Baghdad, and even out into the Iraqi desert, Western military analysts believe they can comfortably accommodate thousands of people and even house military command posts and hospitals. Many of the Iraqi bunkers and tunnels were built by Aeroinzenjering, a Serbian engineering firm that used to be under military control in the former Yugoslavia. The firm, which is now privately owned and based in Belgrade, also built airports in Iraq. With a few other Serbian construction companies, it accepted numerous contracts from Saddam Hussein's government in the 1970s and 1980s to build a network of interlinked tunnels and bunkers for the dictator's protection in the event of a war, and possibly to hide weapons. The Serb companies also worked on palaces and mansions for Saddam Hussein and important members of his inner circle. The Iraqis reportedly paid for these massive construction projects, which cost several billion dollars, with oil that was shipped to the regime of former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milosevic. The Iraqi leader enjoyed close relationships with Yugoslav dictators, including Josip Broz Tito, the Communist leader, and the now-deposed Mr. Milosevic, with whom he forged a secret military alliance just before NATO bombed Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. According to some of the Yugoslav engineers who worked on the tunnels and bunkers, they are virtually indestructible. "Saddam's shelters can resist a direct hit by a 2,000-kilo TNT bomb or a 20-kiloton explosion as close as a kilometre away," a Yugoslav engineer told London's Guardian newspaper. Recently Resad Fazlic, a retired colonel of the former Yugoslav People's Army, told a local television network in Bosnia that Yugoslav military officials supervised the building of two fallout shelters in Baghdad for Saddam in the late 1970s. The same group was also responsible for a few smaller facilities elsewhere in Iraq modelled after a huge bunker built in 1969 for Tito near the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. Saddam's most lavish and well-equipped bunker is said to be buried 90 metres (295 feet) underneath the main presidential palace in Baghdad. By some accounts, this subterranean structure is an impressive feat of engineering, equipped with walls almost three metres (9 feet 10 inches) thick, reinforced with steel. It is reached through a secret passageway leading from the basement of the palace. According to a recent report in the German magazine Focus, the bunker under the Baghdad palace is the work of the same construction company that built air-raid shelters for Adolf Hitler's Third Reich. Duesseldorf-based firm Boswau & Knauer began construction in 1982 when the Iraqi leader feared a nuclear attack from neighbouring Iran. The bunker, which is thought to have cost US$90-million, is said to be equipped with a swimming pool, a gourmet kitchen, a recreation room and nursery for Saddam Hussein's grandchildren and children of key members of his inner circle. His bedroom is decorated in a Napoleonic motif, with a tent-style king-sized bed on a wood inlay frame. There is also a "war room," where the Iraqi dictator can monitor events above-ground using state-of-the-art technology. The bunker is reportedly able to withstand fire, bombs, gas attacks and missiles. It has its own air-filtration system that screens out poisonous gases, and stores of food and water to last a year. A British MP who visited Saddam Hussein in one of his Baghdad bunkers last year said the Iraqi leader appeared to spend much of his time living underground. "We were so deeply underground, my ears were popping," said George Galloway, a member of the Labour party. According to Con Coughlin, a British journalist who has written a biography of Saddam Hussein, another of his personal bunkers was built beneath a cinema in the basement of the Al-Sijood administrative complex close to the presidential palace. "Small by Saddam's standards [it is about nine metres by five metres] it nevertheless contained enough electronic equipment, computers, teleprinters and fibre-optic communications links for Saddam to maintain contact with his troops throughout the country," Mr. Coughlin writes in his book Saddam: King of Terror. [EMA
U.S. Ready to Rescind Clinton Order on Government Secrets
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/21/politics/21SECR.html?th March 21, 2003 U.S. Ready to Rescind Clinton Order on Government Secrets By ADAM CLYMER ASHINGTON, March 20 Making it easier for government agencies to keep documents secret, the Bush administration plans to revoke an order issued by President Bill Clinton that among other provisions said information should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" as to whether its release would damage national security. The new policy is outlined in a draft executive order being circulated among federal agencies. A final version is expected to be adopted before April 17, when the last elements of the Clinton order would take effect, requiring automatic declassification of most documents 25 or more years old. Under the draft, such automatic declassification would be postponed until Dec. 31, 2006. Other provisions of Mr. Clinton's order, which was issued in 1995, are already in force. But major changes to them contemplated in the draft would treat all information obtained from foreign governments as subject to classification and end the requirement that agencies prepare plans for declassifying records. The new policy would also permit reclassification of documents that have already been made public, and give the Central Intelligence Agency special authority to resist decisions by an interagency panel that considers classification appeals, typically from researchers. Sean McCormack, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on the ground that the Bush order was not final. But William Leonard, director of the Information Security Oversight Office at the National Archives, defended the proposal, saying it "comes as close to institutionalizing automatic declassification as possible." Historians and other critics of government secrecy had mixed reactions. Bruce Craig, director of the National Coalition for History, said of the draft, "In general it's far better than what many in the historical community had expected to see coming out of the Bush administration." He called it "more an edit than a substantial rewrite." Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said, "One might have expected a more aggressive, pro-secrecy policy than this draft." He said its strength was that it preserved both automatic declassification and the interagency appeals panel from the Clinton administration. "This draft does not shred the existing policy; it merely attenuates it somewhat," said Mr. Aftergood, who made the draft public last week in Secrecy News, his Internet publication. But Anna K. Nelson, an American University historian, was more critical, saying: "This is in context with the way this administration has done the whole bit on secrecy. They have left a skeletal process." The document does retain many central provisions of the Clinton directive, notably that "in no case shall information be classified in order to (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment of a person, organization or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security." Dr. Nelson, however, complained in particular about the deletion of the sentence in Mr. Clinton's order that said, "If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified." She called that change "a clear fire bell in the night." Mr. Aftergood agreed, saying, "It signals a preference for secrecy." Mr. Leonard, who was appointed to his post by the national archivist with the approval of President Bush, took a different view. He said the Clinton administration had inserted that provision to overturn a Reagan administration policy that took the opposite tack, calling for classification in cases of doubt. He said the new deletion would mean that the order "doesn't say one way or the other a change of tone more than anything else." The practical effect will be "nil," Mr. Leonard continued, because the draft order retains provisions urging agencies to see declassification's values, for instance the national progress that results from the free flow of information. Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, a group that publicizes government documents, also objected, though, particularly to the provision on information from foreign governments. It says, "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to national security." The phrase "damage to national security" is defined in the order, and in law, as the basis for classifying documents as confidential, secret or top secret. Mr. Blanton said the language on foreign government information was too broad, and would extend even to information given the Dep
Anti-War Protests Sweep Globe Following Launch of Strikes in Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0320-02.htm Published on Thursday, March 20, 2003 by Agence France Presse Anti-War Protests Sweep Globe Following Launch of Strikes in Iraq Anti-war protests erupted across the globe following the start of the US-led war against Iraq, with hundreds of thousands expected to march to demand a quick end to air strikes on Baghdad. An Australian uses his surfboard as a placard as thousands march towards the U.S. Consulate and the Prime Minister's office in Sydney, March 20, 2003. A wave of anti-war protests began to roll across Europe and the Middle East on Thursday after the opening salvos of the war against Iraq sparked angry demonstrations in Asia and Australia. Barely three hours after the first U.S. missiles struck Baghdad, a crowd that organizers put at 40,000 and which police said numbered 'tens of thousands' brought Australia's second largest city, Melbourne, to a standstill. (James Morgan/Reuters) Between 80,000 and 100,000 demonstrators thronged central Athens in response to the launch of targetted strikes against Iraqi targets, according to initial police estimates, but organizers put the figure at at least 200,000. "It's unprecedented. People continue coming," said Vera Michailidou of the leftist anti-globalization group Action 2003, as protestors marched past the British embassy to the US mission, both heavily guarded by riot police. Greek demonstrators, many of them high school students, adopted "Bush -- killer" as their slogan of choice, condemning US President George W. Bush for attempting to disarm Iraq and topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by force. Anti-war groups around the world have organized protests on Thursday to voice anger over the way in which Washington and London have defied popular opposition to launch a second Gulf war. Millions have marched to oppose the war in past weekends, dogging world leaders that have backed Bush's campaign, like Prime Ministers Tony Blair of Britain, Jose Maria Aznar of Spain and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy. The protest in Athens, the biggest so far for the day, followed angry anti-US demonstrations across Pakistan and spirited marches in Australia, which has contributed some 2,000 troops to the US-led coalition against Saddam. "Saddam Hussein is a hero of Muslims," shouted one protestor in the Islamist-ruled city of Peshawar in northwest Pakistan, where hundreds of students, lawyers and journalists denounced US "aggression" in Iraq. A coalition of secular anti-war groups launched a boycott of US fast food outlets like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, which are enormously popular with Pakistanis. More rallies were expected later Thursday. In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-populated nation, about 1,000 protestors gathered outside the heavily guarded US embassy in Jakarta, carrying signs reading, "Bush, go to hell" and "Terrorism No, Justice Yes." In Australia, thousands took to the streets just hours after the first air strikes against Iraqi targets, with more than 10,000 protesting in central Sydney and 20,000 in the country's second city Melbourne. One woman was arrested at the US consulate in Melbourne for splashing red paint and scrawling "killing has started" on statues outside the building, police said. "It's about sending the Americans a message, and this is their address," said one demonstrator outside the consulate, Catherine Robson. Security has been stepped up at US embassies and consulates around the world as many anti-war groups have called for demonstrations outside the diplomatic missions to show contempt for the US insistence on ousting Saddam by force. Some 20,000 students in Berlin peacefully marched toward the US embassy near the city's Brandenburg Gate, carrying placards reading "Give peace a chance" and "War is not the answer". Another 5,000 students rallied outside the US consulate in the southern city of Munich, with 7,000 demonstrating in Saarbruecken in the west. Peace groups said some 250 protests would be staged in Germany -- where opposition to war in strong -- throughout the day. Thousands of students streamed out of classrooms across Denmark, Switzerland, Spain and Italy, with Swiss schoolchildren carrying the rainbow-striped flags which have become a symbol for peace in Europe.
US is Criticized for its Plans to Use Land Mines with Timers
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/079/nation/US_is_criticized_for_its_plans_to_use_land_mines_with_timers+.shtml CIVILIAN DANGERUS is criticized for its plans to use land mines with timers By Ross Kerber, Globe Staff, 3/20/2003 To deny Iraqi forces access to sites containing chemical or biological weapons, US military commanders have plans under certain scenarios to drop small land mines from warplanes around enemy weapons sites, preventing Iraqis from taking away or using dangerous arms. Leftover land mines take a huge toll on civilians, 800 deaths per month worldwide, according to the United Nations Children's Fund. To minimize civilian casualties during and after an assault, US military doctrine calls for almost all mines to include timers that cause them to self-destruct after a preset period. The mines also include deactivation features, so they will eventually disarm themselves, even if the timers fail. A newer generation of computer-controlled land mines meant to further reduce civilian casualties won't be ready in time for an invasion of Iraq. But the US policy on mines is at odds with that of Britain and most other nations, which have agreed not to use land mines. In Britain, members of Parliament are demanding that their forces stick to a treaty it has signed banning use of land mines. There is a dispute whether the kind of mines that US forces plan to use would be a violation of the treaty, although the United States has not signed it. In the United States, opponents of land mines say that the use of such munitions in an attack on Iraq would be a blow to the campaign to ban their use. That campaign took off in the 1990s with the backing of figures like Vermont activist Jody Williams, who shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her advocacy against land mines, and the late Princess Diana. ''The more the US uses or retains the right to use land mines, the more the government is on the outside of the international norm banning these indiscriminate weapons of terror,'' said Gina Coplon-Newfield, coordinator of US Campaign to Ban Landmines, a Boston group that first called attention to the Pentagon's intentions. ''No land mine is smart enough to distinguish between a soldier and a child.'' Members of Congress including Representative James P. McGovern, Democrat of Worcester, have also called on President Bush not to use land mines in Iraq. In a letter last month to Bush, McGovern said that spreading land mines in Iraq ''would pose serious dangers to innocent civilians, our own troops, and future peacekeepers involved with post-conflict reconstruction.'' Since 1997, 131 countries have ratified a treaty banning such weapons. Neither the United States nor Iraq has agreed to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, which is better known as the Ottawa convention. The Clinton administration said it would try to end the use of land mines everywhere except Korea by 2003 and in Korea by 2006. The Bush administration is reviewing the policy. ''We are committed to developing a policy that addresses both humanitarian and war-fighting concerns,'' said a Pentagon official who would only respond to questions on condition of anonymity. In an e-mail message, the official said that any use of land mines by the United States would be consistent with international laws on conventional weapons and that allied nations ''that are parties to Ottawa would follow their own obligations in accordance with that treaty.'' ''At the same time, the United States has a responsibility to protect its men and women in uniform,'' the official wrote. ''The use of land mines by US forces does not contribute to the global land mine problem.'' Members of Britain's Parliament have asked the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair to seek assurances from US officials that mines won't be used in an attack on Iraq. ''It would be a tragic irony if a conflict that is supposed to be about upholding international arms controls resulted in the UK and others effectively tearing up their commitments,'' said Richard Lloyd, director of Landmine Action, a London organization that lobbies against the weapons and runs mine-clearing operations in Africa. Steve Atkins, a spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington, said Britain remains ''fully committed to our obligations under Ottawa.'' ''The US is well aware of our position on antipersonnel land mines,'' he said. But the use of mines described by the Pentagon might not violate the Ottawa convention under an interpretation in which the mines could be classified as ''antihandling devices,'' Atkins said. Unlike mines, which are meant to kill or injure, Atkins said, antihandling devices are meant to prevent the enemy from using equipment or facilities, like a weapons factory. US plans to deploy land mines came to light at a pres
Rep. Stark blasts Bush on Iraq war. Fremont Democrat says plan to bomb Baghdad is 'act of extreme terrorism'
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0319-05.htm Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 by the San Francisco Chronicle Rep. Stark blasts Bush on Iraq war Fremont Democrat says plan to bomb Baghdad is 'act of extreme terrorism' by Zachary Coile WASHINGTON -- In one of the most brutal critiques of the administration's policy toward Iraq by a member of Congress, East Bay Rep. Pete Stark said President Bush would be responsible for "an act of terror" by launching a massive bombing campaign to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I think unleashing 3,000 smart bombs against the city of Baghdad in the first several days of the war . . . to me, if those were unleashed against the San Francisco Bay Area, I would call that an act of extreme terrorism," said Stark, a Democrat from Fremont. A White House spokeswoman said Stark and other members of Congress are entitled to their views. "Others will judge them and decide whether or not they agree with them," spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. But she added: "The president has made it very clear that it is Saddam Hussein's choice not to take asylum or not to disarm, and that is the choice he is making. The president's interests are the interests of peace for the American people, the Iraqi people and the region." Stark's razor-tipped rhetoric was mostly an exception on a day in which many Bay Area lawmakers who oppose the war expressed resignation about the coming war. "I'm glum. I've been glum all day," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma. "I'm so saddened and disappointed that we have failed with diplomacy and in so doing are risking the lives of American troops and Iraqi citizens." While anti-war members of California's delegation said they will continue to speak out against the policy, many already are softening their rhetoric and stressing their support for U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf. Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, said he still believes Bush is making "a dangerous decision." But now, he said Congress should show unity in backing America's soldiers. "It's our young people who will be in jeopardy. They are the ones who are on the firing line," Miller said. "Now that the decision has been made to go to war, they are entitled to our full support." Even the few Bay Area lawmakers to back Bush's policy are spending less time making the case for war and more time airing their concerns about the potential loss of life. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, one of the Democrats most strongly in support of the president's policy, said his thoughts were about military men and women, particularly the National Guard and reservists "who sacrifice so much for their country and receive too little in return for their families." Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Tracy, the lone Republican in the Bay Area delegation, praised Bush for making a "difficult and courageous decision." "Anytime the decision is made to send our troops in harm's way, it is never easy," Pombo said. Stark, a peace activist in the 1960s and a 30-year veteran in Congress, is known for his sharp and sometimes careless tongue. He told the Oakland Tribune Monday that if the president initiates the war, "it's blood on Bush's hands." His latest criticism is based on published reports that U.S. forces plan to fire as many as 3,000 laser- and satellite-guided missiles on Iraq in the first days of a military campaign. "You can't send in 3,000 bombs without some of them going awry, in spite of the military's claims about accuracy," Stark said in an interview Tuesday with The Chronicle. "If they get two-thirds accuracy that means that 1,000 bombs will explode (off target) inside a city of 6 million people. To me, that's a terrorist act." Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, said Stark's comments reflect the "deep, emotional sentiments" of many anti-war lawmakers. "I agree this isn't the right action to take," Honda said. "There will be collateral damage, and there will be civilians hurt." Also Tuesday, Republican leaders were sharply critical of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle for saying in a speech Monday that he was "saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Daschle's remarks "may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the comments were inconsi
U.S. military computer attacked. Flaw used to attack Defense Department Web site
http://www.msnbc.com/news/886524.asp U.S. military computer attacked Flaw used to attack Defense Department Web site March 19 A computer intruder armed with a secret, particularly effective attack tool recently took control of U.S. military Web server. Both Microsoft and the CERT Coordination Center released hastily-prepared warnings about the vulnerability that led to the attack on Monday. But it was a disturbingly successful attack, experts say, because the intruder found and exploited a flaw that took security researchers completely by surprise. ITS UNKNOWN WHAT computer was attacked, how significant a target it was, or what the intruders intentions were. But the exploit was sophisticated and well designed, and it was alarmingly successful, said Russ Cooper, security researcher for TruSecure Corp. The company learned of the attack through sources in the U.S. military last Tuesday, Cooper said.We believe the military was being targeted, Cooper said. We dont believe anybody else has been targeted by this. Cooper had previously said specifically that a U.S. Army computer was attacked, but later revised his assertion and said he wasnt sure which branch of the U.S. military was hit.Another source told MSNBC.com that several Web sites with .mil domain names have recently been targeted with the same attack method. Col. Ted Dmuchowski, director of information assurance for the U.S. Armys Network Technology Enterprise Command, confirmed that a U.S. military computer was targeted, but said the U.S. Army was not. To the best of our knowledge, an Army system was not attacked, he said in an e-mail to MSNBC.com. According to our records, the military sites that were attacked did not belong to the Army. Microsofts director of security assurance, Steve Lipner, confirmed that several customers were hit with the attack last week, but he refused to identify them. (MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC joint venture.)Lipner said about 100 employees worked around the clock last week, and through the weekend, to develop an emergency fix.While the timing of the revelation could raise suggestions that the attack might be connected to the potential armed conflict between the United States and Iraq, there is no reason to connect the two events, Cooper said. The flaw was made worse by the fact it took computer security experts by surprise. Most of the time, software vulnerabilities are discovered by researchers, who publish them and give computer administrators time to defend against the flaw. But this time, the bad guys knew about it first leaving any computer helpless to the attack.Having attacks reported to us where theres a vulnerability for which there isnt a patch is very unusual, Lipner said. In the computer security world, such secret vulnerabilities are called zero-day exploits. Its been at least a year since a significant zero-day exploit was revealed, said Chris Rouland, director of Internet Security Systems X-Force research team. Because hackers have the upper hand in this vulnerability, this has a very high degree of urgency, Rouland said. The flaw allows an attacker to break into computers running Microsofts Windows 2000 operating system and Microsofts Internet Information Service Web server product probably the most popular configuration for Web servers running Microsoft software, Rouland said. All machines are vulnerable by default. Administrators are advised to immediately install a patch that was quickly developed by Microsoft. It is available for free at the companys Web site. CERTs warning about the flaw is sober. Any attacker who can reach a vulnerable Web server can gain complete control of the system, it says. Note that this may be significantly more serious than a simple Web defacement. Shawn Hernan, Vulnerability Handling Team leader for CERT, described the problem as a first-class vulnerability because it allows attackers to take control of a machine from anywhere on the Internet. He said there were rumors circulating that it had already been used to attack computers, but we wouldnt comment on that. The most intriguing part of the attack is that its developer chose to use it to break into U.S. military computers. Also intriguing was a cryptic message left on the attacked computer that read Welcome to the Unicorn beachhead, Cooper said. I think whoever discovered it had an intent in mind, he said. If they just wanted to deface a Web site, they would have done that to the first box they found. But they were doing network mapping. They found a weak link somewhere, and wanted to get deeper inside by continuing to probe.
Password-stealing e-mails spread
http://www.msnbc.com/news/884810.asp?0cl=cR#BODY Password-stealing e-mails spread Scam widens; latest seeks Discover Card accounts This authentic-looking e-mail, which asked recipients to volunteer their credit card account numbers and other personal information, went to an undisclosed number of Internet users Wednesday night. March 13 Beware any e-mail, however professional in tone, that asks for personal account information. Internet users continue to be flooded with legitimate-looking e-mails that ask recipients to enter account numbers, passwords, and other data. A new con aimed at Discover Card holders is just the latest in a long line of scam e-mails sent by con artists trying to hijack accounts at AOL, PayPal, eBay and other online firms. A FLURRY OF e-mails sent Wednesday purported to be from Discover Financial Services. The messages told recipients that their accounts were on hold and they needed to log in with their account number and mothers maiden name to reactivate them.Due to your inactivity your account has been put On Hold, the e-mails said, just under a Discover Card logo pulled from from Discovers Web site. To remove this status you have to Log In to your account and review Discover Privacy Policy.The e-mail looks real, and most of its content is pulled directly from Discovers computers. Even a suspicious recipient who looked at the e-mails source code would see a series of links to www.novusnet.com, the companys Web site. But replies to the e-mail, including any credit card numbers, are quietly routed to a computer with an Internet address in Russia.Discover spokesperson Beth Metzler said customers started complaining about the realistic-looking e-mails late Wednesday night. She wouldnt say how many complaints the firm received, indicating only that the issue impacted a limited number of customers. The e-mails were sent to random addresses, she said, so both account holders and non-account holders received them.We do not conduct business this way, and would never request that kind of information over e-mail, Metzler said. Were taking appropriate actions to make sure consumers do not respond to these types of e-mails.She didnt know how many customers, if any, might have fallen for the scam.But it was convincing fake, said Cheryl Faye Schwartz, who received the e-mail Wednesday night.The e-mail that I received looked as if it came from Discover. However, I became suspicious because I use my card often and I know my account is active, she said. The use of such password-stealing e-mails appears to be on the rise. Rosalinda Baldwin, a consumer advocate at TheAuctionGuild.com, said she saw a sharp uptick in attempts to steal eBay accounts during the holiday season. The number of PayPal and eBay scam e-mails to steal information are increasing by astounding rates, she said. Folks posting on the boards report getting eight to 10 a day.Just last week, Earthlink said some of its subscribers received e-mails telling them to resubmit their personal information or face account termination, due to a recent system flush. Users were sent to a Web site named El-network.net, which has since been shut down.Last month, a set of e-mails sent to eBay users asked customers for personal information, but when recipients clicked on the link supplied they were taken to a computer hosted at the University of North Carolina in Charlotte.One computer hacker, who claims to have sent out such e-mails in the past, told MSNBC.com that response rates are 1 or 2 per 100 e-mails. COMPANIES QUICKER TO REACTCompanies are scrambling to react to the problem. In late February, scam artists targeted Register.com, a domain registration service. The company responded quickly, putting a customer warning prominently atop its home page on Feb. 20. The notice is still there. You may have received an email that appears to come from Register.com that sends you to Renewal-Center.com to renew your domain name, the notice says. Please be aware that Renewal-Center.com is NOT affiliated with Register.com ... Renewal-Center.com is trying to fraudulently obtain your credit card information.Register.com spokesperson Lisette Zarnowski said she had no idea how many customers might have fallen for that scam. Renewal-Center.com is no longer in operation.She said that placing a warning on the home page was the best way to alert customers about the scam. We felt it was important to warn customers, she said. We are a customer service business and want to give our customers the most upfront information we have. We dont want them to be duped.
Saddam Hussien is Alive
Saddam Hussien is giving a speech on Fox News TV about the evil empire (12:32 a.m. Eastern). He apparently survived the "decapatation" strike at 9:31 p.m. Eastern..
Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/articlle2312.htm Bush Administration to Propose System for Monitoring Internet By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. The proposal is part of a final version of a report, "The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security. Such a proposal, which would be subject to Congressional and regulatory approval, would be a technical challenge because the Internet has thousands of independent service providers, from garage operations to giant corporations like American Online, AT&T, Microsoft and Worldcom. The report does not detail specific operational requirements, locations for the centralized system or costs, people who were briefed on the document said. While the proposal is meant to gauge the overall state of the worldwide network, some officials of Internet companies who have been briefed on the proposal say they worry that such a system could be used to cross the indistinct border between broad monitoring and wiretap. Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer who represents some of the nation's largest Internet providers, said, "Internet service providers are concerned about the privacy implications of this as well as liability," since providing access to live feeds of network activity could be interpreted as a wiretap or as the "pen register" and "trap and trace" systems used on phones without a judicial order. Mr. Baker said the issue would need to be resolved before the proposal could move forward. Tiffany Olson, the deputy chief of staff for the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, said yesterday that the proposal, which includes a national network operations center, was still in flux. She said the proposed methods did not necessarily require gathering data that would allow monitoring at an individual user level. But the need for a large-scale operations center is real, Ms. Olson said, because Internet service providers and security companies and other online companies only have a view of the part of the Internet that is under their control. "We don't have anybody that is able to look at the entire picture," she said. "When something is happening, we don't know it's happening until it's too late." The government report was first released in draft form in September, and described the monitoring center, but it suggested it would likely be controlled by industry. The current draft sets the stage for the government to have a leadership role. The new proposal is labeled in the report as an "early-warning center" that the board says is required to offer early detection of Internet-based attacks as well as defense against viruses and worms. But Internet service providers argue that its data-monitoring functions could be used to track the activities of individuals using the network. An official with a major data services company who has been briefed on several aspects of the government's plans said it was hard to see how such capabilities could be provided to government without the potential for real-time monitoring, even of individuals. "Part of monitoring the Internet and doing real-time analysis is to be able to track incidents while they are occurring," the official said. The official compared the system to Carnivore, the Internet wiretap system used by the F.B.I., saying: "Am I analogizing this to Carnivore? Absolutely. But in fact, it's 10 times worse. Carnivore was working on much smaller feeds and could not scale. This is looking at the whole Internet." One former federal Internet security official cautioned against drawing conclusions from the information that is available so far about the Securing Cyberspace report's conclusions. Michael Vatis, the founding director of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Center and now the director of the Institute for Security Technology Studies at Dartmouth, said it was common for proposals to be cast in the worst possible light before anything is actually known about the technology that will be used or the legal framework within which it will function. "You get a firestorm created before anybody knows what, concretely, is being proposed," Mr. Vatis said. A technology th
Arrogance of Power. Today, I Weep for my Country...by US Senator Robert Byrd. Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0319-04.htm Published on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 by CommonDreams.org Arrogance of PowerToday, I Weep for my Country... by US Senator Robert ByrdSpeech delivered on the floor of the US SenateMarch 19, 2003 3:45pm I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength. But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe. The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice. There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board. The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses. But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight. The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq. What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy? Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire? War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along
Bush cites al-Qaeda link to justify Iraq attack
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/19/bush030319 Bush cites al-Qaeda link to justify Iraq attack Last Updated Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:00:12 WASHINGTON - U.S. President George Bush on Wednesday sent Congress a formal justification for invading Iraq, citing the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001. Bush will make a televised speech if the U.S. attacks Iraq, a spokesperson said. RELATED: Troops move to Iraqi border for quick invasion The three-paragraph note justifying war said diplomacy has failed to guarantee America's security. The Constitution gives Bush authority to "take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001," the note said. White House spokesperson Sean McCormack said the reference is to Iraq. Bush has said Iraq has links with al-Qaeda, the organization blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington. Other countries remain unconvinced about the link. White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer warned Americans that there could be casualties in the attack, and while the war is expected to be short, "it could be a matter of some duration." Bush met Wednesday morning with top defence and foreign policy chiefs. He also met with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to discuss Operation Atlas, the city's preparations for possible terror attacks if a war begins. Written by CBC News Online staff
Bugging devices found in EU summit office
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/19/eubug_030319 Bugging devices found in EU summit office Last Updated Wed, 19 Mar 2003 12:37:55 BRUSSELS - Electronic bugging devices were found in a European Union building where the organization's summit will open Thursday, EU officials said. They were found in offices used by France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Britain and Austria. The Iraq situation is expected to be discussed at the annual event. The EU is investigating the incident but does not yet know who was behind it, EU spokesman Dominique-George Marro said Wednesday. He declined to name the other countries whose offices were bugged. The French newspaper Le Figaro broke the story Wednesday, saying Belgian police identified the bugs as American. The report did not explain why officials believe the devices are American. "At this point we cannot say who planted these bugs," said Cristina Gallach. She is a spokeswoman for Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for foreign and security policy. The American mission to the EU has "received no communication about the investigation from the EU," a spokesman for the U.S. mission said on condition of anonymity. Marro said the EU "found anomalies in the telephone lines" during regular security checks. Only a small number of lines were affected, he said. Two years ago, the European Parliament investigated reports that a U.S.-led global spy network dubbed Echelon allegedly snooped on Europe's business community. U.S. officials have not acknowledged that such a network exists and have said American agencies do not engage in industrial espionage. Written by CBC News Online staff
Activist's Memorial Service Disrupted
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,917119,00.html Activist's memorial service disrupted Chris McGreal in JerusalemWednesday March 19, 2003The Guardian Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday. Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armoured vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in Rafah refugee camp where Ms Corrie was crushed to death. The 23 year-old activist with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) was trying to prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes by the Israelis when she was hit by the bulldozer. Joe Smith, a young activist from Kansas City, said about 100 people were gathered to lay carnations and erect a small memorial when the first armoured personnel carrier appeared. "They started firing teargas and blowing smoke, then they fired sound grenades. After a while it got hectic so we sat down. Then the tank came over and shot in the air," he said. "It scared a lot of Palestinians, especially the shooting made a lot of them run and the teargas freaked people out. But most of us stayed." Another witness said the army failed to break up the service. "People were laying carnations at the spot where Rachel was killed when a tank came and fired teargas right on them. Then a core group of the peace activists took an ISM cloth banner to the fence and pinned it up. "The tank chased after them trying to stop them with teargas but the wind was against the army," she said. Tensions rose further when a convoy of vehicles, including the bulldozer that killed Ms Corrie, passed the area. "I don't think it was deliberate but it was pretty insensitive," said Mr Smith. "I think they had been destroying some buildings elsewhere and had to pass by to get back to their base." The army said it was investigating the incident.
Daschle stands by criticism of Bush
Daschle stands by criticism of Bush WASHINGTON (CNN) --Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said Tuesday he would not retract his criticism of President Bush's diplomatic efforts on Iraq, despite criticism from the White House and top Republicans. "I don't know that anyone in this country could view what we've seen so far as a diplomatic success," said Daschle, D-South Dakota. Daschle told unionized public employees Monday that he was "saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, called Daschle's remarks "deeply disappointing" and "counterproductive." "Our men and women literally are in a countdown before fighting is initiated and any remarks that their lives in some way have been compromised is irresponsible," Frist said. Frist was one of several Republicans who responded Tuesday to Daschle's comments. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said the remarks were "unfortunate, it was disappointing. It was uncalled for. I hope he thinks better of it and retracts his statement." Even the usually reserved House Speaker Rep. Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, was compelled to react, saying the senator's words "may not undermine the president as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close." And House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, issued a statement urging Daschle to "Fermez la bouche" -- French for "Shut your mouth." The White House called Daschle's comments "inconsistent" with his earlier complaints that issues of war and peace were being politicized. The United States, Britain and Spain dropped efforts Monday to seek U.N. backing for a military confrontation with Iraq, saying consensus was impossible among Security Council members. They blamed French threats to veto any U.N. resolution that would authorize force for scuttling a compromise. Bush delivered an ultimatum Monday night to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to go into exile by 8 p.m. ET Wednesday or face war. Daschle said Bush's diplomatic efforts were weak compared to the support his father built for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when allies paid most of the bills and provided a larger portion of the troops involved. "As a veteran, there is no question that I stand strongly with the troops," Daschle said. But he added, "We have to be honest and open in a democracy. I think to do anything less is unpatriotic and I'm going to continue to speak out where I think I have a responsibility to do so." Daschle was among many leading Democrats, including presidential hopefuls John Edwards, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq in October. Kerry, D-Massachusetts, issued a statement saying Bush "has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post-9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world." Lieberman said congressional leaders would pull together to support Bush once the fighting begins, and predicted the spat over Daschle's comments "is going to be the last of this." "The blame for the war is Saddam Hussein's," Lieberman, D-Connecticut, told CNN's "Inside Politics." "We gave him 12 years to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, which was to disclose the weapons of mass destruction." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Bush failed to take into account the United States' dependency on other countries in his push to disarm Iraq by military force. "Our military is the best-trained and best-equipped military in the world," Pelosi, D-California, told a gathering of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal employees. "Never have we been stronger. And yet, at the same time, never have we been more dependent on other countries and other people for the safety and security of our people," said Pelosi, who opposed the Iraq resolution in October. "I think the president has failed to face that in how he has proceeded. So, wherever you are on the war, one way or another, you have to know that America deserves better leadership in how we disarm Iraq." Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/18/sprj.irq.daschle.gop/index.html
U.S. officials: Delaying Iraqi strike has benefits
U.S. officials: Delaying Iraqi strike has benefits Aides said Bush sticking to usual routine From John KingCNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) --Senior U.S. officials said that while war with Iraq could begin as early as Wednesday night, President Bush could find a "tactical advantage" in waiting before ordering an assault. In a Monday night speech to the nation, Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons give up power and go into exile by 8 p.m. EST Wednesday -- 4 a.m. Thursday in Baghdad. Bush will meet with his national security team Wednesday and consult with British Prime Minister Tony Blair by phone. A National Security Council meeting was scheduled for Wednesday morning, and Bush also planned a separate session with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a senior official. Bush will hear the latest on military preparations and an assessment of weather and other conditions that could factor into a decision on when to go to war. The senior official said that "it obviously is no surprise to anyone that a strike is coming" and that beyond an evaluation of weather and other field conditions, it could be in the U.S. interest "to leave them staring at the sky for a little bit." Another official said Bush deliberately chose the words that the United States will attack "at a time of its choosing." The official characterized the looming deadline as a political one for Saddam that opened the door to military action "but is not in and of itself a determining factor in when we go." Bush's schedule also included plans for a White House meeting with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to discuss preparations for possible terrorist strikes in the United States. Aides said it is unlikely that Bush will speak publicly until after he makes his decision to launch a military offensive, an announcement that would be made in an Oval Office address. In the meantime, these aides said Bush is trying to stick close to his usual routine, with a busy schedule of private meetings and telephone consultations, including a daily break for a workout. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/sprj.irq.bush/index.html
Is Iran Next? This Senate Resolution, Suggests It May Be:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2297.htm Is Iran Next? This Senate Resolution, Suggests It May Be: Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women. (Introduced in Senate) SRES 82 IS 108th CONGRESS 1st Session S. RES. 82 Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES March 12, 2003 Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CAMPBELL, and Mr. KYL) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate concerning the continuous repression of freedoms within Iran and of individual human rights abuses, particularly with regard to women. Whereas the people of the United States respect the Iranian people and value the contributions that Iran's culture has made to world civilization for over 3 millennia; Whereas the Iranian people aspire to democracy, civil, political, and religious rights, and the rule of law, as evidenced by increasingly frequent antigovernment and anti-Khatami demonstrations within Iran and by statements of numerous Iranian expatriates and dissidents; Whereas Iran is an ideological dictatorship presided over by an unelected Supreme Leader with limitless veto power, an unelected Expediency Council and Council of Guardians capable of eviscerating any reforms, and a President elected only after the aforementioned disqualified 234 other candidates for being too liberal, reformist, or secular; Whereas the Iranian Government has been developing a uranium enrichment program that by 2005 is expected to be capable of producing several nuclear weapons each year, which would further threaten nations in the region and around the world; Whereas the United States recognizes the Iranian peoples' concerns that President Muhammad Khatami's rhetoric has not been matched by his actions; Whereas President Khatami clearly lacks the ability and inclination to change the behavior of the State of Iran either toward the vast majority of Iranians who seek freedom or toward the international community; Whereas political repression, newspaper censorship, corruption, vigilante intimidation, arbitrary imprisonment of students, and public executions have increased since President Khatami's inauguration in 1997; Whereas men and women are not equal under the laws of Iran and women are legally deprived of their basic rights; Whereas the Iranian Government shipped 50 tons of sophisticated weaponry to the Palestinian Authority despite Chairman Arafat's cease-fire agreement, consistently seeks to undermine the Middle East peace process, provides safe-haven to al-Qa'ida and Taliban terrorists, allows transit of arms for guerrillas seeking to undermine our ally Turkey, provides transit of terrorists seeking to destabilize the United States-protected safe-haven in Iraq, and develops weapons of mass destruction; Whereas since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and despite rhetorical protestations to the contrary, the Government of Iran has actively and repeatedly sought to undermine the United States war on terror; Whereas there is a broad-based movement for change in Iran that represents all sectors of Iranian society, including youth, women, student bodies, military personnel, and even religious figures, that is pro-democratic, believes in secular government, and is yearning to live in freedom; Whereas following the tragedies of September 11, 2001, tens of thousands of Iranians filled the streets spontaneously and in solidarity with the United States and the victims of the terrorist attacks; and Whereas the people of Iran deserve the support of the American people: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that-- (1) legitimizing the regime in Iran stifles the growth of the genuine democratic forces in Iran and does not serve the national security interest of the United States; (2) positive gestures of the United States toward Iran should be directed toward the people of Iran, and not political figures whose survival depends upon preservation of the current regime; and (3) it should be the policy of the United States to seek a genuine democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people, abandon terrorism, and live in peace and security with the international community.
North Korean Missile Found In Alaska. A recent report that a long-range missile fired from North Korea turned up in Alaska should make Americans reevaluate committing to a war with Iraq
http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html North Korean Missile Found In Alaska A recent report that a long-range missile fired from North Korea turned up in Alaska should make Americans reevaluate committing to a war with Iraq. Exclusive To American Free Press By Mike Blair The Bush administration is ignoring reports from South Korea and Japan that the North Koreans have test-fired a nuclear-capable, intercontinental ballistic missile, which landed in or near the state of Alaska. The White House has not commented on a report in The Korea Times that the warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found in the state of Alaska. The discovery of the missile warhead was reported to South Koreas National Assembly and was culled from a U.S. (presumably intelligence) document, the paper said. If the report is accurate, the warhead could be from a North Korean three-stage Taepo Dong 3 ICBM, which is, according to U.S. intelligence sources, capable of striking targets about 9,300 miles away. Officially, as previously reported by American Free Press, the Pentagon admits that North Korea has only a two-stage Taepo Dong 2 missile, which CIA Director George J. Tenet indicates is capable of striking the U.S. West Coast, while the Taepo Dong 3 can strike targets anywhere in North America. In the report to the National Assembly, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyangs missile capabilities. According to a retired Air Force intelligence officer, long assigned to the top-secret National Security Agency and to South Korea to work on radar defenses, the finding of the warhead in Alaska would indicate that the North Korean missile would have been tracked to where it landed by U.S. radar which constantly screens the sky as part of Americas air defense system. It would appear, the retired officer said, that the Pentagon is keeping a real tight lid on this one and I am amazed that the U.S. press has not picked up on a story appearing in a prominent South Korean paper and reported before South Koreas National Assembly. All that the Pentagon is commenting on is that North Korea has tested in recent days two short-range anti-ship missiles, which White House spokesmen have said is not surprising and insists there is no cause for particular concern. However, officials are ignoring the fact that North Korean anti-ship missiles could target U.S., Japanese and South Korean warships operating in the area, including a U.S. carrier battle group which has been sent to the region as a result of Pyongyangs saber-rattling. The missile hitting Alaska is (of course) not the first time in recent history an enemy nations weapon has struck the continental United States. During World War II hundreds of Japanese barometrically controlled balloons, which carried explosive and incendiary devices, landed in the Northwest and elsewhere after being released from the Japanese coast. One balloon traveled as far east as Michigan. It is reported that some Japanese balloon weapons were to have been laden with biological weapons. But except for starting some forest fires and killing a small number of people who came upon one explosive balloon and accidentally detonated it, the Japanese balloon devices never became a serious threat. Japan attacked the U.S. mainland twice with sub marine-launched floatplanes, setting more forest fires. The North Koreans missile and nuclear weapons programs do present a serious threat, according to military experts. In fact, a recent poll on CNNs web site indicated that Americans are more fearful of North Korea than they are of Iraq, where a major war is looming. Rep. Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) said the U.S. government might have to bomb the North Korean nuclear complex, located north of Pyongyang, should North Korea try to export nuclear material to other countries. A March 5 article in The Anchorage Daily News downplayed the South Korean report, quoting Air Force Lt. Col. Rick Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency. Lehner told the Alaskan newspaper that the report probably referred to a three-stage missile tested by North Korea in 1998. [The missile] splashed in the water hundreds of miles from Alaska, Lehner said. Ive never heard of any piece of a missile landing in Alaska from that test or any other test.
At U.N., Since 1990, the United States Has Used Its Veto Power More Than Any Other Council Member
Mar 10, 2003 At U.N., Since 1990, the United States Has Used Its Veto Power More Than Any Other Council Member By Deborah HastingsThe Associated Press UNITED NATIONS (AP) - In the Security Council, France last cast a lone veto in 1976, over a resolution whether the tiny island of Mayotte was part of the newly independent state of Comoros, off the southeast coast of Africa. For the United States, it was three months ago, over a resolution condemning violence in the Middle East, specifically the killing of U.N. employees by Israeli soldiers and the destruction of a U.N. warehouse filled with food for needy Palestinians. The power to veto, held by an exclusive five-member club of the Security Council, allows the world's most powerful nations to shape international peace and security. But in the crisis over Iraq, France says it will veto current war plans, even if the European nation must go it alone, and even with U.S. leaders breathing down the necks of tired and bickering council members. On the 15-member council, France, the United States, China, Russia and Britain constitute the privileged and permanent members possessing veto power. That power, diplomats say, can also provide a bully pulpit for rewarding friends and punishing enemies. In the United Nations' 58-year history, the Soviet Union and its successor state, the Russian Federation, have used the veto 117 times - most coming during Cold War decades. The United States is second with 73. Since 1990, America has cast more Security Council vetoes than any country, many of them favoring Israel, a longtime ally. The word "veto," however, never appears in the U.N. Charter. Instead, the issue is worded this way: "Decisions of the Security Council ... shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members." Meaning, to get its resolution authorizing force against Iraq, the United States - and co-sponsors Britain and Spain - must get a minimum of nine "yes" votes from the Security Council and avoid a veto. In the ever-changing nuances of daily diplomacy, it was not clear Monday whether the Bush administration had nine votes. And in the often arcane rules governing the United Nations - there is a way to get around a veto. The "uniting for peace" resolution, passed in 1950 to stop North Korean Communist troops from invading South Korea, allows the General Assembly to meet in emergency session and vote on a course of action if the Security Council is unable to establish peace and security. Rarely used, the resolution was suggested Monday by former diplomats who spoke to journalists at the United Nations. "During the Korean invasion, we were smart enough to note that a veto would probably come from the Soviet Union," said former American envoy William J. vanden Heuvel, explaining the genesis of the 1950 resolution. Vanden Heuvel opposes war against Iraq and pronounced President Bush's recent statements about the "irrelevance" of the United Nations "demagoguery." For those in the United Nations who refuse to support force, vanden Heuvel said, "We still have the option of going immediately to the General Assembly and putting it to a vote of the world." AP-ES-03-10-03 1754EST This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA3R7D15DD.html
Colour Coded Threat Advisory System
Where is purple, for the purple haze Bush and his Administration are in, just like Jimi Hendrix was back in his day.
Human Shields Await Bombs in Baghdad
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/18/MN183497.DTL Human shields await bombs in Baghdad From anarchists to Quakers, they've followed their principles to put their lives on the line with the civilians of Iraq Rob Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Baghdad -- The ultimatum issued by President Bush on Monday dramatically increases the chance that Faith Fippinger may die in the next few days. Fippinger, a 52-year-old retired schoolteacher is one of about 90 "human shields" who are putting their bodies on the line in front of potential U.S. bombing targets in Iraq. Since early February, the Sarasota, Fla., native has slept every night at the Daura oil refinery, a huge complex at the southern edge of Baghdad that supplies the entire metropolitan region with gasoline and other fuels. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the refinery was destroyed by U.S. missiles, and it burned for a month and a half. Fippinger expects another attack. "I may die here," she said calmly. "But my death is no more or less important than the Iraqi lives that will be lost -- for example, my neighbors, who live next to the refineries, a woman who brings in tea every morning." Then Fippinger broke into tears. Together with other human shields from the United States and elsewhere, Fippinger hopes her body might yet clog the gears of war. But while Pentagon planners reportedly want to avoid bombing civilian infrastructure targets, Gen. Tommy Franks, the U.S. commander of the military campaign, has said potential targets would not necessarily be spared just because of the presence of human shields. The volunteers are organized loosely by Human Shields, a London organization that is an ungainly conglomeration of 23 nationalities, mostly Europeans and Turks, along with six Americans. The organization has been riven with dissension. Last month, the Iraqi government expelled five of its leaders after a dispute over which sites would be guarded by the volunteers. The group's leaders wanted to position shields at sites such as hospitals, while the government proposed sites it viewed as more strategic, including military installations. Other shields have returned home and denounced the Iraqi government as repressive. 'SOME FRUITCAKES AMONG US' "We have a bad impression of the human shields. Some of them are crazy," said an Iraqi Foreign Ministry official, who requested anonymity. "Yes, there are some fruitcakes among us," said Marc Eubanks, a Wyoming native and Air Force veteran who now lives in Athens, Greece. He was referring to some anarchists, who he said could provoke major culture clashes with Iraqi officials at joint meetings. "But nobody can tell me that we haven't been an outstanding success," said Eubanks, who has been living at the Dura Electrical Power Plant, which supplies a third of Baghdad's electricity and was bombed in the Gulf War. "We were poorly organized, but we lurched forward." The Bush administration has said little about the human shields. In February, a State Department spokeswoman responded to a reporter's question about why they were in Iraq by saying, "You might as well ask me why moths fly into porch lights." NUMBERS UNCERTAIN It is unclear exactly how many foreign activists are in Iraq, because even at this late date, many are still entering and leaving the country. But organizers estimate there may be about 120 to 150 activists in Baghdad when the U.S. attack starts. Although the human shields are under no obligation to remain once the war begins, most say they will stay put even when the bombs start falling. For the American activists, a lingering question is: What happens if they survive the war? Once they return to the United States, will they be prosecuted under the U.S. Patriot Act for supporting the enemy? "The truth is, I'm more afraid of what the Americans would do if they caught me," said Eubanks. "The Americans will probably make Camp X-ray here and put me in it," he said, referring to the U.S. POW camp in Guantanamo, Cuba, that is holding accused al Qaeda members. As a U.S. war draws ever closer, the disappointment felt by the remaining activists is palpable. "More than a letdown, it's a catastrophe, a huge punishment heaped on innocent people," said Kathy Kelly, the coordinator of Voices in the Wilderness, an activist group with headquarters in Chicago and London. In recent months, Voices in the Wilderness and other U.S. groups, most of whom share Voices' origin in liberal Catholic, Quaker and other religious groups, have held many vigils in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities. TENSIONS AMONG GROUPS Kelly hinted at the subtle tension between her organization and Human Shields. While Voices in the Wilderness and other Western activist groups have accepted no aid from the Iraqi government, lodging and food expenses for the human shields has been paid for by the regime. "We don't want to be under the
Protesters Vow to Greet War with Widespread Civil Disobedience
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0318-01.htm Published on Tuesday, March 18, 2003 by the Associated Press Protesters Vow to Greet War with Widespread Civil Disobedience by Jeff Donn Having had months to focus on the buildup toward conflict with Iraq, America's anti-war activists say they are ready to mark the first days of war with protests in dozens of cities coast to coast. They vow to block federal buildings, military compounds and streets in a rash of peaceful civil disobedience. They say they will walk out of college classes, picket outside city halls and state capitols, and recite prayers of mourning at interfaith services. "It is sort of an acknowledgment that we are probably not going to be able to stop the war," said Joe Flood, who is helping to plan a student walkout from classes at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Mass. He said more than 1,000 people have pledged to participate. Some plans for the first day or two of war are writ large, like paralyzing traffic with bicycles and cars and disrupting commerce in San Francisco's financial district. Others are small, like showing a single lit candle on a Web site of the United Church of Christ. Some are meant to be noisy, like a march in Portsmouth, N.H., with clanging pots and pans. Others will be quiet and solemn, like a vigil in Ann Arbor, Mich., with Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers. Many groups intend to carry out die-ins, where activists lie on the ground to symbolize war victims and to block passers-by. Some students at Swarthmore College, in Pennsylvania, intend to lower campus flags to half-staff. However, in Columbia, S.C., activists hope to serve up satire, making fun of the government's anti-terrorism advice to homeowners. They want to plaster a federal building with duct tape and plastic sheeting. Gordon Clark, the national coordinator of the Iraq Pledge of Resistance, said acts of civil disobedience - with the risk of arrest - have been set up at more than 50 cities. "When you get to the point that the war actually begins, that's a point when many ... feel they have to take the strongest action they can personally take," he said. With President Bush signaling that war could be imminent, some anti-war groups were pressing supporters Monday to begin civil disobedience immediately. Eight opponents of a war were arrested Monday in Traverse City, Mich., when they tried to block an Army Reserve convoy headed to a training area. One handcuffed himself to a truck and the other seven locked arms in front of the vehicle, police said. In San Francisco, anti-war protesters (http://www.actagainstwar.org/) shrouded themselves in body bags Monday in front of the British consulate, chanting "no killing civilians in our name." Some blocked traffic in the city's financial district. Police in riot gear cleared an intersection, and about 40 arrests were made. San Francisco anti-war groups have laid out similar plans on a larger scale for the outbreak of war, including an effort to shut down the Pacific Stock Exchange and some high-profile commercial buildings. "The bare bones of the plan is to basically shut down the financial district of San Francisco. The way we see it is that we basically unplug the system that creates war," said Patrick Reinsborough, one of the organizers. Tim Kingston, a spokesman for the San Francisco-based Global Exchange, says his anti-war group has kept away from organizing civil disobedience, though some members expect to take part on their own. He said some worry about stirring more resentment than sympathy with such disruptive tactics. But he added, "What else are we supposed to do? Sit and say nothing ... and be silent? That's not very American." It was not clear how many supporters would follow through with illegal actions, faced with possible arrest. However, in Philadelphia, organizer Robert Smith said at least 50 activists, both young and middle-aged, were ready to block entrances of a federal building. "The statement we're conveying is that there can be no business as usual for a government that would trample on democracy and international law in order to kill thousands of people for the sake of superpower status," Smith said. Some groups are focusing on defense-related sites. Protesters plan to block traffic at Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colo., and sit in at the
White House to Seek Up to $90B for War
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_COSTS?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT White House to Seek Up to $90B for War By ALAN FRAMAssociated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is expected to ask Congress for up to $90 billion to pay for a war with Iraq and other expenses within days of the start of combat, congressional and White House aides said Monday. The bill would also include aid for Israel, a key U.S. ally in the region, and funds for anti-terrorism efforts at home, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Two officials said President Bush could send the measure to Capitol Hill as early as Friday. It was initially unclear how much of the measure would be to finance fighting against Iraq, though one official said the figure assumed one month of combat. Private analysts have estimated the costs of a brief war in the $40 billion to $60 billion range, including the expenses of moving the U.S. force to and from the region but excluding the costs of a postwar U.S. role in the region. They have said the aftermath, with the United States rebuilding Iraq and keeping peacekeeping troops there, could cost more than $100 billion, depending on the scope of the reconstruction effort and the duration of the U.S. stay. Congressional Democrats have been criticizing Bush for not disclosing the potential costs of war even as federal deficits grow to record levels and Republicans begin trying to push a tax cut and budget for next year through Congress. GOP lawmakers have said such a figure was not crucial as budget work begins. On a day when Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave his country or face an invasion, one congressional aide said he was expecting the bill to total $50 billion to $80 billion. Another congressional official, who like the first spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the range would be $70 billion to $90 billion. This aide said it was likely about 90 percent of the money would be for the Defense Department. A White House official said those ranges sounded familiar but declined to be more specific. The official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the administration was still making last-minute decisions about the funds. Asked about the estimates, White House budget office spokesman Trent Duffy said, "The president will work with Congress to secure money for whatever action he deems necessary." Last month, a senior Defense Department official said the Pentagon believed it will need $60 billion to $85 billion to cover its costs in Iraq and for fighting terrorism elsewhere around the world through Sept. 30. The Pentagon also said it was already drawing down its budget by $1.6 billion per month for its battle against terrorism around the world, excluding Iraq costs, and would eventually need to be reimbursed. So far, Congress has approved $376 billion for the Defense Department for this year. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in early March that a war with Iraq would cost about $14 billion to transport American troops and equipment to the region; more than $10 billion for the first month of combat and $8 billion monthly afterward; and $9 billion to bring the forces home. The 1991 Persian Gulf War cost the United States $61 billion, or $80 billion in today's dollars when the past decade's inflation is factored in. The allies reimbursed the United States all but about $7 billion of those costs with cash or other contributions like fuel.
D.C. Police, Tractor Driver in Standoff
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TRACTOR_INCIDENT?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 18, 11:00 AM EST D.C. Police, Tractor Driver in Standoff By DERRILL HOLLY WASHINGTON (AP) -- A North Carolina tobacco farmer remained inside his tractor Tuesday morning in a small lake nestled among some of America's best known symbols. The standoff caused police to close streets blocks from the scene snarling the city's morning rush hour. "We're looking at every possible option, to make sure this comes to a peaceful resolution," said Sgt. Scott Fear, a spokesman for the U.S. Park Police. The incident began around noon Monday when a man wearing a military medic's helmet drove a jeep and trailer carrying the tractor and a motorcycle into Constitution Gardens, a federal park bordered by the Washington Monument, the Vietnam War Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial. After driving the jeep into the lake, the man drove the tractor off the trailer and into the water. "We're going to be patient with him and we're going to make sure that human life and safety is number one," Fear said. Officials said the uncertainty of the situation presents both safety and facilities concerns. They declined to specify his demands. The man was identified as Dwight Watson, 50, of Whitakers, N.C. Shortly after the incident began, police established a 400 yard security perimeter around the site. The decision snarled downtown traffic for commuters Monday evening and again Tuesday morning, as vehicles were restricted over a much broader area. For many motorists frustration was boiling over with some giving up and leaving buses to walk to work. Nebiye Solom, who manages a downtown parking garage, said his customers have been complaining that their 30-minute commutes have turned into two-tour nightmares. Tactical officers armed with automatic weapons, bomb squad technicians and fire department hazardous materials specialists were among the more than 100 public safety personnel involved in the incident. The location has also hampered access to several federal and independent agencies. Offices of the National Academy of Sciences, the Interior Department and the Federal Reserve are located inside the security zone. The State Department headquarters is also nearby.
PUSHED INTO WAR BY LIARS AND CHEATS
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12742779&method=full&siteid=50143 PUSHED INTO WAR BY LIARS AND CHEATS Mar 17 2003 IT was a rare moment of truth in the shabby charade which is plunging the world into war. Suddenly President Bush's mask slipped. The pretence that he is a great statesman and the saviour of international freedom was laid bare. He was revealed as a petulant little man, sick of having to wait before sending his massive forces into Iraq, his patience with pretending to listen to other nations totally exhausted. Yesterday's trip to the Azores was always going to be a farce. Always going to leave the world a fingertip away from war. The meeting between the leaders of America, the UK and Spain lasted an hour. No time for discussion but plenty of time to nod agreement with the President. There is no longer any doubt that this rush to military action is one of the most sordid episodes since the Second World War. Mr Bush is only interested in blitzing Iraq. What makes it so much more terrible for the people of Britain is that our government is being dragged in and plumbing disgraceful depths to justify involvement. The concerted attack on France is shameful and degrading. Cabinet ministers yesterday toured TV and radio studios to condemn President Chirac and accuse the French of being responsible for war. This is hypocrisy run riot and double-think of scandalous proportions. You expect it from newspapers with no principles or morality, but we are entitled to something better from Tony Blair's government. Responsibility for the coming conflagration lies four-square on America's shoulders. Mr Bush is committed to war and Mr Blair is determined to support him. The President and his supporters in the British Cabinet have a peculiar view of what UN backing entails. To them, it means meekly accepting whatever the White House says. It is that view which threatens the future of the United Nations. It is ludicrous to suggest that France's insistence on a peaceful solution is an act of war. Tony Blair still fails to understand that one reason the British are so opposed to this war and so cynical about the motives for it is that we are being treated like idiots. We don't want fake dossiers of "evidence". We don't want lies about the dangers we face. We don't want attacks on people and countries who prefer peace to war. We don't want farcical summits whose only aim is to speed the rush to military action. It is clear that war is only hours away. When it starts, we will be very clear about who is responsible.
Ave Caesar
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0317-06.htm Published on Monday, March 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org Ave Caesar by Rahul Mahajan The emperor has spoken. Let the world take heed. Mark the date: March 16, 2003. It will go down in history as the day our new Caesar crossed his personal Rubicon. Bush's twin ultimata, to Iraq and to the United Nations, constituted the final and ultimate declaration of the new New World Order. The first formal declaration was in his speech to Congress on September 20, 2001. "Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The open implication was that the rule of law, already honored mostly in the breach, was to be replaced by the rule of force; that force, naturally, to emanate from Washington. Over the 1.5 years since then, there have been numerous reaffirmations -- the launching of the pre-emption doctrine, the warning to the UN that if it didn't do America's bidding it would make itself "irrelevant" -- but it was always possible to imagine that even this reckless administration might be turned back, might at least at least generate an illusion of a velvet glove in which to cloak its iron fist. No more. Bush's declaration was crafted to lock in the insane and potentially suicidal course that the administration has taken ever since the attacks of 9/11. What was really shocking and terrifying was not simply the effective declaration of war against Iraq; it has been a foregone conclusion for at least six months that, in the absence of overwhelming opposition, the war would happen. Rather, it was the way the ultimatum was delivered. To give Iraq 24 hours to "disarm" (even while Dick Cheney and Colin Powell make the rounds of talk TV saying there is no longer a way for Iraq to comply) is openly farcical. An administration that took a year after 9/11 before it instituted widespread X-raying of checked bags might be expected to understand this. To give the Security Council 24 hours to pass a resolution is a naked imperial imposition. It is an ultimatum designed not to elicit any response, but rather to humiliate. It is also perhaps worth commenting on the stunningly open mendacity of the Bush administration, continued with Bush's ultimatum yesterday. To make this declaration on the 15th anniversary of the gassing of Halabja, to mention it specifically, is a profound insult not just to the Iraqi people but to all of us; where is the mention that the United States supported Iraq fully at the time, with biological and chemical materials, loan guarantees, and diplomatic cover? That it went so far as to issue organized disinformation (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0117-01.htm) suggesting that Iran was the culprit? To mention Rwanda as an example of the "failure" of the UN was possibly even worse. Again, where was the mention that the UN "failed" because the United States kept UN peacekeepers from being reinforced, cut off their supplies, and pushed ceaselessly to have them removed? Or the mention that the State Department deliberately covered up http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/press.html) its clear knowledge that what was happening was genocide? Indeed, it is again as if these references were added simply to display flagrant contempt for the rest of the world, which may know the truth but consistently feels unable to express it because of the weight of U.S. coercion. And perhaps the most important lie was the reference to France. France has "shown its cards" and "said they were going to veto anything that held Saddam to account" -- this right on the heels of Chirac's effective surrender by agreeing to a 30-day deadline for disarmament. This was is much bigger than a war on Iraq. It is a gauntlet hurled in the face of France and the rest of "old Europe." It is a frontal assault on the concept of democracy worldwide. It is, if you look at the planning documents (http://www.newamericancentury.org) of the neoconservatives who now run our foreign policy, the first stage in a long campaign against China. Yesterday, Bush drew the battle lines through the entire globe and through the middle of each country. In order even to begin to understand how to oppose this new imperialism, we must understand this: weapons of mass destruction have nothing to do with this war, and even Iraq itself has to do with this war only in the sense that it i
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0317-09.htm Published on Monday, March 17, 2003 by Michael Moore A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War by Michael Moore George W. Bush1600 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 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,
Protest Closes London Petroleum Exchange
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38736-2003Mar17.html Protest Closes London Petroleum Exchange By BRUCE STANLEYThe Associated PressMonday, March 17, 2003; 10:52 AM Anti-war activists invaded the International Petroleum Exchange in central London on Monday, forcing the exchange to suspend trading. Two protesters from a group of about 30 who succeeded in entering the building were later removed from the premises, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said on condition of anonymity. The exchange is Europe's major center for trading in futures contracts for crude oil. The exchange said it suspended trading because of the anti-war demonstrators, according to the statement. It said it would review the situation later in the afternoon, giving no details. The protesters caused "a bit of a nuisance on the floor," said Rob Laughlin, managing director of GNI Man Financial. "We're checking to make sure everything is safe before we open again." Demonstrators continued their protest outside the exchange after the incident, police said. It was not clear if the two protesters who got into the building would face charges. © 2003 The Associated Press
Mike Malloy
Does anyone else listen to the Mike Malloy show? This guy is funny. He is on from 3:00 - 6:00 p.m. Eastern, repeats from 9:00 p.m. -12 midnight Eastern, M-F. You can hear him on i.e. America Radio. When I open Windows Media Player, I just cut and paste the link below - File then Open URL. http://stream.ieamericaradio.com:15004/
The War's On
You do know that if there was a vote, it would have been 11 against 4 for? http://www.bartcop.com Who cares what you think? This war's on, so let's roll!
PM says Canada will not fight in Iraq
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/17/pm_iraq030317 PM says Canada will not fight in Iraq Last Updated Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:38:30 OTTAWA - Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said Monday that Canada will not go to war against Iraq. He said the government would only support military action if there were a United Nations Security Council resolution, and the Council backers of an attack decided Monday to withdraw their resolution. Without a resolution, "Canada will not participate," Chrétien said to cheers in Parliament. The U.S. and Britain, which has been seeking suport for the resolution, withdrew it when it became clear that it did not have enough backing to pass. While Chrétien was clear on Canada's current position, he brushed off opposition questions seeking more details. He ducked a New Democratic Party request for a formal debate and vote on Iraq, and a Progressive Conservative question on whether Canada had a legal opinion on the legality of an attack. Chrétien said Canada had worked hard to find a compromise between the opposing views on the Council.
Press denounces "Council of War"
17. March 2003, 19:15, Swissinfo Press denounces "Council of War" The Swiss press has criticised Sunday's last-ditch talks in the Azores, setting the world a final deadline over Iraq. Editorials said the intention behind the meeting of the "Council of War" was clearly to wage war against Baghdad, at an enormous cost to Iraq and to world peace. The German-language "Tages-Anzeiger" said it was appropriate that the three leaders - President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Spanish counterpart, José Maria Aznar - had decided to hold their crisis talks in the Azores. The paper said the mid-Atlantic islands were "a fitting symbol for the completely isolated foreign policy of the US. Setting the UN an ultimatum was just a final hurdle that stood in the way of US "pressing on with its own interests", the Tages-Anzeiger said. The French-language "Le Temps" said Sunday's talks marked the "end of hypocrisy". Washington wanted to go to Baghdad in order to "correct its error of 1991" and impose a "radical new order in Iraq". "It's the start of a dangerous adventure. its cost will be great," Le Temps concluded. Deep divisions The "Tribune de Genève" said it was clear that there were deep divisions not only within the UN Security Council but also among the US, Britain and Spain. It said Washington was impatient to launch its military campaign in Iraq, while Britain could not afford to do so without the support of the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, Spain was torn between its desire to wrap-up the Iraqi affair in the face of mounting political and popular opposition. The "Basler Zeitung" said Bush, Blair and Aznar had lost all moral authority to wage war. They had chosen to meet in the Azores because it was one of the few places on earth where they could shun mass anti-war demonstrations. The German-language tabloid, "Blick", said the conflict that everyone dreaded was no longer avoidable. The question was no longer whether there would be a war, but rather who would take part, it said. swissinfo, Vanessa Mock Diesen Artikel finden Sie auf NZZ Online unter: http://www.nzz.ch/2003/03/17/english/page-synd1699280.html
Pictures: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist
Pictures on the following link with story: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml An ISM volunteer holds up Rachel Corrie's US passport as another peace activist sits in shock, Al-Najjar Hospital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel was killed by an Israeli bulldozer driver while protesting the demolition of a Palestinian home. (Mohammad Al-Moghair) Rachel Corrie confronts the bulldozer driver. (ISM Handout) A clearly marked Rachel Corrie, holding a megaphone, confronts an Israeli bulldozer driver attempting to demolish a Palestinian home, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Other peace activists tend to Rachel after being injured by the Israeli bulldozer driver, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Rachel Corrie lies on the ground fatally injured by the Israeli bulldozer, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Rachel in Najjar hostpital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that Dr. Ali Musa, a doctor at Al-Najjar, stated that the cause of death was "skull and chest fractures". (Mohammad Al-Moghair) Colleagues of Rachel comfort each other in Najjar hostpital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that a second activist was also injured at the same location. (Mohammad Al-Moghair)
Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activist
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml Photo story: Israeli bulldozer driver murders American peace activistNigel Parry and Arjan El Fassed, The Electronic Intifada, 16 March 2003 An ISM volunteer holds up Rachel Corrie's US passport as another peace activist sits in shock, Al-Najjar Hospital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel was killed by an Israeli bulldozer driver while protesting the demolition of a Palestinian home. (Mohammad Al-Moghair) On 16 March 2003 in Rafah, occupied Gaza, 23-year-old American peace activist Rachel Corrie from Olympia, Washington, was murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver. Rachel was in Gaza opposing the bulldozing of a Palestinian home as a volunteer with the International Solidarity Movement. An e-mailed report from the Palestine Monitor stated: Rachel Corrie (ISM Handout)The girl, Rachel Corey [sic], 23 years old from the state of Washington, was killed while she was trying to prevent Israeli army bulldozers from destroying a Palestinian home. Other foreigners who were with her said the driver of the bulldozer was aware that Rachel was there, and continued to destroy the house. Initially he dropped sand and other heavy debris on her, then the bulldozer pushed her to the ground where it proceeded to drive over her, fracturing both of her arms, legs and skull. She was transferred to hospital, where she later died. Another foreigner was also injured in the attack and has been hospitalized - at this stage his nationality is unknown.(15 March 2003) A press release from the International Solidarity Movement stated that: Rachel had been staying in Palestinian homes threatened with illegal demolition, and today Rachel was standing with other non-violent international activists in front of a home scheduled for illegal demolition. According to witnesses, Rachel was run over twice by the Israeli military bulldozer in its process of demolishing the Palestinian home. Witnesses say that Rachel was clearly visible to the bulldozer driver, and was doing nothing to provoke an attack. (15 March 2003) The photos below clearly show that Rachel was well marked, had a megaphone, and posed no threat to the bulldozer driver. Rachel Corrie confronts the bulldozer driver. (ISM Handout) A clearly marked Rachel Corrie, holding a megaphone, confronts an Israeli bulldozer driver attempting to demolish a Palestinian home, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Other peace activists tend to Rachel after being injured by the Israeli bulldozer driver, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Rachel Corrie lies on the ground fatally injured by the Israeli bulldozer, Rafah, Occupied Gaza, 16 March 2003. (ISM Handout) Rachel in Najjar hostpital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that Dr. Ali Musa, a doctor at Al-Najjar, stated that the cause of death was "skull and chest fractures". (Mohammad Al-Moghair) A later report from ISM Media Coordinator Michael Shaikh in Beit Sahour offered more details about the events: The confrontation between the ISM and the Israeli Army had been under way for two hours when Rachel was run over. Rachel and the other activists had clearly identified themselves as unarmed international peace activists throughout the confrontation.The Israeli Army are attempting to dishonour her memory by claiming that Rachel was killed accidentally when she ran in front of the bulldozer. Eye-witnesses to the murder insist that this is totally untrue. Rachel was sitting in the path of the bulldozer as it advanced towards her. When the bulldozer refused to stop or turn aside she climbed up onto the mound of dirt and rubble being gathered in front of it wearing a fluorescent jacket to look directly at the driver who kept on advancing. The bulldozer continued to advance so that she was pulled under the pile of dirt and rubble. After she had disappeared from view the driver kept advancing until the bulldozer was completely on top of her. The driver did not lift the bulldozer blade and so she was crushed beneath it. Then the driver backed off and the seven other ISM activists taking part in the action rushed to dig out her body. An ambulance rushed her to A-Najar hospital where she died. Colleagues of Rachel comfort each other in Najjar hostpital, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Ha'aretz newspaper reported that a second activist was also injured at the same location. (Mohammad Al-Moghair) "This is a regrettable accident," Israeli Defence Forces [sic] spokesman Captain Jacob Dallal was reported as saying in Ha'aretz news
The War That Cannot Be
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppay163174337mar16.story A War That Cannot Be Les PayneMarch 16, 2003The war against Iraq cannot be. I have a nickel riding on this, two nickels in fact. The first one wagered that the war would not happen in mid-February. Deadline passed. This friendly bet has been rolled over to mid-March. The second nickel is completely open-ended, at least until the presidential election of 2004.By war, my nickel means a full-scaled U.S. land attack against the sovereign state of Iraq.Perhaps I should state up front that I have never stood accused of underestimating America's ability to do terrible things abroad as well as at home. She is particularly adept at doing terrible things against people not of European descent. If they are outgunned and poorly matched, all the better. Starting with the indigenous people of this continent running down to the island state of Grenada and the Iraqis of the last great conquest, the United States has loosed rivers of blood in the name of its national interest.Still, in all of those skirmishes, more than a few of them cowardly, the republic most often convinced itself at least of a motive, whether trivial or self-delusional. The early campaigns of manifest destiny and naked gunboat diplomacy gave way in the last century to subtler motives for war, some of them quite convincing. A reluctant nation was pulled to the ramparts of World War I, in part, by the infamous Zimmerman note. This 1917 telegram from the German foreign minister to his embassy in Mexico City warned that if the United States entered the war, Germany would form an alliance with Mexico. The prospect of brown Mexicans fighting across its southern border jolted the United States from all prospects of neutrality. No such ruse was needed in World War II, thanks to the Japanese.Two decades later, the ruse for war returned with the surfacing of false reports that Vietcong gunboats had attacked two American war ships in the Tonkin Gulf. This trick got President Lyndon B. Johnson his war powers from a naive Congress. Following the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, the Reagan administration stormed into Grenada, a Caribbean island of about 89,000, under the pretext that U.S. medical students were in grave danger. And with the first Great War against Iraq, the United States successfully lured Saddam Hussein into attacking Kuwait, then cleaned his unsuspecting clock.The point is that, before committing its troops to battle, the United States has usually established a rationale for crossing the most deadly of all Rubicons. In this impending war against Iraq, the Bush administration has established no such rationale that passes muster, even from its own appraisers. The motive for the land war has spun from Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, to the changing of his regime, to the clear and present threat that his 93-mile missiles pose to the continental United States. This glaring lack of a clear motive for war, despite TV media drumbeats and Congress' ceding of its war-making prerogatives, has left the American public unconvinced.The rationale against the Iraq war is grounded in the role of the United States as the lone superpower, unchallenged and unchallengeable. While al-Qaida- like terrorist groups might attack and hide in friendly countries, no nation bent on its own survivability would dare attack America. Hussein may well be a risk taker, but he is also a survivor and - Bush's charges notwithstanding - the dictator poses no certain threat to Americans other than attacking soldiers within his very own borders.The Bush policy approves a pre-emptive war that seeks to protect America against an unknown, undeveloped threat that Hussein might develop somewhere down the line. Such criminal activity is ill-advised and should be illegal in a civilized world. Nor should America target for extermination those heads of state who displease the ruling circle of this republic. Such undertakings are the actions of a small-minded nation tilting toward conquest and, perhaps, paranoia. Intelligent superpower leadership at ease with its global preeminence should instead find constructive ways to live up to its possibilities.For all these reasons, I find it well nigh impossible to imagine this country - under the skeletal pretense spelled out so far - launching a ground war against Iraq. This war just cannot be.Should the Bush administration persist in defying this principle of its possibility by launching the Iraq war, the republic would have changed fundamentally. The date of the invasion, no matter the outcome on the ground, will surely mark the decline of the United States as a great nation. Then again, that decline may well have already been duly marked by the momentous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2000.Stay tuned. Copyright © 2003, Newsday, Inc.
The Emerging Superpower of Peace
http://freepress.org/columns.php?strFunc=display&strID=320&strYear=2003&strAuthor=7 Harvey WassermanThe emerging superpower of peaceMarch 15, 2003Amidst the agonizing crisis over Iraq, the violent contortions of the world's only military superpower have given birth to a transcendental force: the global Superpower of Peace. That George W. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein has become a global issue at all is perhaps the most tangible proof of this new superpower's potential clout. Only one thing has slowed (or stopped) Bush from launching this attack: the economic, political, moral and spiritual power of an intangible human network determined to stop this war. Bush has amassed the most powerful killing machine humankind has ever created. He's set its fuse on the borders of an impoverished desert nation with no credible ability to protect itself from this unprecedented attack. His military henchmen believe the conquest of this small country can be done quickly, with relatively few casualties on the the attacking side (though many civilians would die on the Iraqi side, as they did in the 1991 Gulf War I). The potential prizes are enormous: · Outright control of the world's second-largest oil reserve; · Removal of Bush's hated personal rival, a US Frankenstein gone bad; · A pivotal military base in the heart of the Middle East; · Hugely lucrative contracts for both the destroyers and the rebuilders of Iraq; · The ability to test a new generation of ultra high-tech weaponry; · The chance to display the awesome killing power of that weaponry;· The chance to demonstrate a willingness to use that power; · The fulfillment of Biblical prophesy as seen through the eyes of religious fanatics. But after months of preparation, the world's only military superpower has hesitated. Instead of obliterating Baghdad---as it physically could at any time---the Bush cabal has flinched. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he needs no military allies. But he's desperately courting them. Bush says he doesn't need UN approval. But he's desperately sought it. Why? One could argue the US has been marking time because it's not quite ready, with deployments and other technical needs not yet met. But all that is now far more difficult with an astounding rejection by Turkey, which shares a strategic border with Iraq. Turkish opposition to war is running a fierce 80-90%. Major arm-twisting (and a $26 billion bribe) has not bought permission to use Turkish land and air space. Meanwhile, the "no" votes of China, Russia, France and Germany represent the official opinion of some 2 billion people. They are irrelevant to the mechanics of armed conquest. But the four nay-sayers represent enormous political and economic power. So do scores of other nations whose nervous millions now march for peace. "Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war," says Robert Muller, a long-time UN guiding light who views this global resistance as virtually miraculous. To all this has been added the opposition of the Pope. The Bush cabal may be asking that infamous question: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" But about a quarter of the US---and its armed forces---are Catholics. They may soon be forced to choose between the opinion of their infallible spiritual leader and that of their unelected president. The Pope has already been asked to put himself between the people of Baghdad and a US attack. He could also speak "ex cathedra," banning Catholic participation in the war. Meanwhile the spiritual opposition has been joined by a wide spectrum of religious organizations, including Bush's own church. Though constantly speaking in religious terms, Bush has refused to meet with the broad range of clerics who oppose his war. Meanwhile, worldwide demonstrations are growing bigger and more focused. In Britain one wonders if the next march might shut down London or the entire country. Massive civil disobedience is inevitable at dozens of US embassies. Consumer boycotts are likely to erupt with staggering force. Within the US, the fiercest opposition may well be coming from Wall Street. Specific corporations such as Dick Cheney's Halliburton and Richard Perle's consulting firm stand to make a fortune from Gulf War II. But mainstream financial and commercial institutions are understandably terrified. The American economy is already staggering under deep recession. Bush's tax cuts will yield stratospheric deficits for decades to come. The US economy now bears the sickly pallor of a collapsing empire. With war, a depressed stock market that hates instability could well plunge another 25-50%. Next would come the worldwide boycott of American products. China counts a billion-plus citizens and a rapidly emerging economic powerhouse. France a
Sick Caesar: Remove Bush From Office
http://freepress.org/columns.php?strFunc=display&strID=321&strYear=2003&strAuthor=3 Bob FitrakisSick Caesar: Remove Bush from officeMarch 15, 2003Its time for U.S. citizens to demand that President George W. Bushs cabinet invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment and remove him from office. By a majority vote of the cabinet and the Vice President, transmitted in writing to both the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the President may be declared unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Increasingly, journalists are willing to admit that the cognitively-impaired President may indeed be mentally ill. What would drive a President who lost an election by over half a million votes to attack the arch-enemy of Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, rather than to pursue the 9-11 terrorists in the Al Qaeda network? What would cause a President to ignore his generals, his own intelligence agencies, the major religious leaders of the world and the vast majority of the worlds people in pursuing an unnecessary and destabilizing war that is likely to plunge the world into chaos for the next hundred years? Perhaps the Madness of King George is best summed up in Will Thomas February 12 article Is Bush Nuts? While theres an emerging concern among some mental health care providers that the President is mentally disturbed, theres no consensus as to his actual illness. Carol Wolman M.D. asked the question, Is the President Nuts? even earlier in the October 2, 2002 counterpunch.org. In an attempt to analyze Bushs bizarre behavior, putting the world on a suicidal path, Wolman suggests the President may be suffering from antisocial personality disorder, as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses, 4th edition. As the manual points out, There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others: 1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest; 2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying . . . 5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others. Professor Katherine Van Wormer, the co-author of the authoritative Addiction Treatment, worries about Bushs brain chemistry following some 20 years of alcohol addiction and alleged illicit drug use. Van Wormer notes that George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call the dry drunk. His behavior is consistent with being brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. Alan Bisbort echoes Van Wormers thought in the American Politics Journal, in an article entitled Dry Drunk Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? The list goes on and on. Some suggest paranoia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, religious delusions and depression. Former National Security Agency employee-turned-investigative-journalist Wayne Madsen noted that the President was slurring his speech during the State of the Union address. Perhaps more shocking is the title of Maureen Dowds March 9 New York Times column, Xanax Cowboy. Dowds lead read: As he rolls up to Americas first pre-emptive invasion, bouncing from motive to motive, Mr. Bush is trying to sound rational, not rash. Determined not to be petulant, he seemed tranquilized. Of course many Americans will reject the notion that the President, with an estimated 91 I.Q. who could not name crucial Middle East leaders during his campaign, could be mentally unstable. Few realize that this has been a common problem with past presidents. Jim Cannon, an aide to incoming Reagan administration Chief of Staff Howard Baker suggested that President Reagan was incapable of performing his duties in March 1987. A March 1987 memo analyzing Reagans behavior found He was lazy; he wasnt interested in the job. They say he wont read the papers they gave him even short position papers and documents. They say he wont come over to work all he wanted to do was watch movies and television at the residence. Cannon recommend we consider invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Reagan. In retrospect, we know that Reagan was in the early stages of Alzheimers; it was apparent to many political scientists and journalists at the time, who frequently commented on Reagans mistaking fictional movies for real historical events. The images of Richard Nixon wandering around the White House drunk, asking a portrait of Abe Lincoln for advice, are forever immortalized in Woodward and Bernsteins The Final Days. Luckily in Nixons case, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig took control to make sure the President would not launch a pre-emptive war or nuclear attack, or order a military coup to stop the impeachment. Since the United States, if it indulges the apparent madness of Bush, will e
Rewriting History in the Gathering Fog of War
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035779332852&call_page=TS_SundayWorld&call_pageid=1038394944805&call_pagepath=News/World Mar. 16, 2003. 01:00 AM Rewriting history in the Gathering Fog of War LINDA DIEBELWASHINGTONBeware the Iraqi navy. Watch out for fake U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And take note, the "Mother Of All Bombs" is really a psychological device. The weirdness of war is upon us. Just one harebrained notion after another. We're left shaking our heads. But in the gathering fog of this particular war with Iraq, there's a new twist: flexible history. Recent history is being rewritten on the fly, and with born-again vigour, by White House briefers, Pentagon spin doctors and U.S. military analysts. These novel versions of events are not only irritating, they increasingly challenge our Canadian history on everything from World War II to the 1999 military intervention in Kosovo. "There was never a war more easy to stop," U.S. Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz indignantly told U.S. war veterans Tuesday about World War II. He compared the failure of the world community to stop Germany's Adolf Hitler to today's indifference to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and applauded the American sacrifice. "Many of you served in that terrible war," said Wolfowitz. "You know firsthand what it cost the U.S. in terms of lives and treasure. You saw what it cost the world 40-50 million dead, cities destroyed, great nations laid waste." True. The world did dither through the 1930s. But what Wolfowitz failed to mention was that the United States did not get involved in that war until more than two years after Canada was fighting it, and then only after Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941. Washington ignored pleas from its allies, including Canada, as Britain was pulverized by German bombs, beginning in 1939. "Well, we weren't allies then," U.S. security analyst George Friedman told the Star when asked about World War II. The Star brought up the subject because Friedman was lecturing Canada on how to be a good ally. The fog of war is nothing new. In every conflict, one gets hyped "psyop" stories, head-scratchers and fast-breaking scenarios, usually difficult to check and later proving to be false. In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the most infamous example was the story about Iraqi soldiers ripping babies from incubators in Kuwait City hospitals. There were eyewitnesses, including a young woman actually the daughter of the ambassador to the U.S. who broke hearts around the world with her tearful accounts. It took congressional hearings after the war for the story to be proven untrue. This time, we have seen White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer argue that NATO launched military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 in order to oust Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic and effect "regime change." It's clear such rewrites annoy Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. On ABC's This Week Sunday, he dismissed "this notion in the United States that I find a bit surprising" and pointed out that Milosevic's defeat in elections was a later by-product of military intervention. Fleischer compares Security Council inaction on Iraq to its failure to intervene in Rwanda when thousands in the African country were being slaughtered. But he does not mention the widely held view that Madeleine Albright, then U.S. ambassador to the U.N., led the charge for the United Nations to abandon Rwanda, leaning on Security Council members not to use the word "genocide." The problem is that "White House speak" can become conventional wisdom. People have busy lives; they don't always have time to really think about every item in the onslaught of information. Most often, spin can be funny. Last week, for example, the U.S. military tested its new 9,000-kilogram bomb, which White House and Pentagon officials refer to as the "Mother Of All Bombs." In military lingo, it's dubbed MOAB, for "Massive Ordnance Air Burst." "They could have picked a better name," Mayor Dave Sakrison of Moab, Utah told CNN Tuesday. "Everyone around town is pretty much appalled." With a straight face, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tried to convince a Pentagon briefing that the main focus of the biggest conventional bomb
Anger as CIA Homes in on New Target: Library Users
http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,915173,00.html Anger as CIA Homes in on New Target: Library Users Lawrence Donegan in Santa Cruz, CaliforniaSunday March 16, 2003The Observer On the check-out desk at Santa Cruz public library, beside the usual signs asking people to keep quiet and to return their books on time, there is what might be called a sign of the times. 'Warning: although Santa Cruz public library makes every effort to protect your privacy, under the federal USA Patriot Act records of books you obtain from this library may be obtained by federal agents,' it reads. 'Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney General John Ashcroft.' In the unlikely event that a library patron in this traditionally liberal Californian town ever got the chance to speak to Ashcroft, they would discover that agencies such as the FBI and CIA now have the powers to obtain the library records of any individual government investigators claim is connected to an investigation into spying or terrorism. Unlike traditional search warrants, this new power does not require officers to have evidence of any crime, nor provide evidence to a court that their target is suspected of one. Nor are library staff allowed to tell targeted individuals that they are being investigated. The law, known as Section 215, is one of a raft of anti-terrorism measures passed by Congress in the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks which civil liberties campaigners claim are seriously undermining freedoms enshrined in the constitution. Like many provisions in the Patriot Act, Section 215 was little noticed when it first came on the statute books, but over the past few months librarians and bookshops have begun a quiet but determined revolt against its powers. 'Obviously we're aware of the federal government's obligation to protect the American people from terrorism, but we are also aware of our obligations to protect the freedom of both the people who use the library and our staff,' said Anne Turner, the director of libraries in Santa Cruz. 'It's a balancing act, but our library board has decided that individual freedoms are the most precious of all - I mean, that's the difference between a country like the United States and a country like Iraq. We have the right to free speech, to information, to privacy.' Turner said the signs, placed in 10 local libraries, were meant as a warning to customers that their privacy was under threat and as a means of starting a debate. 'In Santa Cruz not everybody is a hippy radical, but I think it would be fair to say that the response has been one of unanimous outrage. Particularly pernicious is the idea that library staff are not allowed to tell those people targeted by the FBI about what is happening. That kind of secrecy is straight out of Nazi Germany.' So far, she has received no requests from the FBI for information, although a recent study reported that government agents had vis ited 85 academic libraries seeking information under the new laws. Section 215 - which also applies to bookshops - is the target of a Bill introduced into Congress last week by the independent congressman Bernie Saunders, who is seeking an amendment requiring government investigators to produce evidence of a crime before being allowed to look at a person's library or book-buying records. The Department of Justice has declined to comment on how many times it has invoked Section 215, but it defends the general principle behind it. In a recently published letter to a US senator, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said Americans who borrowed library books automatically surrendered their right to privacy. A spokesman said last week that Bryant was simply pointing out that anyone who voluntarily gave information to libraries and bookshops should not be surprised if others learnt about it. The legislation was a threat only to those who might have something to feel guilty about, the spokesman claimed.
Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0316-03.htm Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland) Rumsfeld Urged Clinton to Attack Iraq by Neil Mackay DONALD Rumsfeld, the US defense secretary, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz wrote to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein because he is a 'hazard' to 'a significant portion of the world's supply of oil'. In the letter, Rumsfeld also calls for America to go to war alone, attacks the United Nations and says the US should not be 'crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council'. Those who signed the letter, dated January 26, 1998, include Bush's current Pentagon adviser, Richard Perle; Richard Armitage, the number two at the State Department; John Bolton and Paula Dobriansky, under-secretaries of state; Elliott Abrams, the presidential adviser for the Middle East and a member of the National Security Council; and Peter W Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. It reads: ' We urge you to seize [the] opportunity and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the US and our friends and allies around the world. 'That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power.' ' We can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war coalition to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades the UN inspections. 'If Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil, will all be put at hazard.' Bush's current advisers spell out their solution to the Iraqi problem: 'The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. 'We believe the US has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the Security Council.' The letter -- also signed by Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition; ex-director James Woolsey and Robert B Zoelick, the US trade representative -- was written by the signatories on behalf of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a right-wing think-tank, to which they all belong. Other founding members of PNAC include Dick Cheney, the vice-president. ©2002 smg sunday newspapers Ltd
Pliable Bush Puppet of Hawks
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035779256668&call_page=TS_Opinion&call_pageid=968256290124&call_pagepath=News/Opinion Mar. 16, 2003. 01:00 AM Pliable Bush puppet of hawks LINDA MCQUAIGIn an apparent attempt to come up with a guise other than warmonger, George W. Bush is being hastily repackaged as "deeply religious." Bush has always been officially described as "born again" a useful device to explain the transformation from his early days (up to the age of 40) of heavy drinking and carousing. But the notion that Bush is motivated by deep religious convictions is being pushed with such vigour these days by his supporters that one senses an orchestrated campaign perhaps to prevent worldwide skepticism about the motives for the Iraq invasion from spreading to the U.S. Some Americans may worry about an evangelical crusader controlling the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, but religion even the fundamentalist variety is generally considered a good thing in the U.S. Certainly, focusing on religion helps keep attention away from other more contentious motives for invading Iraq, such as oil or world domination. So the media have been hyping Bush's alleged spirituality (including a Newsweek cover story on "Bush and God"), even as the president snubbed pleas for peace from world religious leaders and last week tested a 21,000-pound bomb in preparation for unloading it on people in Iraq. (Blessed are the bombed children.) Of course, it's possible that Bush is deeply religious, whatever than means. More likely, Bush is simply an empty vessel, a hollow shell, a person of weak character and limited life experience who is therefore highly susceptible to the control of a small, determined group of ideological hard-liners bent on asserting U.S. power more forcefully in the world. A description attributed to Bush himself in 1989 seems apt. The Houston Chronicle reported Bush telling a friend: "You know, I could run for governor, but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business ..." One thing that stands out in Bush's past, besides the partying and business failures, is the extent to which he relied on his family's political and financial connections. U.S. presidents have often come from blue blood backgrounds, but George W. Bush makes even John F. Kennedy look like a self-made man. But back to that group of hard-liners, (which includes prominent Bush advisers like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Douglas Feith). The hard-liners have long been a force within the Republican party, struggling against the post-Vietnam resistance in America to getting entangled in a big war. Their approach could be described as U.S. supremacist; they are dismissive of international organizations like the U.N. and multilateral attempts at disarmament. They want Washington to use its military superiority to enforce American global dominance a goal that has become more achievable since the demise of Soviet power. The hard-liners became a significant force in the administration of George Bush Sr., under the tutelage of hard-liner Dick Cheney, who served at the time as defence secretary. But their push to make Washington more assertive and unilateral was held in check somewhat back then, since Bush the elder was a multilateralist, as were others in his cabinet. He was also whatever else one says about him experienced, accomplished, knowledgeable about the world and in control of his own government. None of this could be said of his son, whose presidency came, in the end, courtesy of the ultimate in connections Supreme Court judges appointed by his father. George W. wasn't part of the hard-line Cheney crowd; while they were honing their arguments about U.S. supremacy, he was focused on his next martini and on making a fortune in the oil industry using his father's connections. But he was happy to get on board with them for his presidential bid, selecting Cheney as his running mate. To the public, Bush appeared affable and not particularly threatening, even talking in a televised presidential debate about the need for America to be "humble" internationally. But, lacking any outside constituency or the experience to control the politically sav
Is Tony Blair Crazy, or Just Plain Stupid? (As Fast As One Lie Is Exposed, More Pop-Up)
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/margolis_mar16.html March 16, 2003 Is Tony Blair crazy, or just plain stupid? By ERIC MARGOLIS -- Contributing Foreign Editor Tony Blair, Britain's prime minister, proposed a "compromise" last week to the deadlocked UN Security Council: President Saddam Hussein of Iraq should go on TV and admit he had weapons of mass destruction and had committed other transgressions. Blair's offer, reeking of mock sincerity, was clearly crafted to dampen down a storm of Labour party criticism over his sycophantic support of President George Bush's impending crusade against the Saracens of Iraq. But it was an offer Iraq was certain to reject, thus ending diplomacy and opening the way to war. Small wonder the French call Britain "perfidious Albion." Blair's demarche was high hypocrisy, even by Downing Street's usual standard. Why doesn't the insufferably sanctimonious Blair go on TV and explain why Britain still retains nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in sizable quantities? Are they to stop a cross-channel invasion by France or the Vikings? Perhaps Blair could discuss Winston Churchill's plan to use poison gas against any German landing in World War II. More to the point, Blair should explain why Britain and the U.S. supplied Iraq with germ warfare agents and many of its chemical arms during the 1980s (confirmed in U.S. Senate hearings). Or why British government technicians, discovered by this writer in Baghdad in 1990, were producing anthrax and Q-fever germ weapons for Iraq? Instead of harping on Iraq's brutality, Blair might discuss Britain's savaging of Ireland, brutal colonial conquest of almost half the known world, the addiction of millions of Chinese to British-grown opium, and crimes in India, Africa and Burma. And admit that some of today's worst political problems - Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, India vs. Pakistan - are due to British imperialism. Blair may well owe a political debt to the financiers and press barons who launched his meteoric political career and badly want this war. But plunging Britons into an unjust, unnecessary war to please these neo-imperialists is intolerable. The only other explanation - that Blair is doing all this out of conviction - is even more frightening. Bad enough born-again George Bush apparently believes he is commanded by God to go to war. That his chief advisers on the Mideast seem to want to recreate biblical Israel. That many of Bush's core fundamentalist supporters believe this war will hasten the conversion of Jews to Christianity and bring the world's end through Armageddon. Blair is too intelligent to swallow such claptrap. Every Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction site" claimed by British and U.S. intelligence has thus far turned out, when inspected by the UN, to be clean. If Blair still believes these clearly debunked claims, he needs help. The CIA and MI-6 still claim they know Iraq is still hiding stores of nerve gas. So then, why not give the locations to UN inspectors? Iraq's feeble, 150-km range al-Samoud missiles might have exceeded their permitted range by an inconsequential 10-15 km. Big deal. They are being destroyed. Worry instead about North Korea's new Taepodong-II missile, which the CIA says can deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. Unbelievably, Iraq-obsessed Bush dismisses menacing North Korea as only a "regional problem." Saddam's notorious "Winnebagos of death" - germ-making trucks - turned out, on inspection, to be mobile food testing labs. Last week's U.S. and British-promoted canard, Iraq's "drones of death," were three rickety model airplanes unworthy of World War I, rather than dispensers of germs, as the Pentagon claimed. Only one had managed to fly - all of two miles. Iraq's only true potential weapon of mass destruction, VX nerve gas, remains an open question. But Iraq lacks any offensive capability to deliver VX. Its sole use is as a defensive battlefield weapon, CIA Director George Tenet noted. Iraq's most important defector, Gen Hussein Kamel, who headed its biowarfare projects, stated he personally supervised destruction of all of Iraq's nerve gas in 1991, a fact not mentioned by the White House. Other experts say any germ or gas weapons held by Iraq have by now deteriorated through age into inertness. As for Bush's charge Saddam might give such weapons to anti-American groups, why didn't he do so from 1990 to 2003, when the U.S. was daily bombing Iraq and trying to overthrow his regime? Because he's not suicidal. Unable to locate Iraq's U.S./British-supplied weapons, unable to link Iraq to Osama bin Laden, Bush and Blair shifted gears. They now claim Iraq's suffering people must be "liberated." But why weren't they liberated when Saddam committed his worst rights violations during the 1980s, when Iraq was a U.S./British ally? And what about the startling revelation by the former CIA Iraq desk chief that the gassing dea
Saddam Warns of World War if U.S. Strikes
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 16, 3:59 PM EST Saddam Warns of World War if U.S. Strikes By HAMZA HENDAWIAssociated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein warned Sunday that if Iraq is attacked, it will take the war anywhere in the world "wherever there is sky, land or water." President Bush gave the United Nations one more day to find a diplomatic solution to the standoff. Amid fears that war is imminent, U.N. weapons inspectors flew most of their helicopters out of Iraq; Germany advised its citizens to leave the country immediately and said it would shut down its embassy in Baghdad. Residents of the Iraqi capital lined up for gasoline and snapped up canned food and bottled water. People mobbed pharmacies to buy antibiotics and tranquilizers. Workers sandbagged fighting positions outside government buildings. With nearly 300,000 U.S. and British troops in the Persian Gulf ready to strike, Bush and the leaders of Britain and Spain at an emergency summit in the Azores Islands said the United Nations must decide by Monday to support "the immediate and unconditional disarmament" of Iraq. Saddam made his own preparations, sidestepping the military chain of command to place one of his sons and three other trusted aides in charge of the defense of the nation. The decree issued late Saturday placed Iraq on a war footing. In a meeting with military commanders Sunday, the Iraqi leader threatened a broader war if the United States attacks. "When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world," Saddam told his commanders, according to the official Iraqi News Agency. Iraqi Vice President Naji Sabri said Iraq has long been preparing "as if war is happening in an hour" "We've been preparing our people for this for more than a year," he told the Arabic satellite channel Al-Arabiya. Asked to comment on the Azores summit - which joined Bush and prime ministers Tony Blair of Britain and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain - Sabri pointed to the stiff opposition at the Security Council to Washington's bid for authorization of military action. "There is a big impasse in which the Bush-Blair policies of war ... have fallen. This impasse is causing embarrassment day after day through widespread rejection of this policy," Sabri said. The United States has sought an ultimatum for Saddam to disarm or face war. France, Russia and Germany have urged the Security Council to set a timeline - but no ultimatum - for Baghdad to fulfill disarmament tasks set by weapons inspectors. French President Jacques Chirac proposed a 30-day time frame, though Germany objected that inspectors should have as long as they want. On Sunday, U.N. weapons inspectors flew five of their eight helicopters to Syria and then on to Cyprus after an insurance company suspended its coverage. Germany issued a new travel warning, urging its citizens to leave Iraq "immediately." Once they left, it said, the embassy would be closed. Other European diplomats, including those from Switzerland and Greece, were due to leave Monday, part of an expected exodus from the country's estimated 60 missions, diplomatic sources said Sunday. Saddam on Sunday also denied Iraq has any weapons of mass destruction, as the United States and Britain claim. "Are weapons of mass destruction a needle that you can conceal in ... the scarf of an old woman that (U.N. weapons) inspectors cannot find?" Saddam asked. His order the previous night elevated his most loyal aides to command the country's four military regions. The move will make it more difficult for generals to defect and take their units with them since command rests in political hands. The decree issued by the Revolutionary Command Council - Iraq's highest executive body - placed Qusai in charge of the regime's heartland - Baghdad and the president's hometown of Tikrit. Qusai has for years been in charge of the elite Republican Guard Corps and his father's own personal security. Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid was put in charge of the key southern sector facing U.S. and British troops massed in Kuwait. Al-Majid - known by his opponents as Chemical Ali - led the 1988 campaign against rebellious Kurds in northern Iraq in which thousands of Kurds died, many in chemical attacks. Saddam's deputy, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, was placed in command of the northern region. An area that includes the Shiite Muslim holy sites of Karbala and Najaf was placed under Mazban Khader Hadi, a member of the ruling Council. Saddam himself retained sole authority to order the use of surface-to-surface missiles and aviation resources, the decree said. Even as it braced for conflict, the government destroyed two more of its banne
Israeli Bulldozer Kills U.S. Woman, 23 - Update
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PROTESTER_KILLED?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 16, 1:03 PM EST Israeli Bulldozer Kills U.S. Woman, 23 By IBRAHIM BARZAKAssociated Press Writer GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- An American woman in Gaza to protest Israeli operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by an Israeli bulldozer, witnesses and hospital officials said. Rachel Corrie, 23, a college student from Olympia, Wash., had been trying to stop the bulldozer from tearing down a building in the Rafah refugee camp, witnesses said. She was taken to Najar hospital in Rafah, where she died, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. Greg Schnabel, 28, of Chicago, said the protesters were in the house of Dr. Samir Masri. Israeli almost daily has been tearing down houses of Palestinians it suspects in connection with Islamic militant groups, saying such operations deter attacks on Israel such as suicide bombings. "Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," Schnabel said. "She waved for the bulldozer to stop and waved. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. We yelled, 'Stop, stop,' and the bulldozer didn't stop at all. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her." Witnesses said Corrie was wearing a brightly colored jacket when the bulldozer hit her. She had been a student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia and would have graduated this year, Schnabel said. Israeli military spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal said her death was an accident. The U.S. State Department had no immediate comment. Groups of international protesters have gathered in several locations in the West Bank and Gaza during two years of Palestinian violence, setting themselves up as "human shields" to try to stop Israeli operations. Corrie was the first member of the groups, called "International Solidarity Movement" and backed by Palestinian groups, to be killed in the conflict. Several activists have been arrested in clashes with Israeli forces, and some have been deported by Israeli authorities. In November, three group members were arrested while trying to prevent Israel from building a security fence between Israel and the West Bank, charging that Israel was taking Palestinian land for the project. In May, 10 activists raced past Israeli soldiers into the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, where dozens of Palestinians were holed up in a standoff with Israeli soldiers outside. After an agreement was reached, the activists refused to leave the church, marking the traditional birthplace of Jesus, holding up the solution. Then they charged that they were mistreated by clergy, who claimed the activists desecrated the church by smoking and drinking alcohol. During an Israeli siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's headquarters in the West Bank town of Ramallah, several members of the group sneaked past Israeli soldiers into the building. Schnabel said there were eight protesters at the site in Rafah, four from the United States and four from Great Britain. "We stay with families whose house is to be demolished," he told the Associated Press by telephone after the incident. Mansour Abed Allah, 29, a Palestinian human rights worker in Rafah, witnessed the incident. He said the killing should be a message to President Bush, who is "providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of his own people." Israel sends tanks and bulldozers into the area almost every day, destroying buildings near the Gaza-Egypt border. The Israelis say Palestinian gunmen use the buildings as cover, and arms-smuggling tunnels dug under the border terminate in the buildings. According to interim peace accords, Israel controls the border area, where there are clashes almost daily between Palestinian gunmen and Israeli soldiers.
American Woman Peace Activist Killed by Israeli Army
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 16, 3:59 PM EST Israeli Bulldozer Kills U.S. Protester By IBRAHIM BARZAKAssociated Press Writer GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- An American college student in Gaza to protest Israel operations was killed Sunday when she was run over by a bulldozer while trying to block troops from demolishing a Palestinian home. At least one Palestinian also was killed. The killing of the student by the Israelis - the first of a foreign activist in 29 months of fighting - came as Israelis and Palestinians wrangled over the terms of a U.S.-backed plan to end the violence and establish a Palestinian state. Rachel Corrie, 23, of Olympia, Wash., had been with U.S. and British demonstrators in the Rafah refugee camp trying to stop demolitions. She died in the hospital, said Dr. Ali Moussa, a hospital administrator. "This is a regrettable accident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman. "We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger." The army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons. There was no immediate reaction from Washington. Greg Schnabel, 28, of Chicago, said four Americans and four Britons were trying to stop Israeli troops from destroying a building belonging to Dr. Samir Masri. Israel for months has been tearing down houses of Palestinians it suspects in Islamic militant activity, saying such operations deter attacks on Israel such as suicide bombings. "Rachel was alone in front of the house as we were trying to get them to stop," Schnabel said. "She waved for the bulldozer to stop. She fell down and the bulldozer kept going. It had completely run over her and then it reversed and ran back over her." She was wearing a brightly colored jacket when the bulldozer hit her. Several Palestinians gathered at the site, and troops opened fire, killing one Palestinian, witnesses said. The army had no comment on that report. Corrie was the first member of the Palestinian-backed "International Solidarity Movement" to be killed in a conflict that has claimed more than 2,200 Palestinian lives - about three times the toll on the Israeli side. A student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Corrie would have graduated this year, Schnabel said. Her killing should be a message to President Bush, who is "providing Israel with tanks and bulldozers, and now they killed one of his own people," said Mansour Abed Allah, 29, a Palestinian human rights worker who witnessed Corrie's death. Several other U.S. citizens have been killed in Palestinian-Israeli violence. On March 5, Abigail Litle, 14, was killed in a Palestinian suicide bombing attack on a bus in the northern Israeli city of Haifa. Last July, five Americans died in a bombing at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Bush said Friday that a long-awaited "road map" for peace would be back on the table once Yasser Arafat appointed a prime minister with real power - a process that appeared well under way last week. But on Sunday, Arafat presented legislators with proposed changes to the Palestinian basic law approved last Monday that, according to a diplomatic source, that created the impression that a prime minister was not independent. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the move could thereby reduce any pressure on Israel to constructively engage the new Palestinian prime minister. The road map worked out by the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia foresees Palestinian statehood by 2005 and an end to Israeli settlement-building in the West Bank and Gaza. Bush has said that first, the Palestinians need to change their leadership, and the road map calls for Arafat to appoint an empowered prime minister. While Arafat bowed to intense international pressure and agreed to share control with a new prime minister, Palestinian legislators said Sunday he was now asking for amendments in the law passed last week. The most significant change was that Arafat wanted the ultimate say in the creation of a new Palestinian Cabinet, suggesting he could have veto power over candidates nominated by the new prime minister. He also asked for the right to chair Cabinet meetings, said legislators. The 88-member Palestinian Legislative Council was to meet Monday to discuss the proposed changes. If agreement is reached, legislators are expected to approve the appointment of Arafat's longtime deputy, Mahmoud Abbas, as premier. Meanwhile, Israel pressed ahead with its proposals over key phrases in the draft "road map." According to the Haaretz newspaper, Israel wants to replace all references to an "independent" Palestinian state with the term "certain attributes of sovereignty," noting that such a state has to be "c
Rebuffed President Recklessly Saddles Up for War
http://www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=19664 Rebuffed President Recklessly Saddles Up for War by Linda McQuaig Is there nothing that can stop this man from recklessly using his weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. George W. Bush made it clear in his televised appearance Thursday night that hes finished with diplomacy and is keen to get on with the bombing. No wonder hes had it with diplomacy. Countries just werent capitulating. Take Turkey. Washington offered $26 billion in grants and loans just for permission to use Turkeys soil briefly to deploy U.S. troops against Iraq. That probably works out to about a million dollars a square foot! But those ungrateful Turks turned him down. (When an impoverished nation turns down $26 billion, you get a sense of the depth of resistance to this U.S. war.) Then theres the annoying behaviour of those no-name countries with temporary seats on the U.N. Security Council. In a surprising show of gutsiness, poor nations like Mexico, Cameroon, Angola even dirt-poor Guinea have been unwilling to knuckle under to the demands of the U.S., despite the fact that Washington effectively controls the IMF and the World Bank, upon which they depend for survival. No surrender monkeys in that crowd. One shudders to think of what kind of punishment will be in store for the likes of little Guinea for its uppity behaviour against the big boss-man. Mexico, another heel-dragger, got a hint of how it may pay for its lack of capitulation. In an interview with Copley News Service last week, Bush said he didnt expect thered be any significant retribution from Washington if Mexico voted against war, but he drew attention to an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French ... a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people. The president went on to say that if Mexico or others vote against the U.S., there will be a certain sense of discipline. It is mind-boggling that an American president has become such a cartoon figure of swaggering, threatening gunmanship a kind of Cecil Rhodes and John Wayne rolled into one and it helps explain the outpouring of anger over this war around the world. But while Bushs cowboy bravado gives a whole new look to the exercise of U.S. power in the world, it would be misleading to see whats going on now as a complete break with past American foreign policy. Washington has a long history of intervening in the affairs of other countries, with the oil-rich Persian Gulf being a key focus of past interventions. So, yes, its not only about oil this time, its often been about oil. Even former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize and who opposes war with Iraq, declared in 1980 that Washington would not tolerate a hostile state getting into a position where it could threaten Americas access to the Gulf. (That Carter doctrine followed the popular overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had been installed by a U.S.-engineered coup in the early 1950s.) And U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney made it clear that oil was front and centre in the U.S. decision to go to war against Iraq the first time. Cheney, who served as secretary of defence in that war, explained to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1991 that, after invading Kuwait, Iraq controlled twenty per cent of the worlds oil reserves. Cheney said that this and the possibility that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia put Saddam Hussein clearly in a position to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy and on that of most other nations of the world as well. The stranglehold image is apt. Because of the acute importance of oil to the modern world, whoever controls the massive reserves of the Gulf effectively has a stranglehold on the global economy. But, as Michael Klare argued last month in the U.S. academic journal, Foreign Policy in Focus, it is Washington that maintains a stranglehold over the global economy through its dominant position in the Gulf. Washingtons dominance in the Gulf has long been made possible by its close ties to Saudi Arabia, which has about twenty-five per cent of the worlds oil reserves. But with the U.S.-Saudi relationship strained after growing evidence of Saudi connections to Osama bin Ladens terrorist network, the need to control Iraqs oil has taken on new significance. Iraq is the only country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia, notes Klare. So Bush wants the war to begin. While the U.N. continues its hapless search for elusive weapons, Bush is keen to get on with implementing a long-standing U.S. agenda, cowboy-style. Originally published by the The Toronto Star.
Tide Turns Against Bush
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035778982663&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists Mar. 11, 2003. 01:00 AM Tide turns against Bush THOMAS WALKOMThe Iraq crisis is no longer about stopping Iraq. It is about stopping the United States. This is the real significance of what is going on now at the United Nations, of the peace marches around the world, of the political turmoil that rocks staunchly pro-U.S. leaders such as Britain's Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard. Most countries outside the U.S. are no longer worried about rogue Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. They are worried about rogue American President George W. Bush. It is this that finally pushed Russia and France to announce yesterday that they will veto any attempt by Washington to have the U.N. Security Council authorize a March 17 ultimatum to Iraq and, in effect, a March 18 war. It is this, rather than some kind of Gallic spleen, that sends French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin flying around the world lobbying against an Iraq war. When Bush's father cobbled together a political and military coalition in 1991 to oppose Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, he won widespread support from the rest of the world. At the time, most of those who dissented argued either on the basis of timing (as did then opposition leader Jean Chrétien) or consistency: Why make war to reverse Iraq's annexation of Kuwait but not, say, Israel's occupation of the West Bank or Turkey's invasion of Cyprus? However, the principle behind the 1991 Gulf War that nations do not have an open-ended right to invade other countries was generally accepted. The United Nations itself was established to codify that principle. Germany and Japan had tried to justify their World War II aggression in many ways: The rectification of old grievances, anti-colonialism, economic necessity, even energy security. But the U.N. Charter swept all of these excuses away. Except in the most narrow instances, war was to be outlawed. The fact that one country might not approve of another's leader or system of government was to be no justification for aggression. Indeed, those who did make war were liable to be tried and punished. This was the message of the U.S.-run 1946 Tokyo war crimes trials, where 15 of the 25 Japanese military and political leaders found guilty were convicted, not for crimes against humanity (those who used chemical and biological weapons against civilians were quietly pardoned in exchange for their expertise) but for waging "unprovoked" and "aggressive" war against sovereign states. When, at Washington's urging, the Security Council gathered again last fall to debate Iraq, these same principles were at the forefront. Iraq had committed an international crime 11 years earlier; the U.N. had ordered it to rid itself of certain weapons; there was no evidence that this disarmament had occurred. The 15-member Security Council unanimously ordered weapons inspectors to enter Iraq again and make sure it had done what it was supposed to do. However, two things have occurred since then. The first is that inspections worked. When pushed to the wall, Iraq reluctantly co-operated. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and his team have found no evidence of a chemical or biological weapons program. Nor, as Blix told the U.N. last week, have they found evidence supporting any of the more extravagant U.S. allegations, such as mobile anthrax labs or underground chemical factories. Where they concluded that weapons did break the rules (as in the case of the Al Samoud 2 missiles that fly 30 kilometres farther than they should), Iraq grudgingly agreed to destroy them. Similarly, nuclear inspectors have found no evidence that Iraq tried to restart its atomic bomb program. In fact, they found that some of the evidence suggesting otherwise, provided to them by Western intelligence agencies, was forged. But the second, and more important, development since last fall has been a worldwide reappraisal of U.S. motives. Initially, some argued that Bush's bellicosity was a skilful tactic designed to pressure Iraq. But now, it's clear that simple disarmament is not his aim. Rather, Bush wants to occupy Iraq for an indeterminate period of time and eventually replace Saddam's government w
Dubya Loses Face Link
http://www.rabble.ca/images/cartoons/constable/face.html wait a few seconds for it to begin
Asylum For Bush (and Guests)
http://www.rabble.ca/antiwar/petition/verify.php?indID=255&pw=oISk7S97 TO: The President of the United States FROM: 176 peace-loving people of Canada Your troops await your order to attack. "Special forces" have been preparing the way for weeks. Devastating sanctions have been weakening Iraq for years. But your plan to bring the world along on your "pre-emptive" attack has largely failed. The world knows it is not Saddam Hussein but the Iraqi people who will suffer and die in this war. Yet you've given your word that you'll follow through. Recognizing the corner you have backed yourself into, we the undersigned graciously offer you a way out. Just walk away and come to Canada. There is no more painless way to accomplish the regime change the world is pulling for. To that end, we offer not only you but your entire family and all of your closest advisors asylum in Canada. As your northern neighbour and famously loyal ally, we feel it our duty to assist you to the best of our ability in this matter. Of course, given your record, we cannot allow you to hold public office or seek employment in our oil industries or military during your exile. We hope you understand. But consider this: after meeting certain residency requirements, you and yours will be beneficiaries of our universal health care system and other aspects of our social safety net, should they be required. We realize you may need some time to make your decision. Our invitation will remain open until our patience runs out. Sincerely, To be sent by registered mail to George W. Bush at the White House upon collection of the first 2003 signatures and again with each subsequent set of 2000 signatures
Citizenship Quiz
I think I did pretty good considering I am not American Your score: 10 out of 12. You're a model citizen. Answers These are the two questions I got wrong on the first try: 8. The Supreme Court has nine justices 11. The Constitution was written in 1787.
Suitcase surprise: Rebuke written on inspection notice
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134653764_tsasign15m.html Seth Goldberg says he found this notice and note in his luggage after it was inspected earlier this month at Sea-Tac Airport. Suitcase surprise: Rebuke written on inspection notice By Susan Gilmore Seattle Times staff reporter Seth Goldberg says that when he opened his suitcase in San Diego after a flight from Seattle this month, the two "No Iraq War" signs he'd picked up at the Pike Place Market were still nestled among his clothes. But there was a third sign, he said, that shocked him. Tucked in his luggage was a card from the Transportation Security Administration notifying him that his bags had been opened and inspected at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Handwritten on the side of the card was a note, "Don't appreciate your anti-American attitude!" "I found it chilling and a little Orwellian to have received this message," said Goldberg, 41, a New Jersey resident who was in Seattle visiting longtime friend Davis Oldham, a University of Washington instructor. Goldberg says that when he took his suitcase off the airplane in San Diego, the zipper pulls were sealed with nylon straps, which indicated TSA had inspected the luggage. It would be hard, he said, for anyone else to have gotten inside his bags. TSA officials say they are looking into the incident. "We do not condone our employees making any kind of political comments or personal comments to any travelers," TSA spokeswoman Heather Rosenker told Reuters. "That is not acceptable." Goldberg, who is restoring a historic home in New Jersey, said he picked up the "No Iraq War" signs because he hadn't seen them in New Jersey and wanted to put them up at his house. "In New Jersey there's very little in the way of protest and when I got to Seattle I was amazed how many anti-war signs were up in front of houses," he said. "I'm not a political activist but was distressed by the way the country was rolling off to war." Goldberg said he checked two bags at Sea-Tac on March 2 and traveled to San Diego on Alaska Airlines. The TSA station was adjacent to the Alaska check-in counter. Nico Melendez, western regional spokesman for the TSA, said the note in Goldberg's luggage will be investigated, but he said there's no proof that a TSA employee wrote it. "It's a leap to say it was a TSA screener," Melendez said. But Goldberg said, "It seems a little far-fetched to think people are running around the airport writing messages on TSA literature and slipping them into people's bags." He says TSA should take responsibility and refocus its training "so TSA employees around the country are not trampling people's civil rights, not intimidating or harassing travelers. That's an important issue." Oldham, the UW instructor, said he was so upset by the incident he wrote members of Congress. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., has asked TSA for a response. "The Senator certainly agrees with you that it is completely inappropriate for a public employee to write their opinion of your or your friend's political opinion," said Jay Pearson, aide to Cantwell, in a letter to Oldham. He said he expects it may take a month or more to hear back from the TSA. "I just thought it was outrageous," Oldham said. "It's one of many things happening recently where the government is outstepping its bounds in the midst of paranoia." Susan Gilmore: 206-464-2054 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lawyers Hoping to Avert War Plan Push to Reopen Case
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0315-06.htm Published on Saturday, March 15, 2003 by the Boston Globe Lawyers Hoping to Avert War Plan Push to Reopen Case by Lyle Denniston WASHINGTON - Lawyers trying to persuade the courts to stop President Bush from launching a war against Iraq plan to bring a new challenge next week, despite a rejection two days ago in a federal appeals court. John C. Bonifaz of Boston, the lead lawyer for the soldiers, parents, and members of Congress pursuing the challenge, said the attempt to reopen the case may start as early as Monday, but in any event, as soon as it is clear what the United Nations will do on a second Iraq resolution. ''We are not going to wait until the bombs fall,'' he said. A decision Thursday by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Boston, which dismissed the challenge, ''made it clear that the door is still open for review, in light of further facts,'' he added. If the Appeals Court allows the case to go forward, it could set the stage for a major constitutional conflict between the president and the courts, and it could force the White House to put war plans on hold, awaiting court action. This case, said Marie Ashe, professor of law at Suffolk University, ''involves a huge constitutional issue: whether there is a wrongful concentration of power in one person - the president.'' Ashe was one of the 74 law professors who urged the appeals court to rule that Bush cannot send the nation to war against Iraq without UN approval or, failing that, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Congress has mandated that there be no preemptive strike against Iraq without UN approval or new congressional approval, the challengers argue. The Appeals Court did not doom the case entirely. It turned aside a request by the Bush administration to erect a categorical bar to any such lawsuit. The administration had argued that the courts have no role to play in the dispute because the Constitution assigns war-making power solely to Congress and the White House. The Appeals Court said this is a murky area of constitutional law, so it dismissed the case instead on the ground that the legal controversy was not fully developed. Courts could not review the dispute, it said, ''until the available facts make it possible to define the issues with clarity. ... Here, too many crucial facts are missing.'' The court cited the daily fluctuations in diplomacy at the UN, the ongoing Security Council debate over a new resolution on Iraq, and the open question of what would happen militarily in the event of an impasse. ''These are tough cases,'' Bonifaz said, ''but this decision is a major step forward.'' The legal team decided that the ruling created a premise for seeking a rehearing once the facts needed to bring the case emerge. ''A couple of conditions must be met,'' the lawyer said. First, the UN Security Council must either vote against authorizing war against Iraq or the request for such endorsement is withdrawn by the United States, Britain, and Spain. Second, the president would have to indicate that the United States would go forward without UN approval. The attorneys, Bonifaz said, believe that this second condition already has been met, because the president has indicated publicly several times that he does not believe UN approval is necessary. Once the outcome in the Security Council is clear, Bonifaz said, ''we are prepared to go back to the court. Every indication is that we will then be marching forward toward war.'' One other uncertainty remains, he added. A plea for the Appeals Court to rehear the case must be filed within 14 days after the ruling. If action should be put off at the UN, the lawyers conceivably could run out of time. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company
Top US Military Planner Fears a 'Likely' Repeat of Somalia Bloodbath
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=387234 Top US military planner fears a 'likely' repeat of Somalia bloodbath By Andrew Buncombe 15 March 2003 A former military aide to General Norman Schwarzkopf has warned that a US-led war against Iraq could turn into a disaster that echoes the bloody debacle of Somalia rather than the relatively painless 1991 Gulf war. Retired Colonel Mike Turner, who also served as military planner with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes the Bush administration is ignoring potential risks some that could cost the US dearly. "There's a saying in military circles: We always fight the last war. It means that too much focus on past enemy behaviour can easily lead to misjudging an enemy capability in the future," he said. "So I asked myself today which war will this be: Desert Storm or Somalia? In 1991, we had four iron-clad prerequisites for war with Iraq: a clear political end state, overwhelming force to achieve a quick and decisive victory, a viable Arab coalition to avoid empowering Arab extremists, and absolutely no Israeli involvement to avoid a global holy war. "In Somalia, we ignored the most critical of these lessons. Mission creep turned our original objective of humanitarian aid into simply 'Get Aidid,' the Somali factional leader we were battling. We committed US troops to a high-risk military operation in an urban area with extraordinarily dangerous variables in play on the battlefield, and with insufficient firepower." Colonel Turner said the US had made the mistake of fixing its sights early on ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. This plan had met stiff opposition from the uniformed staff within the Pentagon, but the administration had chosen this focus regardlessly. Colonel Turner outlined a worst-case scenario: "Within hours of our attack, Saddam launches Scuds on Israel. Israel's government launches a full-scale attack on Iraq, creating a holy war. Saddam, threatened with his own survival, uses chemical and biological weapons and human shields. He torches his own oil fields, thousands of his own people are killed. Photos of US soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US." He then envisaged the US left to administer a post-Saddam Iraq with minimal international co-operation and open to terror attacks from al- Qa'ida. North Korea could take advantage and start exporting nuclear weapons. "These are not remote possibilities, but in my view reasonable, possibly even likely outcomes," he concluded.
George W. Queeg
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/14/opinion/14KRUG.html March 14, 2003 George W. Queeg By PAUL KRUGMAN board the U.S.S. Caine, it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries? Over the past few weeks there has been an epidemic of epiphanies. There's a long list of pundits who previously supported Bush's policy on Iraq but have publicly changed their minds. None of them quarrel with the goal; who wouldn't want to see Saddam Hussein overthrown? But they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush is the wrong man to do the job. And more people than you would think including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon don't just question the competence of Mr. Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality. If that sounds harsh, consider the debacle of recent diplomacy a debacle brought on by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance. Mr. Bush's inner circle seems amazed that the tactics that work so well on journalists and Democrats don't work on the rest of the world. They've made promises, oblivious to the fact that most countries don't trust their word. They've made threats. They've done the aura-of-inevitability thing how many times now have administration officials claimed to have lined up the necessary votes in the Security Council? They've warned other countries that if they oppose America's will they are objectively pro-terrorist. Yet still the world balks. Wasn't someone at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters nonmilitary, the U.S. isn't all that dominant that Russia and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours, that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do and that in much of the world public opinion matters? Apparently not. And to what end has Mr. Bush alienated all our most valuable allies? (And I mean all: Tony Blair may be with us, but British public opinion is now virulently anti-Bush.) The original reasons given for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an active nuclear program. And the administration's eagerness to believe that an Iraqi nuclear program does exist has led to a series of embarrassing debacles, capped by the case of the forged Niger papers, which supposedly supported that claim. At this point it is clear that deposing Saddam has become an obsession, detached from any real rationale. What really has the insiders panicked, however, is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they don't feel like dealing with right now. I've talked in this column about the administration's eerie passivity in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit: reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government, to despair. Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq, is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line. Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional" crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim. The Nelson Report, an influential foreign policy newsletter, says: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the growing mixture of anger, despair, disgust and fear actuating the foreign policy community in Washington as the attack on Iraq moves closer, and the North Korea crisis festers with no coherent U.S. policy. . . . We are at the point now where foreign policy generally, and Korea policy specifically, may become George Bush's `Waco.' . . . This time, it's Kim Jong Il (and Saddam) playing David Koresh. . . . Sober minds wrestle with how to break into the mind of George Bush." We all hope that the war with Iraq is a swift victory, with a minimum of civilian casualties. But more and more people now realize that even if all goes well at first, it will have been the wrong war, fought for the wrong reasons and there will be a heavy price to pay. Alas, the epiphanies of the pundits have almost surely come too late. The odds are that by the time you read my next column, the war will already have started. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy
No Two Ways About Veto
http://www.jordantimes.com/Fri/opinion/opinion2.htm No two ways about veto Daoud Kuttab IN THE pre-war rumblings going on in the United States, a strange argument is being made. War supporters are chiding permanent members of the UN Security Council for reflecting international (as well as some American) public opinion by contemplating the possibility of a veto to any resolution that will approve war. Countries like France, Russia and China are being accused of making the world body irrelevant and obstructing and paralysing the work of the UN. William Safire went as far as to call this anti-war position a further abdication of collective security. No better situation could justify the form the Security Council was shaped in than the present. When one country decides that it knows better than the rest of the world what is good for world peace and is ready to start a war for that purpose, the opinion of the rest of the world does count. Also troubling is the intellectual dishonesty of the same commentators when the US was using its veto power to stop any anti-Israel resolution. Unlike the present attempt of the United States, many of those resolutions were based on sound legal arguments and were meant to prevent real violation of international humanitarian law, unquestionably contradicting specific UN Security Council resolutions. The US vetoed many Security Council resolutions that the rest of the world, including America's best ally, the United Kingdom, voted in favour of. These pundits didn't fear then the irrelevance of the UN nor did they blame the US for abdicating its collective security responsibilities. Even in cases in which, by virtue of being signatories to the Fourth Geneva Convention, countries are required by law to enforce its clauses in defence of people under occupation, the US refused to allow the world body to impose on Israel respect for these international conventions. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990, the world body moved, sanctioning the use of force to reverse the occupation. That was followed by the longest period of sanctions imposed on a member country. Yet Israel, which came into being as a result of a UN resolution, has been allowed to get away with murder and occupation. It has occupied Palestinian territories since 1967, yet no resolution has been passed with the kind of teeth that the anti-Iraqi resolutions have. If there is any party responsible for making the UN an irrelevant body, it is the US. And if there is any cause where the international community has failed, it is the cause of Palestine. Instead of waging a war against Iraq, the US and the international community should be striving for a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Removing Saddam Hussein from power will not cause a dent on the root of the problems in the Middle East. Those who argue that having a politically moderate regime in Iraq will suddenly produce a different Palestinian position are wrong. The possible loss of Iraqi financial aid to Palestinians killed in the Intifada is unlikely to make Palestinians change their long-held demands for a free democratic and independent state in areas occupied since June 1967. Those who think France and others should join in beating the drums of war because the US is asking for it are wrong. The voice of conscience of the world, as represented presently by these countries, and not American unilateralism, should be heard. If simply to be consistent, those who are unhappy with permanent members using the veto power should apply the same stick to the US when it uses it to sanction Israel's acts of occupation and settlement in Palestinian territories. Friday-Saturday, March 14-15, 2003
Iraq Will Be Finished but Not Al-Qaeda
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=23723 Iraq Will Be Finished but Not Al-QaedaAbdul Rahman Al-Rashid A Western commentator recently compared two upcoming events the capture of Osama Bin Laden and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. At first glance it would seem that the end of Bin Laden spells the end of his organization and the end of Saddam means the end of Iraqs Baath Party. The author is correct in his assumption that it is easy to overthrow a regime by toppling its leader, and he confirms that the situation in Iraq will be difficult to contain. He is, however, incorrect in his belief that it would be so easy to be done with the extremist religious organization Al-Qaeda by simply capturing its leader. His error is in comparing between an administrative regime and an ideological one. The first is an apparatus so organized as to break apart once the head is removed. But the second is an ideological organization capable of rebirth even if its leadership is eliminated. This is what the Americans fail to understand when they propose to apply the same scalpel to all the problems in the region. They have undoubtedly achieved great successes in breaking apart Al-Qaedas infrastructure in Afghanistan and are quite capable of bringing down the Iraqi regime. But they will not so easily eliminate the religious organization even if they succeed in getting rid of Bin Laden and other pillars of its structure. Al-Qaeda is not a criminal organization along the lines of the mafia, whose members are easy to capture once the leadership is put out of work. It is an idea that exists in camps and villages as well as cities and palaces. Leaders of the movement including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaida, Abdel Rahim Al-Nashiri, Ramzi bin Al-Sheiba, Al-Hawasari, and hundreds of others have been captured. But these are just seats waiting to be filled. These organizations are like mind factories, capable of replacing what they have lost by arming others, and able to rebuild cells from scratch. Nor are their operations expensive. The destruction of the USS Cole in the port of Aden was achieved using a small boat and didnt cost more than $10,000; the Sept. 11 attacks themselves werent very costly. Let us compare the results. The American government has described the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as dealing a deathblow to Al-Qaeda. But have we forgotten that they said exactly the same thing eight years ago when they captured his nephew Ramzi Yusuf, also in Pakistan? The American security forces thought that the 1993 explosion at the World Trade Center would mark the end of a dangerous secret organization whose name they didnt know at the time. Yet it was that same building that Al-Qaeda returned to destroy on Sept. 11, 2001. The secret of Al Qaeda is not in the mosques, Islamic centers, charitable organizations, youth camps or bank accounts, and not in Bin Laden and Bin Sheiba and others. Locations and tools can be changed. This is a battle of minds a huge ideological battle in the region, which will take more than American military power to win
U.S. Military Exercises Anger North Korea
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047737155024_84///?hub=World U.S. military exercises anger North Korea Associated Press Updated: Sat. Mar. 15 2003 9:06 AM ET ABOARD THE USS CARL VINSON North Korea warned that the massing of U.S forces in the region increases the danger of nuclear war as a U.S. aircraft carrier anchored off South Korea on Saturday. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun told his military to prepare for the possibility that North Korea might attempt minor provocations during U.S.-South Korean military exercises that will involve the USS Carl Vinson, South Korean news agency Yonhap said. Roh's office could not immediately confirm the report Saturday evening. North Korea's main state-run newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said Saturday, "the U.S. can attack the DPRK any moment," using the acronym for North Korea's official name, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "The U.S. seeks to round off its preparations for a nuclear war against the DPRK at its final phase and mount a pre-emptive nuclear attack on it any time," it added. Tensions have risen since October, when U.S. officials said North Korea admitted having a uranium program. Washington and its allies suspended fuel shipments; the North retaliated by expelling U.N. monitors, withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and restarting a nuclear reactor that had been mothballed for years under U.N. seal. Capt. Richard B. Wren said the U.S. warship was here "as a show of solidarity" with South Korea and to provide a "deterrence." "Certainly our presence in the region is not in direct response on North Korea, but certainly our presence can also be an influence," he said. Navy Capt. Donald P. Quinn, commander of Carrier Air Wing Nine, said "there are greater tensions, which means we have to be better at what we do." The carrier has 70 aircraft, a fleet of supporting warships and more than 5,000 sailors and marines. It is in South Korea for the joint military exercises, named Foal Eagle, which began early this month. On Saturday, the carrier was moored just outside the breakwater of Pusan harbor on South Korea's southeast coast. The forces were joined by six U.S. F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters deployed to an air base in South Korea. The Pentagon also recently sent a dozen B-52 bombers and a dozen B-1 bombers to the Pacific island of Guam as a precautionary move. Pyongyang has objected to the war games, saying they are a rehearsal for invasion. Some time in the next few days, the Carl Vinson plans to steam up the coast to support a landing exercise by U.S. and South Korean marines near the port of Pohang, where U.S. troops landed for the 1950-53 Korean War. In recent weeks, North Korea has escalated tensions by test-firing two short-range missiles and intercepting a U.S. reconnaissance plane off the country's east coast. Meanwhile, in Berkeley, Calif., North Korea's U.N. ambassador met with officials from South Korea, the United States, China, Japan and the European Union for talks aimed at allaying tensions on the Korean Peninsula. However, no one was appearing as an official representative of a country. "We are having a very lively discussion," said Yoshinobu Yamamoto, a University of Tokyo professor and co-chair of the conference. The Japanese government, meanwhile, has said it is considering strengthening its missile defenses amid reports that North Korea is preparing to test a medium-range missile capable of reaching Japan. South Korea's military Saturday said it did not believe North Korea was preparing to test-fire its ballistic missiles. The Tokyo announcement came a day after Japan's Defense Agency said it had deployed an Aegis-equipped destroyer which carries top-of-the-line surveillance systems and ship-to-air missiles in the waters between Japan and North Korea. Japan's Kyodo news agency reported Friday that the government was considering sending two more Aegis-equipped destroyers to the waters in response to the possible threat. © Copyright 2002 Bell Globemedia Inc.
Ticking Everyone Off. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence?
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0314-04.htm Published on Friday, March 14, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera Ticking Everyone Off by Molly Ivins AUSTIN, Texas OK, sign me up for the Bush program. I'm aboard. Who else can we insult, offend, bribe, blackmail, threaten, intimidate, wiretap or otherwise infuriate? Getting the Canadians seriously mad at us took real work. Our latest ploy in that direction was to contemptuously reject their compromise that had a few more days' delay in it than the British-U.S. version. Then, when our version didn't fly, we decided on a few more days' delay ourselves without, of course, the contempt. Then, to add to the festivities of "Let's Tick Off the Next-Door Neighbors Week," we started leaning on Vicente Fox of Mexico. Our ambassador to Mexico, Tony Garza, said: "Will American attitudes be placated by half-steps or three-quarter steps? I kind of doubt it." An unnamed American "diplomat" was quoted as saying it could "stir up feelings" here if Mexico voted against us, and does Mexico "want to stir the fires of jingoism during a war?" President Bush said, "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government (what's significant?), but there might be a reaction like the interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French, a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people." For those who oppose the United States, "there will be a certain sense of discipline." George W. Bush in chains and black leather. Why should we care that the overwhelming majority of the Mexican people are opposed to this war? To hell with democracy in Mexico we're for democracy in Iraq. That's us: If you don't give us everything we want, you're with the terrorists. Anyone who questions anything we do is supporting Saddam Hussein, and dissent is treason. I love it. Next up, Tony Blair, the first casualty of the war. How very smart to fall out with our closest ally. Nice going by Donald Rumsfeld, suggesting that we can't count on the Brits. They've already got 45,000 troops in the Middle East. We've already ticked off the Pope, and now a tiff with Israel outstanding. But we haven't done anything to Paraguay yet. How about doing something to annoy the Paraguayans? We could have Rumsfeld make one his statesmanlike remarks such as, "Nyah, nyah, Asuncion sucks." And why leave out Mali? Mali is a silly name for a country. This is fun. Let's go insult some goobers in the South Pacific, too say, Tonga. Don't leave out the Scots. Their guys wear skirts. Burkina Faso, now there's a dump. Only morons would name their capital Ouagadougou. Hee-hee. This is more fun than junior high school. A French journalist observed in horrified wonder Tuesday: "Mon Dieu, Bush has made Jacques Chirac into a hero. Jacques Chirac!" What a little miracle-man that George W. Bush is. He has that wonder-working power. One can hardly say enough about the courageous action of the U.S. House Administration Committee in renaming French fries "Freedom Fries" at the House cafeteria. In these critical times, it's good to know we can count on House Republicans. They'll teach those cheese-eating surrender monkeys a thing or two. (Guys, did you really have to just hand the French this one? That has to be the slowest pitch on record.) This was in addition to Republicans trading tasteless anti-French jokes publicly during a hearing with Colin Powell. Just for the record, there are 6,000 French troops currently serving as peacekeepers in Afghanistan and the Balkans. As they keep watch in places they'd rather not be, I'm sure they all appreciate your gestures. Likewise, the Germans described by Rumsfeld as a "pariah state" have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Have you ever seen such amazing arrogance wedded to such awesome incompetence? Chickens coming home to roost all around. Turns out the reason some of the African nations are sticking with the French is because they get more in foreign aid from the French than they do from us. Thank you, Jesse Helms, for your many years of work destroying American aid programs. Of course, we don't need the United Nations. Why should we worry about peacekeeping, nation-building or international cooperation on global problems when we can buy our friends, bully our allies and bomb everybody else? What a glorious future.
Mask, gun: check. Bullets: not so fast. Series: DISPATCH FROM THE 101ST AIRBORNE
Mask, gun: check. Bullets: not so fast. Series: DISPATCH FROM THE 101ST AIRBORNE St. Petersburg Times; St. Petersburg, Fla.; Mar 13, 2003; WES ALLISON; Abstract:In Afghanistan, medics with the 101st Airborne treated three soldiers who were inadvertently shot by their friends, including an engineer who lost the lower half of one leg, said Sgt. 1st Class Jesse Carabajal, 39, a senior medic who deployed to Afghanistan, and is now serving in Kuwait.One night as Carabajal and other medics lounged in their tent, a bullet whizzed through the canvas and struck a center support poll, then ricocheted through the roof. A soldier in the tent next door had fired his gun accidentally while cleaning it.This keeps the gun firing smoothly, and is especially important in the desert, where sand and dust infiltrate every moving part. After cleaning and reassembling the gun, the soldier then must pull the trigger, listening for the comforting "click" of the firing pin. Full Text: Copyright Times Publishing Co. Mar 13, 2003 This may surprise the folks back home, but the U.S. Army forces massing across the Iraqi border are largely unarmed. Even though all U.S. soldiers deployed to the six main Army camps in northern Kuwait must carry their rifles at all times - even to the latrine in the middle of the night - few are carrying any bullets. This is not an oversight, or a lame-brained cost-saving measure ordered by the Pentagon, or an indication that American military leaders believe they can take Iraq without firing a shot. Rather, it's an effort to stave off the sad inevitable: Once the Army starts issuing ammo en masse, soldiers will accidentally shoot themselves and each other. Those who served in Afghanistan, Desert Storm and other conflicts can attest to it. At Wednesday's morning briefing at Camp Udairi, American leaders were told that four soldiers in the British sector were injured when one of their rifles accidentally discharged. Last week, a U.S. Marine was shot in the neck by an officer who was cleaning his pistol in another tent. He survived but required major surgery, doctors said. Officers say the safety risk far outweighs the security risk. "We may be rolling the dice, but I can guarantee that you're not going to have any large forces rolling across the border and over- running our camp," said Maj. Spencer Smith, a logistics coordinator for the 101st Airborne Division. In the meantime, the soldiers patrolling the perimeter and the sentinels have all the rounds they could ever need. The Apache and Black Hawk helicopters patrolling the skies above the camps can quickly bring a hellstorm of cannon and missile fire on any approaching enemy, and Patriot missile batteries stand ready to shoot down any Iraqi Scud missiles. Smith and others couldn't recall a combat deployment where the bulk of troops remained without bullets for so long. Some got here in December, although most of the 101st Airborne arrived about 10 days ago. Many soldiers say they feel silly carrying empty guns. "If something kicks up, we're s--- out of luck," said Pfc. Jessica Ruth, 19, of Florence, S.C., supply clerk in the Division Supply Command of the 101st Airborne. At the same time, she said, "I don't feel comfortable with (ammo) because we got some careless people around here." On base, it's easy to tell which soldiers are ready for ammunition. Infantrymen - who have been given some bullets - and former infantrymen wield their weapons as deftly as a chef handles a knife and saute pan. The M-4 rifle is the tool of their trade, and they practice with it for hours a day. It is an extension of themselves. But even in the Airborne, the famously aggressive combat unit from Fort Campbell, Ky., and in the 3rd Infantry Division of Fort Stewart, Ga., many support personnel lack fluidity and comfort with guns. For some, the rifle is like a third arm, awkward and heavy and forever in the way. They drop it, or leave it behind, or use it as a tool. They lean it against a cot or a tent post, then knock it over, sending it clattering to the plywood tent floor. They forget about it when they turn around in the tent, bonking friendswith the barrel or butt. Early this week, a private was reprimanded for using her gun barrel as a pry bar while she was assembling the frame of a cot. "No, no, no," her sergeant barked. "What are you thinking?" In Afghanistan, medics with the 101st Airborne treated three soldiers who were inadvertently shot by their friends, including an engineer who lost the lower half of one leg, said Sgt. 1st Class Jesse Carabajal, 39, a senior medic who deployed to Afghanistan, and is now serving in Kuwait. One night as Carabajal and other medics lounged in their tent, a bullet whizzed through the canvas and struck a center support poll, then ricocheted through the roof. A soldier in the tent next door had fired his gun a
Who Opposes the War Against Iraq?
http://www.epic-usa.org/resources/opponentsofwar.php Business leaders & RepublicansMilitary commanders & foreign policy analystsFormer administration officialsIntelligence analysts & weapons inspectorsWorld political leaders & the international communityCongress & other elected representatives Nobel laureatesClergyVeteransLaborArtists & writers9-11 Victims' FamiliesOthers Business leaders & Republicans Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities (Wall Street Journal, 1/13/03) World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland (Globe & Mail, 1/25/03) George Soros, financier, billionaire-philanthropist (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2/28/03) Jack Walters, Missouri GOP Chairman, resigns over U.S. policy on Iraq. Read his resignation letter of 3/8/03. Military commanders & foreign policy analysts Gen. Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret.), former NATO commander (WP, 1/31/03) Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, U.S. Army (ret.), former commander of coalition forces in Gulf War 1990-1991 (WP, 1/28/03) Gen. Anthony Zinni, U.S. Marine (ret.), U.S. special envoy to Middle East, former head of U.S. Central Command (NPR, 8/23/02) Anthony Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies (Report 12/31/02) Morton Halperin, director of Open Society Institute - D.C., senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Washington Diplomat, 1/15/03) John Mearsheimer, distinguished service prof. of political science at the University of Chicago, codirector of Program in International Security Policy (Foreign Policy, Jan./Feb. 2003) Stephen Walt, academic dean and prof. of international affairs at Harvards John F. Kennedy School of Government (Foreign Policy, Jan./Feb. 2003) Former administration officials President Jimmy Carter (The Carter Center, 1/31/03; NYT, 3/9/03) Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001 (Detroit Free Press, 10/24/02; Business Week, 12/23/02) John Brown, Foreign Service officer from 1981 to 2003 (AFP, 3/11/03) Warren Christopher, Secretary of State from 1993 to 1997 (NYT, 12/31/02) J. Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service officer at U.S. embassy in Greece under Pres. George W. Bush (NYT, 2/27/03) Brent Scrowcroft, National Security Advisor from 1989 to 1993 (WSJ, 8/15/02) Intelligence analysts & weapons inspectors Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, CIA veterans (CommonDreams.org, 2/7/03) Richard Butler, former head of U.N. weapons inspections, UNSCOM 1997-1999 (Reuters, 1/28/03) Rolf Ekeus, former head of U.N. weapons inspections, UNSCOM 1991-1997 Scott Ritter, former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector, UNSCOM 1991-1998 World political leaders & the international community France, Germany, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Canada, China, India, Russia, and many other countries. The biggest supporter of war with Iraq at the U.N. is Britain despite the fact that 90% of British citizens oppose war with Iraq (poll taken 2/14/03). Tony Blair will soon be out of a job. Nelson Mandela, former president of South Africa, Nobel Peace Laureate (BBC, 9/11/02) Mahathir Mohamad, Prime Minister of Malaysia (Reuters, 1/24/03) Returned Peace Corps Volunteers. To date, over 1,800 RPCVs have signed on to ads that will run in the New York Times opposing war with Iraq. Congress & other elected representatives 156 U.S. Congressmen voted against authorization for war (EPIC action alert, 10/18/02) 130 U.S. Representatives have urged Bush to back U.N. disarmament effort, diplomacy (Brown-Kind letter to the President, 1/24/03) 110 city and county councils and state legislative bodies have passed resolutions opposing war with Iraq. See the growing list at www.citiesforpeace.org (New York Times 2/1/03, 2/14/03) Nobel laureates 41 American Nobel laureates in science and economics; including developers of the atom bomb and former national security and Pentagon officials. For the full list, see New York Times, 1/28/03. Clergy National Council of Churches www.ncccusa.org (Washington Post, 1/31/03) Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (AP, 1/31/03) Pope John Paul, II Veterans Kris Kristofferson and over 900 other war veterans, in letter to President Bush, "strongly question" Iraq invasion and seek a meeting with him (EPIC press release, 3/11/03) Military Families Speak Out www.mfso.org Veterans Against the Iraq War, endorsed by over 1700 veterans www.vaiw.org Veterans for Common Sense, over 2500 veterans have joined www.VeteransForCommonSense.org Veterans for Peace www.veteransforpeace.org Labor AFL-CIO, largest labor federation in the U.S., representing over 13 million union members. Read the AFL-CIO executive council reso
The Dubious Genius of Dubya
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030314/COSALU14/Columnists/Idx The Dubious Genius of Dubya By RICK SALUTIN UPDATED AT 7:29 PM EST Where does the distinct odour of fanaticism come from, as this war approaches? Osama bin Laden, of course. Saddam Hussein? Not really. He isn't even "reckless" or a "serial miscalculator," as the experts like to say. He made sure he had U.S. support for attacking Iran in the '80s, then cleared the invasion of Kuwait with the American ambassador. (He thought.) He's a vicious thug, not a fanatic. But what about the U.S.? Start with the administration A-team: Vice-President Dick Cheney; Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld; deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz; the point man on Mideast policy, Elliott Abrams; chair of the defence advisory board, Richard Perle, among others. A year before 9/11, they all signed a document put out by the Project for a New American Century, calling for Saddam's ouster and the ferocious use of U.S. power against any potential rival, but sadly fretting that their grandiose vision might never be realized unless there was -- in a mesmerizing phrase -- "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." Then comes 9/11. There is no way they can react as most people do, with simple shock and horror. They have anticipated this. For them, it's hellish -- and opportunity knocking. That's what they wrote. Next day, Donald Rumsfeld demands an attack on Iraq, despite any link to 9/11. He's going for it. People have been perplexed ever since by the lack of fit between the event and their response, but they were ready. It takes cold-hearted zealotry to use such a thing in such a way. Still, it's not quite fanaticism. But what about the President? He's a different case. He didn't sign the Project statement, maybe never heard of it, or perhaps someone told him about it. This isn't because he's stupid -- or moronic -- but, as Mark Crispin Miller says in The Bush Dyslexicon, because he's mentally lazy. He prefers to trust his "gut instinct," which is easier than thinking a problem through. We saw him react on 9/11. First he just sat there in a classroom. Then he looked befuddled and shaken, while flying around the country. But, by evening, he started to pull a reaction together. He's always been comfortable with vindictiveness: In the campaign debates, he smirked so hard when he spoke of executions during his time as Texas governor that a man in the audience asked about it. And he's a born-again; he thinks God wanted him to run for president, that Jews won't go to heaven, that "God is not neutral" in the eternal battle between good and evil. So, by that night, he's been pointed, or pointed himself, in the direction of a good/evil interpretation of the day's events, along with punishing "the evildoers." He sticks to this version, through the war on Afghanistan, then on to Iraq and others yet to come. It makes for a highly successful fusion: their complex geopolitical doctrine with his fundamentalist moral simplicity. It's crucial what he brings to the mix himself, unburdened by too deep a sense of that hefty analysis of U.S. power post-2000 signed by the others. He concentrates on being punitive, his strong suit. He will terminate the evil ones as he did Karla Faye Tucker. (Please -- don't kill me! was her last plea to him as governor, he "joked.") In his State of the Union address, he spoke smugly about assassinating al-Qaeda members: "Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem." That bent will emerge again if the U.S. bogs down in Iraq and there's pressure to, for instance, use nuclear "bunker-busters." Does anyone doubt he'll okay it? This is his unique contribution -- not just callousness à la Rumsfeld but virtual enthusiasm for righteous death-dealing -- and it creates a scary resonance between Dubya and the deathly martyr mentality of fanatical Islam. Fanaticism is always about death. The others on his team are ideologues; he's a crusader. That's his word, which he employed even after apologizing for insensitivity to Muslims for having used it. Because it is a crusade. Each side has its martyrs ready; the U.S., by implicitly accepting future 9/11s along with more "homeland" deaths as the price of pursuing its policies. Those are different kinds of death than you accept by reluctantly sending young people to war, as must sometimes happen. It amounts to deliberate sacrifice of American civilians, for a "higher" cause, or Project. So Osama gets what he wanted -- a U.S. attack on Islam; and so do the statement signers. Each side beckons the other to the war, muttering Yes as they watch it near. Yet the genius of George W. Bush is that he always looks as if he just arrived on the scene accidentally (which is true only in the sense that he was not very democratically elected) and is therefore
The Forgotten Power of the General Assembly
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=386906 Robert Fisk: The forgotten power of the General Assembly 14 March 2003 For 30 years, America's veto policy in the United Nations has been central to its foreign policy. More than 70 times the United States has shamelessly used its veto in the UN, most recently to crush a Security Council resolution condemning the Israeli killing of the British UN worker Iain Hook in Jenin last December. Most of America's vetoes have been in support of its ally Israel. It has vetoed a resolution calling for the Israeli withdrawal from the Syrian Golan Heights (January, 1982), a resolution condemning the killing of 11 Muslims by Israeli soldiers near the al-Aqsa mosque (April, 1982), and a resolution condemning Israelis slaughter of 106 Lebanese refugees at the UN camp at Qana (April, 1986). The full list would fill more than a page of this newspaper. And now we are told by George Bush Junior that the Security Council will become irrelevant if France, Germany and Russia use their veto? I often wonder how much further the sanctimoniousness of the Bush administration can go. Much further, I fear. So here's a little idea that might just make the American administration even angrier and even more aware of its obligations to the rest of the world. It's a forgotten UN General Assembly resolution that could stop an invasion of Iraq, a relic of the Cold War. It was, ironically, pushed through by the US to prevent a Soviet veto at the time of the Korean conflict, and actually used at the time of Suez. For UN resolution 377 allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". This arcane but intriguing piece of UN legislation passed in 1950 and originally known as the "Uniting for Peace" resolution might just be used to prevent Messrs Bush and Blair going to war if their plans are vetoed in the Security Council by France or Russia. Fundamentally, it makes clear that the UN General Assembly can step in as it has 10 times in the past if the Security Council is not unanimous. Of course, the General Assembly of 1950 was a different creature from what it is today. The post-war world was divided and the West saw America as its protector rather than a potential imperial power. The UN's first purpose was and is still supposed to be to "maintain international peace and security". Duncan Currie, a lawyer working for Greenpeace, has set out a legal opinion, which points out that the phrase in 377 providing that in "any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression", the General Assembly "shall consider the matter immediately" means that since "threat" and "breach" are mentioned separately the Assembly can be called into session before hostilities start. These "breaches", of course, could already be alleged, starting with the American air attack on Iraqi anti-ship gun batteries near Basra on 13 January this year. The White House and readers of The Independent, and perhaps a few UN officials can look up the 377 resolution at www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/amajor.htm If Mr Bush takes a look, he probably wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. But today the General Assembly dead dog as we have all come to regard it might just be the place for the world to cry: Stop. Enough. Ms. Jean Isachenko, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <>
Ex-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data
http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAQ_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Mar 14, 1:45 PM ESTEx-CIA Officers Questioning Iraq Data By JOHN J. LUMPKINAssociated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- A small group composed mostly of retired CIA officers is appealing to colleagues still inside to go public with any evidence the Bush administration is slanting intelligence to support its case for war with Iraq. Members of the group contend the Bush administration has released information on Iraq that meets only its ends - while ignoring or withholding contrary reporting. They also say the administration's public evidence about the immediacy of Iraq's threat to the United States and its alleged ties to al-Qaida is unconvincing, and accuse policy-makers of pushing out some information that does not meet an intelligence professional's standards of proof. "It's been cooked to a recipe, and the recipe is high policy," said Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran who briefed top Reagan administration security officials before retiring in 1990. "That's why a lot of my former colleagues are holding their noses these days." A CIA spokesman suggested McGovern and his supporters were unqualified to describe the quality of intelligence provided to policy-makers. "He left the agency over a decade ago," said spokesman Mark Mansfield. "He's hardly in a position to comment knowledgeably on that subject." McGovern's group, calling itself Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, includes about 25 retired officers, mostly from the CIA's analytical branch but with a smattering from its operational side and other agencies, he said. Carrying an anti-war bent, they invoke the names of whistle-blowers like Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, a top secret study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Leaking classified national defense information is illegal, and CIA officers take a secrecy oath when they join. Prosecutions of violations are rare, but government personnel caught leaking nondefense information may lose their security clearances, or their jobs. Federal law also offers protections to whistle-blowers in some cases. McGovern and his supporters acknowledge their appeal to their colleagues inside the CIA and other agencies is unusual. The CIA's culture tends to keep disputes inside the family, and many intelligence officers shun discussions of American policy - such as whether war on Iraq is justified - saying it is their job to provide information, not to decide how to act on it. McGovern, who now works in an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, said of his group's request, "It goes against the whole ethic of secrecy and going through channels, and going to the (Inspector General). It takes a courageous person to get by all that, and say, 'I've got a higher duty.'" Agency spokesman Mansfield said, "Our role is to call it like we see it, to provide objective, unvarnished assessments. That's the code we live by, and that's what policy-makers expect from us." The administration says its information is sound. During Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the United Nations Security Council last month, he said, "These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." But other countries have challenged the accuracy of several of Powell's statements. And it is no secret that in the past some people with access to intelligence information - such as members of Congress or a presidential administration - have leaked selected pieces that lend support to a given policy. This can provide the public with a less-than-complete picture of what the CIA and other agencies have learned. Another member of McGovern's group, Patrick Eddington, resigned from the CIA in 1996 to protest what he describes as the agency's refusal to investigate some of the possible causes of Gulf War veterans' medical problems. Eddington said would-be whistle-blowers can privately contact members of Congress to get their message out. "They have to basically put conscience before career," he said. Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief, said he saw little chance of CIA analysts going public to contradict the Bush administration. "Sure, there's a lot of disagreement among analysts in the intelligence community on how things are going to be used (by policy-makers)," he said. "But you are not going to see people making public resignations. That would mean giving up your career." Ms. Jean Isachenko, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
THIS IS THE COST OF BLAIR'S 'MORAL' WAR - Link
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12729598&method=full&siteid=50143 THIS IS THE COST OF BLAIR'S 'MORAL' WAR By John Pilger THE Blair Government has known, almost from the day it came to office in 1997, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War. Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation. Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine, Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who last month revealed that Blair's "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis). General Kamel was the West's "star witness" in its case against Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected, he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons programme. KILLED IN HER BED: Little girl, aged eight, lies dead in the rubble of her home after a US missile destroyed their home in a residential area of Basra killing six. Her ten year old sister also perished These secrets have been repeatedly cited by George W Bush and his officials as "evidence" that Iraq still has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction, and that only war can disarm it. Bush, his officials and leading American commentators, have frequently lauded General Kamel as the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons. The Blair government has echoed this. In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons. For example, General Kamel says categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed." All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches. Newsweek says that the CIA and Britain's MI6 were told this; and Blair and Bush must have been told the truth. In other words, it is likely that Iraq has been substantially disarmed for at least eight years. With General Kamel now out of the way (he was killed when he returned to Iraq in 1996), his "evidence" was selectively made public by Washington and London. In his dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the truth about Iraq's nerve gas weapons "only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son in law". What Powell neglected to mention was that his star witness had told them all the weapons had been destroyed. KILLED IN HER BED: Little girl, aged ten, lies dead in the rubble of her home after a US missile destroyed their home in a residential area of Basra killing six. Her eight year old sister also perished GENERAL Kamel's sensational admission has been corroborated by the former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter who says that when he left Iraq in 1998, disarmament was "90 to 95 per cent". A United Nations verifying panel set up by the Security Council, confirmed that "the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated". This has seldom been reported. Of course, none of these facts will deter the American and British security agencies from inventing and planting "evidence" of "Saddam's secret weapons" once Anglo-American forces take over Baghdad. When America and Britain crush Iraq, a new phase of their black propaganda will emerge - for which the British public ought to be prepared. This new range of deceptions will be designed to justify attacking a sovereign state and killing innocent people: a crime under international law, with or without a second UN resolution. Black propaganda of this kind has a long history. My own experience of it was the American invasion of Vietnam. In 1964, the US State Department published a White Paper with pages of "conclusive proof" of North Vietnam's preparations to invade the south. This "proof" stemmed
THIS IS THE COST OF BLAIR'S 'MORAL' WAR
THIS IS THE COST OF BLAIR'S 'MORAL' WAR By John Pilger THE Blair Government has known, almost from the day it came to office in 1997, that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were almost certainly destroyed following the Gulf War. Of all the pro-war propaganda of Blair and Bush, and their current threats giving Saddam Hussein yet another deadline to disarm, what may be their biggest lie is exposed by this revelation. Two weeks ago, a transcript of a United Nations debriefing of Iraqi general Hussein Kamel was obtained by the American magazine, Newsweek, and by Cambridge University analyst, Glen Rangwala (who last month revealed that Blair's "intelligence dossier" on Iraq was lifted, word for word, from an American student's thesis). General Kamel was the West's "star witness" in its case against Saddam Hussein. He was no ordinary defector. A son-in-law of the Iraqi dictator, he had immense power in Iraq; and when he defected, he took with him crates of secret documents on Iraq's weapons programme. KILLED IN HER BED: Little girl, aged eight, lies dead in the rubble of her home after a US missile destroyed their home in a residential area of Basra killing six. Her ten year old sister also perished These secrets have been repeatedly cited by George W Bush and his officials as "evidence" that Iraq still has large quantities of deadly weapons of mass destruction, and that only war can disarm it. Bush, his officials and leading American commentators, have frequently lauded General Kamel as the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons. The Blair government has echoed this. In 1995, General Kamel was debriefed by senior officials of the United Nations inspections team, then known as UNSCOM, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The complete transcript, now disclosed for the first time, contradicts almost everything Bush and Blair have said about the threat of Iraqi weapons. For example, General Kamel says categorically: "I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear - were destroyed." All that remains, he says, are the blueprints, computer disks and microfiches. Newsweek says that the CIA and Britain's MI6 were told this; and Blair and Bush must have been told the truth. In other words, it is likely that Iraq has been substantially disarmed for at least eight years. With General Kamel now out of the way (he was killed when he returned to Iraq in 1996), his "evidence" was selectively made public by Washington and London. In his dramatic presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the truth about Iraq's nerve gas weapons "only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son in law". What Powell neglected to mention was that his star witness had told them all the weapons had been destroyed. KILLED IN HER BED: Little girl, aged ten, lies dead in the rubble of her home after a US missile destroyed their home in a residential area of Basra killing six. Her eight year old sister also perished GENERAL Kamel's sensational admission has been corroborated by the former chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter who says that when he left Iraq in 1998, disarmament was "90 to 95 per cent". A United Nations verifying panel set up by the Security Council, confirmed that "the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated". This has seldom been reported. Of course, none of these facts will deter the American and British security agencies from inventing and planting "evidence" of "Saddam's secret weapons" once Anglo-American forces take over Baghdad. When America and Britain crush Iraq, a new phase of their black propaganda will emerge - for which the British public ought to be prepared. This new range of deceptions will be designed to justify attacking a sovereign state and killing innocent people: a crime under international law, with or without a second UN resolution. Black propaganda of this kind has a long history. My own experience of it was the American invasion of Vietnam. In 1964, the US State Department published a White Paper with pages of "conclusive proof" of North Vietnam's preparations to invade the south. This "proof" stemmed from the "discovery" of a stockpile of weapons found floating in a junk off the
A Slap at France, Brown-Waite's Bill Would Bring the Boys Home
Has she lost her freaking mind? Did she forget to put her brain back into the top of her cranium when she took it out last night? What a sick, perverted political ghoul. She wants to exhume 56,000 bodies from France and another 13,000 from Belgium to teach them a lesson for not supporting the Bush killing machine. Have Bush and his administration forgot that the cemetary in which the dead are buried in France and Belgium was given to the US by them. What does she plan to do with the remains? Reanimate them to recite the Pledge of Allegiance 24/7. http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003303130388&Profile=""> Article published Mar 13, 2003A Slap at France, Brown-Waite's Bill Would Bring the Boys HomeBy Cory ReissLedger Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- America's relationship with France is about to hit a new low.Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, is writing legislation that would encourage the exhumation and return of American war dead buried in France and Belgium. She expects to introduce the legislation today out of frustration with those countries' opposition to a war in Iraq."Many people visit the graves of their parents and grandparents who served in World War I and World War II and are buried in France and Belgium," said Brown-Waite, whose district includes a portion of Polk County north of Interstate 4 between State Road 33 on the east and the Hillsborough County line on the west. "The question becomes, `Should we continue to support their eco-nomy when the French government has turned their back on us?' "Many Americans are boycotting French wine and cheese for the same reason. A House Republican leader Tuesday banned the word "French" from the chamber's cafeteria menus, turning french fries and French toast into freedom fries and freedom toast.The culinary censorship has earned laughs from talk-show audiences, but the mothers of several soldiers killed in combat groaned at the idea that people might dig up soldiers after so long because of this feud."After all these years -- to me, when a person is buried, it's sacred ground," said Dorothy Oxendine, president of American Gold Star Mothers, whose members have lost children in combat. Oxendine's son was killed in Vietnam in 1968.Brown-Waite's bill would require the Department of Defense to exhume and return the bodies on request by a qualified family member. The soldiers could be buried at a national cemetery or, if the family wishes, turned over for private burial.Ken Graham, 65, sparked the legislation two weeks ago when he approached Brown-Waite at a rally in Florida and told her he wanted to bring his father home. Melborn Graham was killed fighting in France in 1944 and buried in Alsace-Lorraine. Graham, who was 7 when the telegram announcing his father's death arrived at their home in Enterprise, Ala., has never been to the cemetery.He said he has always thought it was wrong that Americans were left overseas instead of brought home. Over the years, he said, French policy has caused his frustration to mount, boiling over with France's position on Iraq. He said anti-Americanism has made France an unfit place for American soldiers who fought there."I'm really upset," said Graham, who lives in Hernando County. "It's just not true that they're buried in an honorable place over there."More than 56,000 Americans are buried in France and more than 13,000 in Belgium from both world wars. A frequent complaint about the French position on Iraq is that the traditional ally has forgotten that America lost so many lives fighting for France.Brown-Waite said she didn't know if many people would ask for the exhumations if her bill were to pass. "But I do believe we should give them the opportunity. . . . It'll send a loud and clear message."A spokeswoman for the French embassy said repatriation of American soldiers would take this dispute to a far different level than renaming french fries on Capitol Hill."The french fries, it's a joke," said Agnes von der Muhll, the embassy spokeswoman. "If the other thing would happen, it would be very, very sad. We didn't forget. We will never forget what contribution America made to our peace and security."Asked whether she is angry with France, Brown-Waite said, "I am certainly not going out and buying any French designer clothes, I'll tell you that right now, nor drinking French wine."Frank Fogner, a Vietnam veteran from Little River, S.C., was patrolling the halls of Congress on Wednesday to observe budget hearings. He said the United States should cut or reduce financial assistance to any country that opposes the war and denounced France in particular. Asked whether American soldiers should be exhumed over this, he shifted his weight uncomfortably."There is such a thing as too extreme," he said.It's not clear if the government would relocate bodies if asked without the legislation. Messages left with the American Battle Monuments
Sources: Egyptian gets $27 million for Mohammed's arrest tip
"We will starve terrorists of funding. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime". (Bush speech of September 20, 2001). What is wrong with this picture? Tell me why the hell is Bush paying an Egyption al Qaeda foot soldier terrorist $27 million? He is aiding and abetting a known Al-Qaeda foot soldier/terrorist and Bush should be arrested and put in jail for being a hostile regime. This is nothing short of treason. Unfreaking unbelievable. How does that work? Bush can fund known terrorists but no one else can and get away with it. What a wack job. http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/12/shaikh.reward/index.html Sources: Egyptian gets $27 million for Mohammed's arrest tip From Kelli ArenaCNN Justice Correspondent WASHINGTON (CNN) --An Egyptian radical will get $27 million as a reward for giving the United States information that led authorities to alleged September 11, 2001, mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, government sources said Wednesday. The sources, confirming a story previously reported in a British paper and in Newsweek, said the unnamed Egyptian was captured during a raid in Quetta, Pakistan, last month. The Egyptian was described as an al Qaeda foot soldier. Officials said he not only claimed the $25 million award that was being offered by the U.S. government for information that led to Mohammed's arrest, but also demanded $2 million more to help cover the costs of his family moving to Great Britain. He is being paid the money, the sources said. Mohammed, who has been linked to several al Qaeda attacks in the past five years, was arrested in a raid led by Pakistanis on March 1 in a house outside Islamabad. He was one of the FBI's most wanted terrorists. FBI agents are continuing to run down leads from information retrieved in the arrest of Mohammed. Sources said about a dozen investigations resulted from the information, in various U.S. cities including Washington, New York and Los Angeles. Agents are trying to find any evidence of sleeper cells operating in the United States as they run down names and other leads found in Mohammed's computer and papers. Some of the other leads being looked into concern the money trail; agents are checking bank accounts. Government sources said Tuesday that evidence was found after Mohammed's arrest that money was transferred into the United States after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. Sources were more specific Wednesday, saying the transfers happened in November 2001.
FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Plans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17888-2003Mar12.html FBI Probes Fake Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Plans By Dana Priest and Susan SchmidtWashington Post Staff WriterThursday, March 13, 2003; Page A17 The FBI is looking into the forgery of a key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program, including the possibility that a foreign government is using a deception campaign to foster support for military action against Iraq. "It's something we're just beginning to look at," a senior law enforcement official said yesterday. Officials are trying to determine whether the documents were forged to try to influence U.S. policy, or whether they may have been created as part of a disinformation campaign directed by a foreign intelligence service. "We're looking at it from a preliminary stage as to what it's all about," he said. The FBI has not yet opened a formal investigation because it is unclear whether the bureau has jurisdiction over the matter. The phony documents -- a series of letters between Iraqi and Niger officials showing Iraq's interest in equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons -- came to British and U.S. intelligence officials from a third country. The identity of the third country could not be learned yesterday. The forgery came to light last week during a highly publicized and contentious United Nations meeting. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the Security Council on March 7 that U.N. and independent experts had decided that the documents were "not authentic." ElBaradei's disclosure, and his rejection of three other key claims that U.S. intelligence officials have cited to support allegations about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, struck a powerful blow to the Bush administration's argument on the matter. To the contrary, ElBaradei told the council, "we have to date found no evidence or plausible indications of the revival of a nuclear program in Iraq." The CIA, which had also obtained the documents, had questions about "whether they were accurate," said one intelligence official, and it decided not to include them in its file on Iraq's program to procure weapons of mass destruction. The FBI has jurisdiction over counterintelligence operations by foreign governments against the United States. Because the documents were delivered to the United States, the bureau would most likely try to determine whether the foreign government knew the documents were forged or whether it, too, was deceived. Iraq pursued an aggressive nuclear weapons program during the 1970s and 1980s. It launched a crash program to build a nuclear bomb in 1990 after it invaded Kuwait. Allied bombing during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 damaged Iraq's nuclear infrastructure. The country's known stocks of nuclear fuel and equipment were removed or destroyed during the U.N. inspections after the war. But Iraq never surrendered the blueprints for its nuclear program, and it kept teams of scientists employed after U.N. inspectors were forced to leave in 1998. © 2003 The Washington Post Company
Iraq's deadly drone made of wood and duct tape
Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard. It seems to me that Bush and his chickenhawks will go to any length as they are so desperate to bomb Iraq that they don't even bother checking out intelligence reports, to see if they are factual or not, before even releasing their so-called "smoking gun" evidence. It's a bird, it's a plane, it's an Iraqi drone. Oh wait, it's only wood and two weed whacker engines held together with duct tape (I wonder if Saddam obtained the duct tape on the advice of Tom Ridge?). It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the next Iraqi drone, they claim to have intelligence on, turns out to be a paper airplane (the kind you made in elementary school and shot at your friends in class when the teacher's back was turned). And they wonder why hardly anyone believes anything that comes out of their mouths. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1047476537756_58///?hub=World Iraq's deadly drone made of wood and duct tape Associated Press Updated: Wed. Mar. 12 2003 11:56 PM ET AL-TAJI, Iraq A remotely piloted aircraft that the United States has warned could spread chemical weapons appears to be made of balsa wood and duct tape, with two small propellors attached to what look like the engines of a weed whacker. Iraqi officials took journalists to the Ibn Firnas State Company just north of Baghdad on Wednesday, where the drone's project director accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the U.N. Security Council and the public. "He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said." In Washington's search for a "smoking gun" that would prove Iraq is not disarming, Powell has insisted the drone, which has a wingspan of 24.5 feet, could be fitted to dispense chemical and biological weapons. He has said it "should be of concern to everybody." The drone's white fuselage was emblazoned Wednesday with the words "God is great" and the code "Quds-10." Its balsa wood wings were held together with duct tape. Officials said they referred to the remotely piloted vehicle as the RPV-30A. Latif said the plane is controlled by the naked eye from the ground. Asked whether its range is above the 93-mile limit imposed by the United Nations, he said it couldn't be controlled from more than five miles. Latif said the exact range will be determined when the drone passes to the next testing stage. Ibn Firnas' general director, Gen. Ibrahim Hussein disputed assertions by Powell and White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer that the drone was capable of dispensing biological and chemical weapons. "This RPV is to be used for reconnaissance, jamming and aerial photography," he said. "We have never thought of any other use." The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, complained this weekend that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix didn't mention the drone in his oral presentation to the Security Council on Friday. Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors. But Iraq insisted it declared the drone in a report in January and Hussein held up its declaration to prove it. The confusion, he said, was the result of a typo: The declaration said the wingspan was 14.5 feet instead of 24.5 feet as stated by Powell. "When we discovered the mistake we addressed an official letter correcting the wingspan," he said. He showed that letter to reporters as well. He suggested inspectors had already seen the drone when the correction was made, but said: "No one of the inspectors noticed the difference." "We are really astonished when we hear that this RPV was discovered by inspectors, when it was declared by Iraq," Hussein said. "Nothing is hidden." Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the U.N. weapons inspectors, said the United Nations was investigating the drone's capabilities, and said he was unsure whether Iraq reported the drone before inspectors found it on an airfield or after. Iraq seized on the issue of the drone along with early reports from Washington that Iraqi fighter jets threatened a U.N.-sponsored U-2 reconnaissance plane on Tuesday as proof that Washington is trying to mislead the world about Iraq's weapons programs in its push for war. "You can imagine the exaggerations the Americans are capable of," said Maj. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison with U.N. weapons inspectors. The United States has been searching for a way out of an impasse created by its demand that Baghdad be given an ultimatum to disarm or face war, which has so far failed to gather enough support in the Security Council. Amin said the United Nations advised Iraq of one U-2 f
