SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)5/15/2003 7:35:22 PM
From: fedhead  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
The weapons of mass destruction argument is wearing thin.
The US should simply say this was a demonstration of our
power lest other terrorist states get bright ideas. Going
after Iraq while ignoring the Saudis seems hypocritical.

Anindo



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)5/15/2003 10:39:05 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684
 
Bob. Our foreign policy is a fraud. We were not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We were not making the US safe from WMD. We are not nation-building in Afghanistan. Iraq is not under our control.



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)5/15/2003 10:47:24 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Many Saudis Back Bin Laden, Dissident Says
Thu May 15, 4:02 PM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Alistair Lyon, Middle East Diplomatic Correspondent

LONDON (Reuters) - A leading Saudi dissident said Thursday that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) had gained broad support in his native Saudi Arabia, where his followers are chief suspects in this week's suicide bombings that killed 34 people.



"They can survive any crackdown," Saad al-Fagih, head of the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia, told Reuters in an interview at his modest family home in north London.

Fagih, whose group launched a satellite television channel aimed at Saudi viewers this week, dismissed as naive the idea that the Saudi royal family was "soft" on Islamist militants.

But he said Saudi rulers were fractious, aging and out of touch with their people. Obsessed with secrecy, their instincts were to conceal problems from the outside world.

Fagih, who advocates peaceful political change, said al Qaeda had certainly suffered losses in personnel and logistics since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.

But bin Laden's followers had made compensatory gains in Saudi Arabia, where they now have a "supportive, sheltering environment where hostility to the United States is immense."

Fagih said the Iraq (news - web sites) war had fueled anti-American sentiment in the kingdom, where the U.S. capture of the ancient Islamic capital of Baghdad stung as the greatest humiliation Muslims had suffered since Israel seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 war.

The 44-year-old British-trained surgeon said there were signs that bin Laden was ready to countenance attacks on the royal family and people seen as protecting U.S. interests.

"Previously he had banned attacks on the Saudi establishment because perceptions in society are against targeting any Muslim even if he is corrupt, immoral or a member of the royal family," he said.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)6/9/2003 11:24:23 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Where are the weapons?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress is reluctant to challenge President Bush on issues of national security, but there are times when hard questions must be asked, and one that demands an answer from the administration is: What happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction?
Baghdad fell on April 9, and since then, despite diligent searching by special U.S. teams, no chemical, biological or nuclear weapon has turned up nor have any signs of recent manufacture.

At the G-8 summit, Bush insisted, "We found the weapons of mass destruction." We did not. What we found were a couple of beat-up trailers that may, at one time, have been mobile bioweapons labs.

Iraq is a big country, 10,000 square miles larger than California, and maybe the WMDs will yet turn up. U.S. weapons inspectors have checked just over 200 of 900 "suspect sites." But these have proved so unproductive that the inspectors are switching from hard searches to following paper trails and interrogating Iraqi scientists and military officers.

But the Bush administration flatly, repeatedly and unequivocally told the American people that Iraq had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, was secretly building more of them and was likely to use them or sell them.

The administration went even further. Bush said last October Saddam Hussein could have "a nuclear weapon in less than a year." Said Vice President Cheney, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." There has been no evidence so far to support either assertion.

The WMDs were the justification for the war resolution in Congress, Resolution 1441 in the United Nations threatening Iraq with "serious consequences" and ultimately for the war itself. Overseas, the criticism has been intense, with much of the European press, ever critical of the United States and never supporters of the war, charging that Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair simply lied to justify a war they were determined on in any case.

At home, the questioning about the whereabouts of the WMDs has been timid, at least so far, and Bush's ardent supporters are quick to denounce skeptics for wanting to cheapen the president's victory. They say, and the argument has undeniable emotional appeal, that revelations of mass graves, torture chambers and the sheer evil of the regime were cause enough to have fought.

The Pentagon is now saying, well, maybe the Iraqis destroyed the weapons and labs before and during the war, or maybe the weapons were shipped to a third country. It is not an explanation that inspires confidence in our intelligence.

But two Senate committees, Armed Services and Intelligence, are screwing up the courage to investigate our failure so far to find the mystery weapons. If those weapons don't turn up, the American people were at best badly misled and at worst lied to. Congress should begin asking the hard questions.

Publication Date: 06-09-2003

cincypost.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)6/13/2003 1:27:26 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Troops, families await war's real end As deaths mount, danger and distance weigh on the minds of those in Iraq, loved ones back home
By Jack Kelley, Gary Strauss and Martin Kasindorf
USA TODAY

FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Army Spc. Casey Wilcox has experienced a lifetime of emotions in the past three months. He fought a war. He mourned the death of a fellow soldier. He celebrated the birth of his first child from thousands of miles away.

Last week, just when he thought he was going home in victory to meet his son, Dawson, Wilcox struggled with a crushing disappointment. His brigade was redeployed to this city, where U.S. forces have met some of the worst violence since President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat was over.

''I don't think I've ever been so devastated as on the day they told us,'' says Wilcox, 20, of Hinesville, Ga. ''I've cried several times since then.'' At home, his wife was equally dashed and says she cried all day. ''I don't think it's fair,'' Michelle Wilcox says.

For the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, the war doesn't seem to end. Some feel angry that they're still here, guilty that they're not with their families and perplexed that their reward for capturing Baghdad has been extra duty in a country they have grown to dislike.

Their families, who watched the liberation of Iraq on TV, expected a clean end to the a hard-fought war. Instead, they worry their loved ones could die keeping peace in a country where U.S. forces are widely regarded as occupiers, not liberators.

Iraq is still a dangerous place. During the 43-day war, 139 U.S. servicemembers died -- an average of about three deaths a day. In the six weeks since, 44 have been killed -- about one a day.

U.S. forces have recently faced stepped-up attacks, particularly in this central Iraq region where Saddam Hussein loyalists are still active. U.S. officers say the attacks are isolated and don't represent a widespread guerrilla movement. In the past three weeks, 10 U.S. troops have been killed by enemy ambushes or attacks.

In response, the Army has been patrolling more aggressively, attempting to draw out and crush pockets of resistance.

Accidents still account for 70% of the deaths since May 1, according to the Pentagon. Seven men died in two helicopter crashes. Eight servicemen died in munitions explosions. Twelve died in vehicle accidents. Two died when their rifles accidentally discharged. Two drowned in canals.

''Although much progress has been made to provide the Iraqi people with a safer and more secure environment, Iraq continues to present a dangerous environment for our troops,'' says Army Lt. Col. James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman. ''It's a transition that will take time, and we're making good progress on that.'' As for accidents, ''despite our best efforts, accidents can and do happen.''

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said accidents are a growing problem and wrote a memo May 19 demanding a 50% cut in ''mishaps'' worldwide within two years. ''World-class organizations do not tolerate preventable accidents,'' he wrote.

Large numbers of U.S. troops will probably be in Iraq for at least a year. As military units rotate home, others will take their place in the danger zone. And more families back home will worry about their soldier, Marine, sailor or airman who may be in harm's way.

''Do I think the war is over? No. I think it's an ongoing struggle that we will have to deal with for years,'' says Vivian LaMont of Eureka, Calif., who buried her son Saturday. Capt. Andrew LaMont, 31, was one of four Marines killed May 19 when their helicopter snagged power lines and crashed into a canal near Hillah. A fifth Marine drowned when he dived into the canal to try to rescue the crew.

The televised images of President Bush landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln on May 1 struck a note of triumph. In a speech from the deck, Bush declared an end to major combat operations. Many military families had the impression of a conclusive end to the war, only to be shattered by the loss of a loved one in the unsettled aftermath in Iraq.

''I thought the war was over,'' says Candice Benavides, 18, of San Diego, Texas. Her cousin, Army medic Amancio Perez III, 22, was killed in an ambush May 28. ''I would never have expected casualties among U.S. soldiers.''

Despite her family's loss, Benavides says ''getting rid of these little pockets of hostility'' is worth pursuing in Iraq. ''There is a cost,'' she says. ''But there is a job to be done, so let's do it.''

'Didn't have to happen'

At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, Michelle Griffin says she is proud of her husband but is angry about his death on May 13. Staff Sgt. Patrick Griffin Jr., 31, a data systems technician, was in a convoy carrying air-traffic-control equipment from Kuwait to Baghdad when he was killed by a sniper's bullet.

Griffin was sent to the Persian Gulf after Bush declared that combat essentially was over. That had comforted his wife and his father but not him. He had told his wife: ''It's still going on. People don't like us over there, and (U.S. troops) are going to die.''

''It didn't have to happen,'' Michelle Griffin says. ''It shouldn't have happened. And it makes me angry that they're saying the war is over, because it's not. People are still dying.''

On May 18, Army Lt. Col. Dominic Rocco Baragona, 42, was in a convoy heading for Kuwait City to load his battalion's gear on ships. Then the soldiers were to fly home to Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

Baragona found time to e-mail his father, Dominic, in St. George Island, Fla. ''Dad, a couple of bullets whizzed by our heads, but we're now 60 miles south of Baghdad and we're home free,'' he wrote. Minutes later in a conversation by satellite phone, he confirmed to his father that he was USA-bound. ''So I asked him, 'Rock, what's the worst thing that can happen now?' '' his father says. ''And he said, 'Dad, something stupid can happen.' ''

The next day, near Safwan, a tractor-trailer in the convoy jackknifed and smashed Baragona's Humvee. He became the highest-ranking U.S. officer to die in Iraq.

''For me to fix blame, it wouldn't be fair,'' his father says. ''The only thing I'd kind of like to say is that . . . I hope all these things they're lookin' for, these weapons of mass destruction and other things, I hope they find them. . . . Then I will feel in my heart that the ultimate sacrifice that he made has some kind of justification.''

Many of the soldiers in Fallujah, 32 miles west of Baghdad, said their redeployment here was not how they wanted to end their time in Iraq. The city has been the scene of almost daily clashes between American troops and Saddam loyalists since U.S. forces killed at least 15 demonstrators and wounded 78 others in two confrontations in April.

''After the war, we thought we'd be going home,'' says Staff Sgt. Joseph Shell, 31, of Pascagoula, Miss. ''It's hard to convert from war to peacekeeping. This is more dangerous even than Desert Storm. You don't know who the enemy is. They pop up everywhere.''

''It's constant, endless, and you always have to watch your back,'' says Staff Sgt. Ian Murray, 28, of Torrance, Calif. ''We're not going to hesitate to pull the trigger.''

Last week in Baghdad, several soldiers of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division were saying they didn't fear their new assignment in Fallujah. The lawlessness here can't match the fierce fighting around Saddam's palaces in Baghdad. And some consider it an honor that their 2nd Brigade, with 4,000 soldiers, was chosen for the task.

''It makes you sad but proud, because you know you're the best, and that's why they're calling upon you,'' says Spc. Kevin Hohrn, 21, of Batesville, Miss.

Even so, the brigade already has been in the Persian Gulf region six months. Extending their stint at least two months in Fallujah is eating at the morale of many soldiers. ''It's hell,'' Hohrn says. ''You had your goal set -- going home -- and then you get slapped in the face and told to stay.''

Hohrn's sister, Denetia Wells, 26, of Marks, Miss., says her brother called home recently. ''He said he was mentally and emotionally drained.'' The family is apprehensive. ''The worst is over, as they say, but you still have bullets flying, and you don't know where they're coming from,'' Wells says.

Plans put on hold

The brigade's long deployment has led to dozens of delayed engagements, missed births and broken marriages. ''Guys who had a rocky marriage before, it's worse now,'' says Staff Sgt. Gordon Baker, 26, of Tannersville, Pa. That may be why many soldiers beg international aid workers and journalists to use their satellite phones. Some vent their frustrations to the folks at home. Others reassure relatives they'll be home soon.

Medic Luis Sanchez, 24, of Austin has been keeping his worries about Fallujah from his fiancŠÕ, Keri Nettle, 23. He says he frets that he may have to treat soldiers for possible heat exhaustion in the 100-degree temperatures. And he worries about complacency. ''We went through the heavy stuff,'' he says. ''Now we're going to a small town to man checkpoints, do security and house-to-house searches to weed out bad guys. If you're not on top of things, you can get hurt.''

Nettle, back in Austin, says: ''I don't know anything about this new town where they're going. He just told me that they're going there to help the guys who are already there get the job done.'' She says her spirits have soared and dipped with the changing conditions. ''It was a relief when it was finally over, and it was just a peacekeeping mission, and the Iraqis were happy that we were there. But then that changed, and we got word they had another mission. And there are still casualties.''

Perhaps soldiers with young children feel the pain of separation the most. Hohrn has a 6-month-old son, Mikkel. Baker says he was supposed to be home by now, watching Spongebob Squarepants on TV with daughter Lillith, 4. Maj. Mark Rasins, 39, of Dallas, had planned to be at Walt Disney World with his sons Rick, 9, and Ryan, 6.

The delayed reunion has been especially tough for 6-year-old Skylar Munds, the son of Sgt. Jeremy Munds, 30, of Anchorage. ''My son was all gung-ho about the Army,'' the artillery gunner says. ''But when I left he said, 'Dad, the Army sucks.' Now, every time he sees a uniform on TV, he cries because I'm not there anymore. So my wife doesn't watch the news anymore.''

His wife, Tara Munds, 28, says she is almost as impatient as her son to have her husband home again. ''It would be kind of selfish of me to say, 'Send my husband home, he's already fought in the war,' so that other wives can go through what I'm going through,'' she says.

Baker's wife, Deniece Baker, 27, says: ''As military spouses, we know our husbands have responsibilities. They are professionals doing their jobs. They are not only protecting the nation but also their families.''

Rasins says his brigade is still shaken by the death of Capt. Ed Korn, 31, of Savannah, Ga., in a friendly-fire incident April 4. Korn's death has helped put a lot of griping about Fallujah in perspective, he says. ''I cringe at the thought of Ed Korn's mother hearing one of our wives complaining.''

Susan Rasins, 36, of Richmond Hill, Ga., echoes her husband's don't-complain sentiment: ''I wonder how it must sound to someone who's lost someone. Yes, we are nervous and a little on edge that things are not a little bit quieter over there. There's not a thing we can do to change it.''

Cover storyCover story

usatoday.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)6/17/2003 10:41:34 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Anger replacing patience during U.S. occupation
By Tom Lasseter and Natalie Pompilio
Knight Ridder

Posted on Tue, Jun. 17, 2003

AL-FALLUJAH, Iraq -- Ahmed Manaa's face was dark with anger. He was tired of the U.S. troops rumbling up and down his city's streets in their big tanks, pointing their guns at passing cars. They are nothing but occupiers, he said, and they should go back to America, before another war begins.

Ahmed doesn't fit the profile of anti-U.S. elements whom American army commanders so often describe: He doesn't mourn the fall of Saddam Hussein. He never has been an Al-Qaida sympathizer. In fact, Ahmed is 13 years old, with a buzz cut and a frame a bit small for his age. But his views about U.S. forces are widely shared in Al-Fallujah, where he lives, and other towns northwest of Baghdad.

``We wish that Allah would have revenge on the Americans,'' he said.

The United States blames such sentiments on Saddam loyalists: The former dictator is a Sunni Muslim, and so are most of the people who live in the area. But residents said people are ready to fight only because their relatives had been hurt or killed, or they themselves had been humiliated by home searches and road stops.

Add to those complaints the shortages of water and electricity and delays in establishing a new government, and many Iraqis said they had had enough of America's help.

Three operations

In the past week, U.S. soldiers and Iraqi fighters have died or been wounded in three large-scale U.S. military operations in what's known as ``the triangle,'' a large territory from Saddam's hometown of Tikrit to the north, south to Baghdad and west almost to the Syrian border.

The operations have resulted in a roundup of some 400 people in towns along the Tigris River to the north, an attack in which more than 80 suspected anti-American fighters were killed outside the western town of Rawah and a raid on Al-Fallujah early Sunday that brought more than 1,000 soldiers to town, looking through homes for weapons and militant leaders.

U.S. officials also reported that a convoy of soldiers was ambushed Sunday in Dujail as the soldiers raced to help another truck convoy that had been hit by a rocket-propelled grenade in nearby Mushahidah, just north of Baghdad. One soldier was injured in Dujail, while four were hurt in Mushahidah, according to a military spokesman in Baghdad cited by the Washington Post.

Monday there were two reports of explosions in Baghdad, one a land mine in a downtown tunnel and the other a car bomb. Reuters said a mother and daughter died in the bombing, but the Arab news agency Al-Arabiya said only a young girl was killed.

The Al-Fallujah raid was the first leg of the Army's Operation Desert Scorpion, which went farther west Monday with house searches in Khaldiyah and Ramadi.

During the past few days, the U.S. military also has set up checkpoints on roads in and around Baghdad to check for weapons. The lines take up to an hour to get through and leave motorists sweating in the 120-degree heat.

Many Iraqis said it was beyond belief that Americans would enter houses or stop cars and take assault rifles without paying for them. The practice particularly grates in small towns, where people believe the weapons are necessary for protection.

The harder the Americans press, many Iraqis said, the more enemies they make.

Shot in the leg

Ahmed said U.S. soldiers shot his older brother Omar in the leg earlier this month and took him into custody, saying he had fired on them from the shadows. Omar Manaa was a security guard for the mayor. Shot alongside him -- and killed -- was Montassar Hamad, a local policeman.

Omar Manaa was released from U.S. custody during the past week. There were metal pins in his leg to keep the bone in place. He said he and Hamad were chasing looters when the U.S. soldiers began shooting at them, apparently believing they were thieves.

Maj. Gen. Buford Blount of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division said the incident was under investigation. Nonetheless, it has become yet another rallying cry for the people of Al-Fallujah, where at least 15 people were killed in a demonstration in late April. U.S. soldiers said they were fired on first; residents deny that.

Farmers, police, politicians, tribal sheiks, businessmen, cabdrivers and religious leaders across the triangle say there may well be more bloodshed.

``What do you expect from people defending themselves?'' said Mahdi Alsumaidy, the imam, or spiritual leader, of the influential Um-Al Tubol mosque in Baghdad. If the United States doesn't get out of Iraq soon, he said, ``more and more people will be killed, the Iraqi people will make a revolution against the American and coalition soldiers. . . . We believe that if they have many losses, they will leave.''

The U.S. military has refused to release the number of Iraqis killed overall by American bullets.

``We understand that nobody wants an `occupying force,' '' said an Army spokesman who demanded anonymity under the rules of a briefing. ``We really don't like using that word, but it is the only word available.''

Even Iraqis who say it's the Baath Party that's making trouble concede that many people who were never part of the party are reaching the boiling point.

Dr. Fath Allah al Ankar, a returned exile and head of the Iraqi Society for Freedom and Democracy, a new political party, said Baathists were trying to stir things up, but added: ``We are angry because since the Americans took over here, they are not taking care of human beings.''

Husband detained

Thekra Aftan said soldiers took her husband, Ahmed Jomaa, early Monday morning from their home in Khaldiyah. Family members said Jomaa had lost his left foot in the Iran-Iraq war. The soldiers came barreling through their house at dawn, grabbed Jomaa from his bed and searched for weapons, Aftan said. They probably were drawn to the house because of empty military crates outside that once were used to store TNT and guns. The family bought the boxes as scrap for firewood, Aftan said.

The United States is guilty of terrorism, she said: ``If I find any American soldiers, I will cut their heads off.''

Thursday, residents in At Agilia -- a village north of Baghdad -- said two of their farmers and five others from another village were killed when U.S. soldiers shot them while they were watering their fields of sunflowers, tomatoes and cucumbers.

Friday, the American tank convoy in nearby Balad was attacked. It's impossible to say whether the two incidents were linked, but residents clearly were shaken by the At Agilia incident.

Hitamer Muhammed, a farmer near the shooting, said the Americans opened fire because ``they suspected us because we had something in our hands.''

``There are no human rights here,'' he said. ``Where is the democracy rule, as they claimed? Tell Mr. Bush we are waiting.''



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/2/2003 3:14:30 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<The poll also found that the public was worried about increasingly negative perceptions about the U.S. in the rest of the world. Fifty-four percent said they believe that, on average, people in other countries see U.S. foreign policy as negative, while 19 percent said they believed foreign attitudes remained positive. That was a major reversal of perceptions just two months ago, when the comparable figures were 34 percent (negative) and 43 percent (positive).

Almost three in four respondents said they considered negative opinions of the U.S. abroad to be either a ''big problem'' or ''somewhat of a problem,'' a view that could also erode popular support for Bush's anti-terrorism policies. ''The public tends to view terrorism as something that requires international co-operation.'' said Kull.>>

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:01:25 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Bush ducks questions on false Iraq intelligence
Wed Jul 9, 8:58 PM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!

PRETORIA (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) ducked questions over a White House admission that he used flawed intelligence on Iraq (news - web sites)'s nuclear program, while insisting he was right to oust Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

Bush, in South Africa on the second leg of an African tour, faced reporters for the first time since the White House admitted early Tuesday that he had overstated Iraq's alleged efforts to procure uranium.

But he deflected a question on whether he regretted highlighting the allegation in his State of the Union address in January.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace and there is no doubt in my mind the United States along with our allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," Bush said at a joint appearance with South African President Thabo Mbeki.

"I am absolutely confident in the decision I made. I'm confident that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

Back in Washington, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was running a similar gantlet before the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), where opposition Democrats grilled him on the quality of the prewar intelligence used as a pretext for invasion.

Still savoring the White House's backpedalling on its claims that Iraq had tried to obtain nuclear materials from Africa, New York Democrat Hillary Clinton (news - web sites) worried about "the quality, the accuracy and the use of intelligence" including the now-discredited claims of an Africa-Iraq link.

"In this new threat environment in which we find ourselves, we are increasingly reliant on intelligence," Clinton said.

Rumsfeld testified he had only recently learned the intelligence reports saying Iraq had tried to obtain processed uranium from Africa were bogus.

In London, Britain stood by its claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa to kickstart its nuclear weapons program.

Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites)'s spokesman said Britain had its own intelligence, apart from documents used by the US, which turned out to be based on forged information.

"We had included the material in our dossier on the basis of our knowledge, which was different," the spokesman said.

He was referring to a British government dossier published in September which laid out the threat posed by Saddam and said Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium from Africa.

Bush, in his address, had said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The White House said the statement should not have been included in the address because it rested on flawed intelligence.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) conceded the information "should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech," but argued that the fundamental case for invading Iraq remained sound despite one error in intelligence.

"There is a bigger picture here that is just as valid today as it was the day of the speech," he said, citing Iraq's alleged chemical and biological weapons programs.



The row stemmed from forged documents suggesting Iraq sought uranium "yellowcake" from Niger, and from separate information that Saddam sought the radioactive material from other African nations, the White House said.

Fleischer stressed the White House did not learn the documents were fraudulent until including the charge in the State of the Union address.

The White House's backpedalling followed the publication of a British parliamentary commission report that raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence cited by Bush.

Opposition Democrats in the United States have gone on the offensive against Bush over the admission that he used flawed intelligence, while top Republican lawmakers accused them of exploiting a relatively minor issue.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:07:15 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Experts Accuse U.S. of Misrepresentation
2 hours, 24 minutes ago

By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - As President Bush (news - web sites) and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld defended their invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), a group of arms control experts accused the administration of misrepresenting intelligence information to justify the war.


When the war began in March, Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to its neighbors, a former senior State Department intelligence official said Wednesday.

Its missiles could not reach Israel, Saudi Arabia or Iran, said Greg Thielmann, who held a high post in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

But Thielmann, one of four critics at a session held by the private Arms Control Association, said the Bush administration had formed a "faith-based" policy on Iraq and took the approach that "we know the answers; give us the intelligence to support those answers."

Bush, at a news conference in South Africa, said he was "absolutely confident" in going to war against Iraq despite the discovery that allegations Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had sought uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program was based on fabricated information.

"There's no doubt in my mind that when it's all said and done the facts will show the world the truth," Bush said. "There's going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that. But I'm absolutely confident in the decision I made."

In Washington, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) that the administration decided to use military force in Iraq because the information about the threat of Saddam's regime was seen with a different perspective after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."

Under questioning from Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Rumsfeld said he did not know how much the administration would propose to pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) for the new budget year that begins Oct. 1.

He said under the $62.4 billion midyear spending bill, the United States expects to spend an average $3.9 billion a month on Iraq from January through September this year. An average of $700 million a month is being spent in Afghanistan.

Thielmann said the administration had distorted intelligence to fit its policy purposes. He said Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program and that while CIA (news - web sites) Director George Tenet told Congress Iraq had Scud missiles, the intelligence finding actually was that the missiles could not be accounted for.

The Pentagon (news - web sites), meanwhile, said 1,044 American servicemen and women have been wounded in action or injured since the war in Iraq began March 20. Of that total, 382 have been wounded or injured since Bush declared major combat over on May 1, according to the Pentagon's figures. Of the 212 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq since the war began, 74 died after May 1.

The Army's 3rd Infantry Division is beginning a phased pullout of its 16,000 troops, with the entire unit expected back in the United States by September, Rumsfeld told the committee. The division, which played a central role in capturing Baghdad in April, is based at Fort Stewart, Ga.

In the immediate aftermath of the toppling of Saddam's government in April, it was expected that the 3rd Infantry Division would go home by June. But the soldiers were kept longer because of a surge of anti-U.S. violence in Baghdad and elsewhere in central Iraq.

Rumsfeld said there are now 148,000 American troops in Iraq. He did not say whether the 3rd Infantry Division would be replaced by another U.S. unit, although he said he expects thousands of international soldiers to begin operating in the country by late summer or early fall.

Democrats pressed Rumsfeld about whether the administration specifically requested forces from NATO (news - web sites). Rumsfeld said his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, made a formal request for postwar assistance in December

"None since the war?" asked Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee's top Democrat.



"I have no idea," Rumsfeld said, offering to find out.

At the Arms Control Association session Wednesday, Gregory V. Treverton, a senior analyst at Rand, a government-financed research group, challenged what he said was the administration's persistent description of intelligence as evidence when it often is a qualified judgment.

But the administration extracted from the data the "best bumper stickers" it could fashion, said the former vice chair of the National Intelligence Council.

Joseph Cirincione, a proliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, credited U.N. inspectors with doing a good job of finding weapons in Iraq and having them dismantled.

But he said the administration in its statements made the inspectors "look like fools" and went far beyond U.S. intelligence findings on Iraq.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:13:03 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Iraq weapons 'unlikely to be found'


Teams of UN weapons inspectors were sent to Iraq before the war
Senior UK Government figures no longer believe weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, the BBC has learned
BBC political editor Andrew Marr said "very senior sources" in Whitehall had virtually ruled out the possibility of finding the weapons.

They believe they did exist - but were hidden or destroyed by Saddam Hussein before the war.

Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said the admissions were a "dramatic development" and ex-Prime Minister John Major has called for a full independent inquiry into the basis for war.

Mr Cook, who resigned as leader of the Commons in the run-up to the war, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Parliament voted for war because it was told that Saddam did have real weapons of mass destruction.

It is essential that the word of government and the intelligence services is readily accepted by Parliament and the public

John Major
Former premier
"Indeed what the prime minister said on the eve of the war was that the weapons posed a real and present danger, either because [Saddam] might use them or because he might pass them to terrorist groups."

He said it would have been better to have given the UN weapons inspectors more time to finish their job, rather than rushing to war.

"We would now know what we're being told, that Saddam did not have those weapons... and we'd have found out without a war in which thousands were killed."

If the arms existed but had not been found by coalition forces, he added, officials should be "unable to go to sleep at night" for fear the weapons could be falling into terrorists' hands.

US admission

Earlier, Downing Street said the prime minister stood by what he told a Commons committee.

Mr Blair told MPs then: "I have absolutely no doubt at all that we will find evidence of weapons of mass destruction programmes."

However, reporters noted his careful language, referring to weapons programmes rather than the weapons themselves.

The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction

Making his inquiry call, Mr Major said he had supported the war, partly because he knew Iraq had possessed weapons of mass destruction in the early 1990s.

Like many others, he had accepted the government's warnings but said "quite a few" of those alerts were now being questioned.

"It has to be cleared up because it is in the government's interest to clear it up," said Mr Major.

"We are in the middle of the war against terror and nobody knows what our troops may be asked to do next.

"It is essential that the word of government and the intelligence services is readily accepted by Parliament and the public."

The latest twist in the weapons row came as the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted the US had had no fresh intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before going to war.

But it saw existing information in a new light after September 11, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

And he said weapons would eventually be found in Iraq.

Paper proof

Andrew Marr stressed that government and Whitehall figures were "still sure" Iraq did have major weapons of mass destruction programmes before the war.

"The assumption is that Saddam Hussein for whatever reason destroyed them or hid them beyond finding before the war started," he told Today.

"And there's no doubt also in their minds that they will turn up interviews with scientists, paper documentation and so on.

"But nobody's been killed by paper documentation ever, and it does change the nature of things."

It was still possible the Iraqi Survey Group - a team of experts tasked with looking for evidence of weapons - might turn up some weapons, he said.

"But they're clearly now preparing the ground for that not to be the case."

Liberal Democrats foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell urged the government to "come clean" about whether it believed weapons would be found in Iraq.

Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems want an independent inquiry, headed by a judge, into the pre-war intelligence.

news.bbc.co.uk



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:18:50 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Families live in fear of midnight call by US patrols
From Daniel McGrory in Baghdad


NEVER again did families in Baghdad imagine that they need fear the midnight knock at the door.
But in recent weeks there have been increasing reports of Iraqi men, women and even children being dragged from their homes at night by American patrols, or snatched off the streets and taken, hooded and manacled, to prison camps around the capital.

Children as young as 11 are claimed to be among those locked up for 24 hours a day in rooms with no light, or held in overcrowded tents in temperatures approaching 50C (122F).

On the edge of Baghdad International Airport, US military commanders have built a tent city that human rights groups are comparing to the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Remarkably, the Americans have also set up another detention camp in the grounds of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad. Many thousands of Iraqis were taken there during the Saddam years and never seen again.

Every day, relatives scuff their way along the dirt track to reach the razor wire barricades surrounding Abu Ghraib, where they plead in vain for information about the whereabouts of the missing.

The response from impassive American sentries is to point to a sign, scrawled in red felt-tip pen on a piece of cardboard hanging on the barbed wire, which says: “No visits are allowed, no information will be given and you must leave.”

Some, like Ghania Hassan, sink to their knees in despair. She holds a photograph of her eldest son, Mohammed Yasim Mohammed, a 22-year-old student. She said that he was walking through al-Shaab market with friends when passing troops saw him eating biscuits from an American military ration pack and accused him of being a looter. Allegedly he was pushed face down on the street while his friends tried to explain how a soldier a couple of streets away had given them the biscuits.

A month later nothing has been heard of the young man. His mother showed a fistful of letters and petitions that she has collected from US officials, local magistrates and a Muslim cleric, but she and the rest of the complainants were told at gunpoint to move away from the prison gates.

Such behaviour merely fuels the growing hostility between local people and the soldiers they had welcomed barely three months ago.

Families will naturally protest the innocence of their relatives, but the accounts, such as that of Aliah Khadoum, who describes how her son went out to buy cigarettes on June 1 and was arrested for breaking curfew, are rarely allowed to be tested by the local magistrates, who have begun daily court hearings in the capital.

Elizabeth Hodgkin, of Amnesty International, who has a bulging case file of arrests, said: “I cannot believe the Americans are so stupid and insensitive as to behave like this after all the trouble they have had over Guantanamo Bay. They must treat their detainees humanely and let them have visits from family and lawyers.”

Amnesty claims that 80 minors have been detained, accused of petty offences including writing anti-American graffiti or, in the case of two teenage boys, climbing on the back of a US troop carrier to hitch a lift through a main street in Baghdad.

One of the most disturbing incidents concerns Sufiyan Abd al-Ghani, 11, who was with his uncle in a car that was stopped near his home in Hay al-Jihad at just after 10pm on May 27. The boy’s father heard a commotion and rushed outside to see him sprawled face down on the road with a rifle muzzle pressed against his neck and US officers shouting that someone in the car had shot at them.

Sufiyan was made to stay on the ground for three hours, while more than 100 soldiers poured into the neighbourhood, searching houses and cars. Eventually he was taken away with his hands trussed behind his back and a hood draped over his head. No weapon had been found. The boy said that soldiers dug rifle butts into his neck and back and that the first night he was handcuffed and left alone in a tiny room open to the sky.

The following day he was moved to the airport, where he said for eight days he shared a tent with 22 adults, sleeping on the dirt, with no water to wash or change his clothes.

Sufiyan said that he was pulled from the tent one morning, hooded and manacled again, and driven to Sarhiyeh prison, to be kept in a room with 20 other youths aged 15 or 16 — regarded as minors by the Geneva Convention.

A woman inmate took his name and details and when she was released she alerted Sufiyan’s family. On June 21, the family obtained an injunction from a judge ordering the boy’s release, but they were told at the prison that the signature of an Iraqi judge no longer had legal authority. Even when an American military lawyer demanded his freedom, US troops refused to release him until the lawyer appeared at the prison. Privately US military lawyers say that they are appalled at how some of the arrests are being carried out.

At the gates of Abu Ghraib, frustration and anger force men such as Adnan Akhjan, 38, a former civil servant, to shout abuse at the US guards.

Mr Akhjan, whose 58-year-old father was arrested three weeks ago for driving a truck with no doors or headlights, said: “People are so sickened by what is happening they talk of wanting Saddam to come back. How bad can the Americans be that in three months we want that monster back?”

US officials say that they are struggling to cope with the continuing looting, as well as attacks on troops. They say that until the fledgeling Iraqi police force is fully operational and jails are repaired, they represent the only law and order.

Each morning at the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad there is a silent line of Iraqis queueing to find out where a relative might be. The American authorities have said that they will not inform the Red Cross about detainees until 21 days after they have been arrested. The International Committe of the Red Cross has been allowed to see some of the prisoners, but says that it cannot even begin to guess at the numbers detained.

An Iraqi exile who had been in Baghdad for only three days after living in Denmark for the past 27 years found himself caught up in an American swoop after a shooting in a street market. Not realising that the man could read English, his interrogator made no attempt to cover up his case file, which described him as “suspected assassin”.

The man, who was held for more than 30 days, is afraid to give his name and says that he is now considering leaving Baghdad for good.

Shoot to kill, plead academics

Looters in Iraq should be shot and killed, according to experts working in partnership with the British Museum (Jack Malvern writes). Academics from the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, which has lost 13,000 objects to thieves, said that force was needed to protect Iraq’s heritage. Professor Donny George Youkhana, director of research at the museum, said: “We need armed helicopter patrols. They will need to shoot to be effective.”

Professor Elizabeth Stone, from Stony Brook University, in New York, said that all of Iraq’s 10,000 archaeological sites had been looted. “I would like to see helicopters flying over there shooting bullets so that people know there is a real price to looting this stuff. You’ve got to kill some people to stop this. It is a major problem.”


timesonline.co.uk



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:20:23 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Ambushes Kill Two U.S. Soldiers in Iraq

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Oeconomicus who wrote (157303)7/10/2003 5:22:51 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Iraqi Police Tell U.S. Troops -- Get Out of Town
Reuters

FALLUJA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iraqi police in Falluja threatened to resign on Thursday unless the U.S. forces that trained them left town, saying the presence of American troops endangered their lives.

story.news.yahoo.com