Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (14408)	3/12/2003 3:33:50 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

A troubling flaw in the case for war Editorial The Virginian-Pilot © March 11, 2003 It was a bad weekend for President Bush's case against Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program. One of the administration's most persuasive pieces of evidence has emerged as a fake. While the revelation may not deter a war, it makes more difficult the task of winning U.N. Security Council support and of reassuring Americans who question the necessity of war. Bush's proof of efforts by Iraq to restart its nuclear weapons program was based on details of Iraqi officials' travels to Africa to buy enriched uranium. The information was uncovered in documents provided by British intelligence. President Bush has recited these details in major speeches since last fall describing the threat posed by the Iraqi dictator to Americans. But after examination by the United Nations and independent experts, the documents were confirmed to be not just forgeries, but crude fakes, with mismatched names and titles of officials. ``We fell for it,'' one American official involved with the documents told The Washington Post. Another crucial part of Bush's proof of Saddam's nuclear aspirations -- aluminum tubes for centrifuges to enrich uranium -- also was rejected by the International Atomic Energy Agency's director, Mohamed ElBaradei, in a presentation to the Security Council. In arguing for a possible war to disarm Saddam, the president claimed in his speech to the United Nations last fall and in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address that Iraq has made ``several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.'' And a crucial element of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations hinged on Iraq's purchase of the expensive 81-mm tubes with thin outer coatings. But the IAEA had reached a preliminary conclusion in January -- ignored by the administration -- that the tubes were more suitable for conventional rockets than centrifuges. The IAEA's five-man team of centrifuge experts, four of whom are American and British, later agreed, stating that the tubes' coatings actually pointed strongly toward their intended use as rockets rather than for enriching uranium. There's a much stronger case that Saddam still has chemical and biological weapons. No one should downplay the significance that vast quantities of deadly VX nerve gas and anthrax remain unaccounted for. But the nuclear argument has been Bush's most frightening linchpin against Saddam; the dictator's supposed attempts to acquire nukes has been one of the most compelling reasons for war. The thought of Saddam with a nuclear weapon to use or sell to terrorists brought many reluctant Americans to Bush's side. Last spring, for example, Congressman Randy Forbes, in appearances in his Hampton Roads district, said that Hussein already had or would soon have a nuclear-tipped missile that could kill millions of Americans within a matter of minutes. But the president's rationale for war, based on claims that emerge as false, or on others, such as the Iraq-9/11 link, which have been strained from the start, call into serious question the notion that Iraq poses an imminent threat to America. None of this is likely to change the president's mind. Last Thursday night, in a press conference, Bush made clear he believes that Saddam is a threat to the safety of Americans and that the president is bound by his constitutional duties to make sure the threat is eliminated. His concern is genuine and his convictions firm. It is troubling, nonetheless, that such an important argument for war would fray so close to the start of an invasion. It makes the entire enterprise seem all the more precarious. This wouldn't be the first time America has gone to war on the basis of faulty information. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution and the sinking of the Maine catapulted us into the Vietnam and Spanish-American conflicts. American and Iraqi lives shouldn't be put at risk to eliminate a threat that the facts don't fully support. pilotonline.com

To: lurqer who wrote (14408)	3/12/2003 3:51:33 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Pentagon Papers Leaker Seeks Leaks on Iraq by Mark Benjamin United Press International Published on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 WASHINGTON -- Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 leaked the Pentagon Papers, on Tuesday called on government officials to leak documents to Congress and the press showing the Bush administration is lying in building its case against Saddam Hussein. Ellsberg, an ex-Marine and military analyst, said he held out hope that exposing alleged lies by the Bush administration could still avert an unjust war. He warned that whistleblowers may face ruin of their careers and marriages and be incarcerated. "Don't wait until the bombs start falling," Ellsberg said at a Tuesday press conference in Washington. "If you know the public is being lied to and you have documents to prove it, go to Congress and go to the press." Ellsberg did not leak the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times until 1971, although he says he had information in the mid-1960s that he now wishes he had leaked then. "Do what I wish I had done before the bombs started falling" in Vietnam, Ellsberg said. "I think there is some chance that the truth could avert war." The thousands of pages in the Pentagon Papers showed the government's secret decision-making process on Vietnam since the end of World War II. Their publication -- the government sued and lost to prevent it -- is widely credited with helping to turn public opinion against the war in Southeast Asia. Ellsberg's press conference comes a little more than a week after the London Observer reported on what it said is a top-secret memo showing that the United States planned to spy on U.N. delegates to gain an advantage in the debate over Iraq. The Observer reported the electronic memo dated Jan. 31, by high-ranking National Security Agency operative Fank Koza, says the agency is "mounting a surge" of intelligence activities mostly focused on U.N. Security Council members for "information that could give U.S. policy-makers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises." NSA spokesman Patrick Weadon wouldn't comment on the authenticity of the e-mail memorandum. "We have no statement," he said. U.N. ambassadors have mostly shrugged off the memorandum as reflecting the regular course of business at the United Nations. Ellsberg said this story on spying at the United Nations is potentially more significant than the Pentagon Papers because it comes before a war has begun and it shows a desperate Bush administration. "This leak is potentially more significant than the release of the Pentagon Papers, since it is extraordinarily timely," Ellsberg said. This past Sunday, the Observer reported that an employee at the top-secret British Government Communications Headquarters had been arrested following publication of the story. Ellsberg said reporters at the Observer told him the 28-year old woman arrested was not the source of the leak. A second U.S. diplomat resigned yesterday in protest against the Bush administration's war stance. John H. Brown, who served in the diplomatic corps since 1981, said Bush's disregard for the views of other nations was giving birth to "an anti-American century." Last month, a senior U.S. diplomat based in Athens, political counselor John Brady Kiesling, resigned with similar complaints. Last week, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, rejected a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International commondreams.org

To: lurqer who wrote (14408)	3/12/2003 11:32:20 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

11:28 ET US-UK may now be just one vote away from majority on Iraq vote - CNN : CNN.com reports that the Bush administration believes that it is just one vote shy of having 9 of 15 votes needed on a U.N. Security Council resolution that sets a Monday deadline for Iraqi compliance; officials are focusing diplomatic energies on Mexico and Chile to secure their backing, as they are confident they have the support of Cameroon, Guinea, and Angola, and now believe that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf can be counted on for his support when a vote happens this week (Pakistan said a few days ago that it would abstain).

To: lurqer who wrote (14408)	3/12/2003 12:18:42 PM
From: techguerrilla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Rumsfeld: US may have to launch war without Britain By Rupert Cornwell in Washington, Paul Waugh and Mary Dejevsky Independent News (UK), March 12, 2003 America has suggested for the first time that Britain may have to reduce its role in a war against Iraq--or not take part at all--because of Tony Blair's political difficulties. Asked whether the US would go to war without Britain or with Britain playing a smaller part than planned, Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, said Britain's situation was "distinctive," an apparent reference to the opposition among the public and Labour MPs to an invasion without the passage of a second United Nations resolution. Mr Blair faced fresh pressure yesterday when 40 Labour MPs called publicly for him to step aside. Mr Rumsfeld said: "What will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their [Britain's] role in the event that a decision is made to use force." Speaking at the Pentagon, he added "Until we know what the resolution is, we won't know what their role will be and the extent they'll be able to participate." Mr Rumsfeld said he had spoken to Geoff Hoon, his British counterpart, yesterday about plans for war. Britain has more than 25,000 troops in the Gulf, with a US force of more than 200,000. Such was the consternation caused in Whitehall by the remarks, that Mr Rumsfeld's office later issued a written statement of clarification saying his main point had been that obtaining a second resolution "is important to the United Kingdom" and that both countries were working to achieve it. "In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom," his statement said. British officials sought to play down the significance of Mr Rumsfeld's remarks, professing optimism that Britain and the US were on track to obtain the nine Security Council votes needed to secure at least a "moral majority," despite veto threats by France and Russia. Mr Blair's spokesman said Britain's focus remained on a second UN resolution, and stressed "there has been total co-operation in military planning between ourselves and the Americans." However, Sir Christopher Meyer, the outgoing British Ambassador to Washington, suggested the US could go ahead without the UK. "I am pretty clear that they would go to war in whatever circumstance," he told Channel 4 News. The episode underscores the strains between Washington and London. The Rumsfeld comments came as Mr Blair convened for the first time an embryonic "war cabinet" of ministers and military personnel. As British and American diplomats scrambled to round up the required Security Council votes, the atmospheres in Downing Street and the White House were very different. The British desperation was evident in the search for a compromise to secure the Security Council majority the government believes will smooth the worst of the criticism. Mr Blair telephoned leaders of the "swing six" states. Last night, the six waverers had still not signed up to any form of words despite two key British concessions: an extension beyond 17 March of the deadline for Iraq to comply, and a check list of disarmament demands. The Security Council vote has now been delayed until tomorrow at the earliest. In Washington, by contrast, the prevailing mood was of frustration at the delay. Ruling out the 45-day extension in the proposed 17 March deadline that had been pushed by undecided members of the Council, the White House said even a month's extension was a "non-starter." The divergence is also plain in public opinion. In Britain, only 19 per cent of the public would back British participation in an attack on Iraq without a new UN resolution. In the US, however, 55 per cent would support an American invasion even in defiance of a vote at the Security Council, a New York Times/CBS News poll found. Mr Blair's difficulties may have been intensified by Kofi Annan's remarks at The Hague on Monday. Mr Annan said that if there was no UN authorisation for military action, "the legitimacy and support of any such action will be seriously impaired." A Foreign Office spokesman said: "We always act in accordance with international law." But officials took pains not to repeat their earlier view that UN resolution 1441 provided legal justification for war. Previously the British interpretation was that, while politically desirable, a second resolution was not necessary to legitimise military action. The new British silence about 1441 suggested that obtaining a second resolution might now be legally necessary. Legal experts added to the doubts by saying British troops could be the first defendants to face war crimes charges if the government joined a war without UN backing. Even the accidental bombing of Iraqi civilian targets could trigger criminal prosecutions, senior lawyers warned last night. In an escalation of the psychological pressure against President Saddam, the air force tested the biggest conventional bomb in the US arsenal, a 21,000lb munition that could play a dramatic role in an attack on Iraq. The bomb is guided to its target by satellite signals. The detonation was expected to create a mushroom cloud visible for miles. news.independent.co.uk