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.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Rascal who wrote (103811)7/2/2003 10:25:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Was the Case for Invasion Built on Deception?

by Jules Witcover

Published on Wednesday, May 28, 2003 by the Baltimore Sun

WASHINGTON -- Pardon me, but has anyone noticed the similarity between the recent deceptions by a New York Times reporter and the Bush administration's rationales for invading Iraq?

At the top levels of both the Times and the administration, major reviews are under way over their particular embarrassments. The notable exception is that the Times has admitted that somebody was blowing smoke -- big time, as Vice President Dick Cheney might say.

President Bush continues to talk about links (unproved) between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and saving the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which haven't been found.

Meanwhile, the Central Intelligence Agency investigates whether there was much validity in the "facts" presented by U.S. officials as justification for the invasion.

Although it's abundantly clear now that the president's objective always was "regime change," also known as getting rid of Mr. Hussein, he peddled the al-Qaida link and WMD as the better bet to get the U.N. Security Council to go along. He understood it was not about to sanction a blatant overthrow of a sovereign state, as despised as Mr. Hussein was.

You'll recall how Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, with assurances of an imminent threat from Iraq, laid his considerable personal prestige on the line to squeeze a definitive war-making resolution out of the Security Council. In place of hard intelligence, he presented, among other things, computer-simulated mock-ups of mobile chemical and biological weapons factories to make the case.

The council didn't buy it, and neither did most of the rest of the world, but President Bush, with a hard patriotic sell, got the American public on his side and went ahead. With those WMD so elusive, the administration's pitch now is that the invasion confirmed the Iraqi dictator's bestiality, which we already knew, and that that is enough justification.

The corollary apparently is that it really doesn't matter whether such weapons are ever found. But what about the obligation that Mr. Bush had to level with Congress in insisting that the threat from Iraq was so imminent that its constitutional power to declare war should be ceded to the head of the executive branch?

The Senate's 85-year-old dean, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, is dismissed as a ranting relic when he insists that the Constitution he carries in his coat pocket like a pacemaker continue to be observed and that the United States not use its superpower clout to remake the world in its image.

Mr. Byrd's proposition hardly seems academic in light of reports that the administration is now turning its eye on Iran as the next target of its advocacy of "anticipatory self-defense" justifying pre-emptive war, conducted unilaterally, if necessary.

A warning of an imminent threat from Iranian possession of WMD may well have more validity than the one used to win congressional approval of the Iraq invasion. But the Democrats who were so willing to buy that rationale from Mr. Bush then may be harder to convince the next time around.

Another administration sales pitch for the Iraq invasion was that it would be accepted by the Iraqi people as a "liberation," not an occupation. But that hope has now been dispelled, not only by the unruly behavior of many of the "liberated," but also by the new American czar on the ground, L. Paul Bremer III. In a recent interview with The Washington Post, he was quoted as saying: "Occupation is an ugly word, not one Americans feel comfortable with, but it is a fact."

It will be most interesting to see what the CIA comes up with in its investigation into the quality and assessment of the intelligence used by the administration to persuade Congress and, unsuccessfully, the Security Council to sanction the invasion of Iraq.

If it reveals any intentional misrepresentation by the White House, the State Department or the Pentagon, the whole concept of "anticipatory self-defense" and pre-emptive war will be undermined, and should be.

Jules Witcover writes from The Sun's Washington bureau. His column appears Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Copyright (c) 2003, The Baltimore Sun

commondreams.org



To: Rascal who wrote (103811)7/2/2003 11:36:27 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
A Matter of Freedom: Sitting In
_______________________

by Carol Glenn

Published on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

In the summer of 1971, my husband was killed while on active military duty. In a turbulent time he was a patriot, a military man and a teacher. Witty and charming, with sandy-red hair, blue eyes and an infectious boyish grin, he was a passionate environmentalist, a hunter, an avid birder and a dedicated advocate of historic preservation. He loved good cars, fast planes and teaching. He left two small children, 5 and 2. He was 31.

On behalf of the ideals we shared, of my own beliefs, and in honor of his memory, I have actively protested the war with Iraq and the Bush Administration's lack of true international diplomacy and of a valid coalition in this endeavor. While some agree with my stand, many other people do not. That is fine. The freedom to disagree with our politicians is one of the freedoms which we, as Americans, believe in and cherish.

What disturbs me beyond words is the concept that protest in time of conflict is anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth! Our nation was founded in protest and upon the right of free speech. It is a vital part of our Constitution and our democracy, the very democracy we claim we wish to share with the people of Iraq.

I believe that the doctrine of pre-emptive war is fraught with danger and moral ambiguity. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, nor was Iraq linked to 9/11, but the Administration has tacitly and actively encouraged the American people to conclude that Iraq attacked us. (The terrorists who attacked us were predominantly Saudi Arabian, and their funding was primarily through Saudi Arabian interests). Any links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been to date tenuous at best.

Although Saddam and his sons were evil beyond telling, was there a better way to remove them or negate their power? Were all options explored? The moral question becomes this: how many Iraqis do we kill in war and, indirectly, how many do we cause to die in the aftermath of the war to save them from their dictator?

What were the true complexities behind the decision to wage this war? It is a fact that this war was in the planning stages as early as 1998, well before 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, William Bennett and other members of the think-tank The Project for the New American Century outlined it as the first step in recreating governments compatible to American and Israeli interests throughout the Middle East. They stated that a Pearl Harbor-like event could be used to trigger an attack on Iraq. (Syria and Iran were to follow, according to their early position papers.)

Will this war harden the anti-American sentiments prevalent throughout the Middle East and provide the Bin Ladens of the world with their most effective recruiting tool to date? How will we react if the people of Iraq choose to replace their dictatorship with a fundamentalist theocracy?

Initially my protests were in desperate (and I knew futile) hope that our troops would not be sent to Iraq and put in harm's way. Not only did they risk injury or death; war requires soldiers to commit acts and experience events that can scar them for the rest of their lives.

What is more patriotic than striving to prevent such an engagement? Yet when the war began how could I not, while continuing to oppose the war, support our men and women fighting abroad? They did not institute the policies, nor did they invent the dubious rationale that we were fighting in Iraq for "our freedom."

I know what it is like to receive the "knock on the door," the knock which changes life forever. I have been solemnly presented the American flag, held above the grave as it is folded into a neat triangle to remain forever enshrined in its custom-fitting triangular plastic case. I was left to explain to my child after the burial that, no, we could not walk back down to the cemetery, dig up his adored Daddy and bring him home.

The war in Iraq was quick, as predicted. But winning the peace is an endeavor that will require extraordinary wisdom, statesmanship, and may well prove to be a long, costly and potentially dangerous undertaking.

Meanwhile, as our soldiers were risking their lives in the desert sands of Iraq, the Administration, while hailing them as heroes, quietly slashed their Veterans benefits in its budget proposal, an act that was both unpatriotic and immoral. (Not to mention that the Administration initially neglected to include funds in the budget for Afghanistan, a country that we invaded, "rescued" and then promptly forgot.) Holding steadfast to extravagant tax cuts which primarily benefit the wealthiest of Americans in a time of staggering budget deficits, the Administration will be paying teachers' salaries in Iraq while we are forced to cut teaching positions for our schools here at home.

While Attorney General Ashcroft strives to limit our freedoms in America in the name of security, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld smiles and says freedom is "untidy" as people loot, trash and burn Iraq's national library and the national museum in Baghdad. A cultural catastrophe for the people of Iraq, the Arab world and, in fact, for the world as a whole, the destruction of the national museum and library was entirely preventable. Prior to the war, archaeologists and art historians from around the globe pleaded with the Defense Department to protect Iraq's museums and archaeologically significant sites, priceless treasures from the very cradle of civilization as we know it. However, the museum and library were not priorities on a par with protecting the Oil Ministry, and opportunistic art thieves moved in with alacrity, followed by the frenzied trashing of the looters.

As vital services are restored to Iraq, and the process of rebuilding begins in earnest (by companies well-connected to this Administration, the contracts awarded in a secret process behind closed doors), the Iraqi people will come to realize the magnitude of the cultural destruction visited upon them. This destruction, which America permitted to happen, will not help in winning hearts and minds.

And so, I must continue to protest the international and economic policies of this Administration. To speak my conscience is my patriotic duty as an American. Freedom of Speech is one of the cherished freedoms we must strive, not only to export to Iraq, but also to protect here at home. It is one of the venerated freedoms for which my husband was willing to give his life.

Carol Glenn (cglenn@seacoast.com) lives in Amesbury, Massachusetts.

commondreams.org



To: Rascal who wrote (103811)7/3/2003 2:52:28 AM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Are you serious? Whose leg are you pulling? Not mine...

From the State of the Union Address. Direct quote, undistorted:

whitehouse.gov
----------------------------------------------------------
Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again, and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror. Once again, this nation and all our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people, and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility. (Applause.)

America is making a broad and determined effort to confront these dangers. We have called on the United Nations to fulfill its charter and stand by its demand that Iraq disarm. We're strongly supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world. We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass destruction.

In all these efforts, however, America's purpose is more than to follow a process -- it is to achieve a result: the end of terrible threats to the civilized world. All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attacks. And we're asking them to join us, and many are doing so. Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decisions of others. (Applause.) Whatever action is required, whenever action is necessary, I will defend the freedom and security of the American people. (Applause.)

Different threats require different strategies. In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people, pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror. We also see Iranian citizens risking intimidation and death as they speak out for liberty and human rights and democracy. Iranians, like all people, have a right to choose their own government and determine their own destiny -- and the United States supports their aspirations to live in freedom. (Applause.)

On the Korean Peninsula, an oppressive regime rules a people living in fear and starvation. Throughout the 1990s, the United States relied on a negotiated framework to keep North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons. We now know that that regime was deceiving the world, and developing those weapons all along. And today the North Korean regime is using its nuclear program to incite fear and seek concessions. America and the world will not be blackmailed. (Applause.)

America is working with the countries of the region -- South Korea, Japan, China, and Russia -- to find a peaceful solution, and to show the North Korean government that nuclear weapons will bring only isolation, economic stagnation, and continued hardship. (Applause.) The North Korean regime will find respect in the world and revival for its people only when it turns away from its nuclear ambitions. (Applause.)

Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States. (Applause.)

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)